Wednesday, January 30, 2019

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Independent Candidacy?

The announcement by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz that he is
seriously considering running for president as an independent has
set off alarm bells for many Democratic Party strategists who see a
Schultz candidacy as a threat to the success of their party’s challenge
to the re-election of Republican President Donald Trump next year.

Billionaire Schultz won’t like be dissuaded by such arguments. Ross
Perot ignored similar warnings from Republicans in 1992 and 1996
when he ran as an independent. In fact, for a brief time in 1992 he
even led incumbent GOP President George H.W. Bush and
Democratic nominee Bill Clinton in the national polls, finally getting
almost twenty million votes --- and  arguably enabling Clinton to win.

Since1948, major independent presidential candidates have won
millions of votes, and sometimes altered the outcomes. Former
Democrats, Henry Wallace and Strom Thurmond tried to defeat
Harry Truman in 1948 (Thurmond even won a number of electoral
votes), but Truman won anyway. George Wallace ran as an independent
in 1968, and might have cost Hubert Humphrey the election against
Richard Nixon. John Anderson got more than five million votes in1980,
but did not affect Ronald Reagan’s election that year. Ralph Nader only
received about three million votes in 2000, but the election was so close
his votes  in Florida prevented the election of Democrat Al Gore against
George W. Bush.

In addition to one-time independent presidential candidates, certain
fringe third parties run candidates every cycle, including the Libertarian
Party, Green Party, and the Socialist Party, and gain votes
in some states. These parties sometimes do affect who wins U.S. house,
U.S. senate and gubernatorial races.

The recent rise of billionaires in U.S. politics, both as candidates and
major funders, has especially helped the Democratic Party, although
most funders avoid political labels, often giving to both parties.
Michael Bloomberg ran for and won races for mayor of New York as a
Republican, but is now running for president as a Democrat.
Bloomberg, Perot, Donald Trump, and Schultz have the resources
to run without asking anyone for money, and can qualify for places on
state ballots on their own, (Trump chose to run for president as a
Republican, and ironically spent less on his 2016 campaign than did his
Democratic opponent.)

The mega-rich candidates can hire consultants, do unlimited polling,
employ staff members, and travel at will on their own.

In 2020, the Democrats seem bent so far on nominating either an elderly
figure or one with a relatively radical program ideology (or both).
Howard Schultz says he is running because he does not feel comfortable
with any such likely Democratic nominee, nor is he comfortable with
President Trump. As a political centrist, Schultz seeks to tap into the
historically large number of centrist U.S. voters who often determine

When Ross Perot ran in 1992, he was a businessman with no elective
experience, nor was he particularly charismatic, but he successfully
appealed to millions of voters with his centrist approach to issues, even
at one point, leading the two major party nominees in the national polls.

I suspect that the more Democrats try to bully Howard Schultz out of
 the 2020 presidential race, the more he is likely to remain in it ---
especially if he feels his candidacy begins to resonate with voters.
What does he have to lose?

This is only one of the early political dramas that will now play out
as the curtain rises on the 2020 presidential cycle.

Copyright (c) 2019 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Saturday, January 26, 2019

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: National Interests

The recent government shutdown, at least now temporarily ended,
demonstrates one more time how the two major political parties and
their leaders are putting primarily their own political interests above
national interests.

This circumstance is abetted not only by a biased print and broadcast
media, cynical emotional political strategies, and an overdependence
on social media by many voters, but also by extreme factions on both
the left and the right. The latter groups want total satisfaction on their
own issues, and have little or no interest in political compromise.

But the history of  U.S. legislative policy and governance, beginning
with the draft of the U.S. constitution itself, has been the ability of
government institutions and its leaders to compromise. Failing to
compromise, the result is inevitably stalemate.

Sometimes control of both the legislative and executive branches fail
to replace stalemate with necessary action on national interests.
From 2009 to 2011, Democrats controlled the White House and the
Congress. From 2017 to 2019, the Republicans had equal power. In both
cases, some major legislation was passed and signed by the president,
but the voters soon divided political power, stalemate returned, and
critical national interests were not addressed.

That is where we are again today.

It is easy to blame only the media and extremist factions for all of this,
but it is important to remember that the U.S. is the quintessential
centrist nation --- and thus failure in public policy over the long-term
rests ultimately with the voters themselves, particularly with the large
number of centrist voters who have the civic responsibility to inform
elected officials and government bureaucrats how to serve national
interests as well as their political interests.

In 2020, as in 2016 and previous cycles, the character and will of the
voters will be tested once again.

Sensational headlines, “gotcha” moments, cynical strategies and purely
emotional appeals do not likely advance the national interests.

Copyright (c) 2019 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Sunday, January 20, 2019

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Unsettling Powers

It is not an accident that virtually all of the major national powers in
the world are suddenly in intense political turmoil just now.

If “world power” is defined by population alone, then China and India
hold those titles.

If “world power” is defined by military prowess, then the United States,
Russia, as well as China, fit the definition.

If  “world power” is defined by economics, then the European Union
(EU) and its three primary nation members (United Kingdom,
Germany and France), as well as the U.S., China and India, would be

Also playing major military and/or economic roles in the world are
Brazil, Iran, Canada, Japan and Indonesia.

China, Iran, and, to a certain degree, Russia are not democracies,  but
their turmoil is not only economic, but broadly put, political as well.

Democratic nations such as the U.S., U.K., Germany, France, India,
Japan, Canada and Brazil had, following the end of the Cold War in
the early 1990’s, enjoyed mostly growth and increasing political
stability.  But recently, these national powers have seen political
disruptions of varying kinds, and the result is international confusion
and global uncertainty at a heightened level not seen since the 1930s.

Some of the causes for the turmoil can be explained. New technology
advances in transportation and communications have provoked much
change in human life today. In the more developed nations and
societies, life spans and daily living conditions have improved with
unprecedented velocity. Simply put, there are more human beings on
earth who are living longer and requiring more goods, services and
security than ever before in history.

It would seem reasonable to assume then that both the democratic and
even the totalitarian models of governing are therefore in some
confusion and disruption.

The inevitable question arises: What will all this turmoil, confusion
and disruption lead to? Will it be a quickly passing phase? Will it
more fundamentally change daily life? Will political and economic
relationships be permanently altered within nations and between

Questions about change have few certain answers.. Twice the
idealism of institutionalized international cooperation has failed
(League of Nations and United Nations). Regional economic
cooperation institutions such as the EU have faltered as national
sovereignty was heavy-handedly diminished without true popular
support.  But international humanitarian and technology-specific
organizations continue to function and thrive, including, just as an
example, the International Red Cross and its equivalent groups all
over the world.

Certain nations and regions endure long-term instability, and their
chronic political and economic upheavals should come as no
surprise. When the largest powers witness significant change,
however, it is likely a sign of a deeper societal phenomenon.

That is why what is occurring in the U.S., China and Europe bears
careful scrutiny and vigilance in this unsettled and provisional
moment in time.

Copyright (c) 2019 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: The Uncertain 2020 Senate Elections

The 2020 U.S. senate election prospects for Democrats (who are
eager to regain control of it) are becoming more and more uncertain.

Published reports indicate that West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe
Manchin, who just won re-election in 2018, is seriously considering
running for governor of the state, a post he once held, in 2020. The
popular centrist, if he ran, would likely win, thus creating a vacancy
that almost certainly would be filled by a Republican in this state
carried overwhelmingly by Donald Trump in 2016, and where the
president is still very popular. In fact, Senator Manchin is the only
remaining Democrat in West Virginia holding statewide office. The
current governor, elected as a Democrat, switched parties and is a
strong Trump supporter.

Although 36 senate seats are up in 2020, and 24 of them are now
held by Republicans (a reverse of 2018 when most incumbents were
Democrats), very few of the races now seem competitive. In fact,
the one senate seat likely to switch parties next year is in Alabama,
where incumbent Democrat Senator Doug Jones is rated a likely
loser in this normally very conservative state. (Jones won an upset
special election in 2017 when his Republican opponent became
immersed in controversies.)

Most of the other 2020 senate races takes place in states where 
incumbents, or their replacements in case of retirement, are expected
to win easily. Indeed, there have already been two announced
retirements, GOP Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and GOP
Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, and both of them are now expected
to be replaced by Republicans in these conservative states.

Two Republican incumbents, Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado, and
Senator Martha McSally of Arizona, are considered potentially
vulnerable in 2020, as are Democratic (DFL) Senator Tina Smith of
Minnesota and Democratic Senator Gary Peters of Michigan, but all
four are incumbents, and might not be easily rejected by the voters.

Of course, the 2020 presidential election, already underway, could
change the dynamic of senate election prospects. If President Trump
emerges positively from the current government shutdown standoff
and the expected U.S. house (now controlled by the Democrats)
investigations, and wins re-election, he could help his party’s senate
candidates across the board. Conversely, if he does not, or chooses
not to run, GOP losses could exceed current expectations.

A strong Democratic presidential nominee could help 2020 liberal
senate challengers, but a controversial one, as George McGovern was
in 1972, might make prospects worse for Democratic senate and
congressional candidates in November, 2020.

The presidential contest could likewise affect the 2020 U.S. house
elections, when the new Democratic majority must defend their 40
pick-ups in 2018, most of which were by small margins in very
competitive districts. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi faces a
Democratic U.S. house caucus no less divided and difficult to control
than the one faced by House Speaker Paul Ryan in 2017.

The political year of 2020 is inevitably going to be interesting, but
2019 just might have some memorable fireworks of its own.

Copyright (c) 2019 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Thursday, January 10, 2019

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: The Old Party Bases Are Not Enough

Each major U.S. party has a political voter base that is vital to its
electoral success.

This is true in most local, state and national elections, and is validated
when significant numbers from these bases are occasionally turned
off by nominees who fail to meet the voters’ standards of character,
personal conduct, policy views or campaign strategy --- and do not
vote as predicted.

It is no surprise, then, that political strategists and candidates pay
considerable attention to the views and concerns of this traditionally
most loyal group of voters.

At each level of electoral politics, the party bases vary, primarily by
geography and demographics, but in general, each party’s base has
become more monolithic ideologically. In the previous period, the
post-war era of 1946 to 1980, each party included voters of opposing
views on specific issues. The classic example was the  abortion issue.
There were prominent figures voicing pro-life and pro-choice views
in both the Republican and Democratic parties. This is no longer true.
With a few exceptions, most Republicans officials are pro-life and
most Democratic officials are pro-choice.

Similar increasing divisions have occurred in various ethnic, religious,
economic and gender-sensitive communities, and contributed, prior to
recently, to certain political generalizations and conventional wisdom.

In 2016, the validity of these presumptions was shattered in the
presidential election. There had been signals of this change previously,
but they had been confined mostly to individual races, and were usually
rationalized as explainable outliers.

The old generalizations of the party bases included that most black,
Hispanic, Jewish, establishment Protestant, ethnic Catholics, big city
residents,and union member voted Democratic, as did a majority of
women. The Republican base included a majority of men, Evangelical
Christians, hunters and gun owners, small business owners, rural,
suburban and exurban voters.

In 2016, notable numbers of some of the Democratic base electorate
voted for Trump in a few key states that had been reliably liberal.

In 2018, some of these “rebel” voters, especially suburban women,
returned to the Democratic Party in the mid-term elections,
particularly in competitive districts and states. Having for years
opposed Obamacareto their advantage, but now controlling the
Congress and White House, Republicans had failed to enact a
necessary alternative.

At the same time, many of the hitherto heavily Democratic voting
groups, including blacks, Hispanics, Jews and rank-and-file blue
collar workers, continue to change sides as more socially and
economically radical left figures increasingly attempt to dominate
the party’s agenda.

So each party has problems with their old bases --- and consequently,
each party has an opportunity to recreate and expand their base.

As the 2020 presidential cycle begins to unfold in earnest, there are
many signs that Democratic and Republican leaders are preoccupied
with the former, and not paying much attention to the latter.

I suggest such an approach simply fails to learn the lessons of 2016
and 2018 --- and is a prescription for more surprises from the voters
in November twenty-one months from now.

Copyright (c) 2019 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Friday, January 4, 2019

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: First Hats In The Ring

The 2020 presidential election cycle now has begun. Most of the initial
speculation understandably is about whom the Democratic nominee
will be. A record number of potentially serious candidates are openly
mentioned, and already a notable number of them are in various stages
campaigning, ranging from creating exploratory committees to visiting
Iowa and New Hampshire, and to fundraising.

The latest name to be added to a very long list is Democratic Washington
Governor Jay Inslee. He had not previously appeared on most lists ---
which suggests that even more liberal political figures will likely throw
their hats into the ring before long.

(Incidentally, the early 19th century origin of “throw one’s hat in the ring”
has a certain relevance to its contemporary political usage. In the
early 1800s it meant literally throwing one’s hat into a circular boxing
ring as an announcement of a challenge. Since presidential politics today
more resembles pugilistic fighting than a contest of civic discourse, the
phrase seems especially apt.)

Other politicians more or less into the 2020 nomination contest include
(in no particular order) Congressman John Delaney of Maryland,
former Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City, Senator Elizabeth
Warren of Massachusetts, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, former
Vice President Joe Biden of Delaware, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio,
Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, and Texas Congressman Robert
“Beto” O’Rourke.

Only one previously cited potential candidate, former Governor Deval
Patrick of Massachusetts has publicly announced he will not run.

But the list of potential candidates is quite long, and includes (again
in no particular order) Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper,
California Senator Kamala Harris, former Virginia Governor Terry
McAuliffe, California Governor Gavin Newsom, Colorado Senator
Michael Bennet, Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, former HUD Secretary
Julian Castro, Los Angeles Mayor Ed Garcetti, Minnesota Senator
Amy Klobuchar, Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander, South
Bend Mayor Peter Buttigieg, Montanta Governor Steve Bullock,
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, New York Senator Kirsten
Gillibrand, and 2016 nominee Hillary Clinton.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has appeared on most lists, but he
has just endorsed Joe Biden. His name could reappear.

Most Americans, outside the home areas of many of the above potential
candidates, have not ever heard of them. Those whose names they know
could have political problems --- most frequently those who will be 70
or older in 2020.

But most Americans had not heard of Jimmy Carter in 1975, Bill
Clinton in 1991, nor Barack Obama in 2007.

Simply by name recognition, Joe Biden leads in early polls.

Democrats have already announced early debates, primaries and
caucuses as a way to make the candidate field smaller.

In the next few weeks and months, the political ring will be filled with
hats. --- and hesitations, demurrals and second thoughts.

Copyright (c) 2019by Barry Casselman. All rights reerved.