November 3rd Election?

When I heard on Thursday that Louisiana had postponed the Democratic primary election that was to have been held on April 4th over coronavirus concerns, the first thought that jumped uninvited to my mind was the November 3rd election.  We all know that Donald Trump would do anything, if he feared losing the election, to postpone or cancel it.  My concerns were such that they cost me most of a night’s sleep.  So, I was greatly relieved, though not completely, when I came across this by New York Times political correspondent Alexander Burns, that puts to rest at least some of my concerns.  Mind you, I still don’t trust Trump, don’t trust our federal government period, given that he has the entire Department of Justice and a majority of the United States Senate in his pocket, and isn’t that a damn shame?  But this provided some clarity and relief.

Could the 2020 Election Be Postponed? Only With Great Difficulty. Here’s Why.

With Louisiana delaying its primary vote, we answer six key questions about holding elections in a crisis. And no, a president cannot cancel an election with executive authority.

Alexander-BurnsBy Alexander Burns

March 14, 2020, 8:00 a.m. ET

The coronavirus outbreak is inflicting new disruptions on the 2020 presidential campaign by the day, but few compare to Louisiana’s decision on Friday to reschedule its upcoming primary election.

It was a highly unusual development in an American political campaign, though not an entirely unprecedented one.

So how much disruption can voters expect in the coming months? And how freely can local, state and federal authorities switch up the timing and other details of elections? We took a crack at answering some of the questions that may be on your mind.

Why is Louisiana moving its primary election?

Louisiana’s secretary of state, R. Kyle Ardoin, a Republican, asked Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, to postpone the state’s April 4 primary by about two months because of concerns about the spread of the coronavirus.

The two men are permitted to do so by a Louisiana law that allows the governor to reschedule an election because of an emergency, so long as the secretary of state has certified that an emergency exists.

Have other states changed their primaries in response to the coronavirus?

No. Or at least, not yet.

The four states with elections coming up on Tuesday — Florida, Ohio, Arizona and Illinois — have taken other precautions to make voting safer without shifting the date of their primaries. It is possible, however, that some later-voting states could follow Louisiana’s example.

While a last-minute change like Louisiana’s is highly unusual, states have broad autonomy to define the timing and procedures for primary elections. The exact process for setting primary dates varies from state to state. That is why a number of states changed the dates of their primaries and caucuses between 2016 and 2020, and why Republicans in several states were able to cancel their 2020 primary elections to minimize intraparty competition for President Trump.

But the Democratic Party also has its own rules requiring that all primary elections be completed by June 9, and that all delegates to its national convention in Milwaukee be selected by June 20. Any states that defy that timetable — including Louisiana — could be penalized by the national party with a reduction in their delegate count.

Could the general election be postponed or canceled?

Only with enormous difficulty.

The date of the general election is set by federal law and has been fixed since 1845. It would take a change in federal law to move that date. That would mean legislation enacted by Congress, signed by the president and subject to challenge in the courts.

To call that unlikely would be an understatement.

And even if all of that happened, there would not be much flexibility in choosing an alternate election date: The Constitution mandates that the new Congress must be sworn in on Jan. 3, and that the new president’s term must begin on Jan. 20. Those dates cannot be changed just by the passage of normal legislation.

After Louisiana’s announcement on Friday, Marc Elias, the prominent Democratic election lawyer, knocked down what he described as a wave of queries about whether the November election could be similarly revised.

“I am getting a lot of questions about the November election,” Mr. Elias wrote on Twitter. “While states can set their own primary days, the federal general election is set by federal statute as the the [sic] Tuesday following the first Monday in November. This date cannot be changed by a state nor by the President.”

Can the president cancel or postpone an election with an executive order?

No. The president has a lot of power, but when it comes to elections he is far more constrained than the governor of Louisiana.

What about the procedures for voting in the November election?

While the date of the presidential election is set by federal law, the procedures for voting are generally controlled at the state level.

That’s why we have such a complicated patchwork of voting regulations, with some states allowing early and absentee voting; some permitting voting by mail or same-day voter registration; others requiring certain kinds of identification for voters; and many states doing few or none of those things.

So it is possible that states could revise their voting procedures in response to a public health crisis, perhaps by making it easier to vote by mail or through various absentee procedures that would not require people to cluster together on one particular date.

Washington State, a focal point for the coronavirus outbreak in the United States, has conducted elections by mail for years, and its presidential primary on March 10 was able to unfold without disruption.

The federal government could also take steps to mandate or encourage different voting procedures, without changing the timing of the election. Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert and professor at the University of California, Irvine, has proposed that Congress require states to offer “no excuse absentee balloting” for the general election, so that anyone can opt to vote by a method besides in-person voting on Election Day.

Have American elections been moved because of emergencies in the past?

Yes, at the state and local level.

Perhaps most notably, the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks came on the morning of a municipal primary election in New York City, and the state Legislature passed emergency legislation postponing the election by two weeks. In 2017, some municipal elections in Florida were briefly delayed because of Hurricane Irma.

It was reported in 2004 that some Bush administration officials had discussed putting in place a method of postponing a federal election in the event of a terrorist attack. But that idea fizzled quickly, and Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, said that the United States had held “elections in this country when we were at war, even when we were in civil war. And we should have the elections on time.”

On The Road Again …

I have long said that Donald Trump never seemed to stop campaigning, even after he won the election on 08 November 2016, and not even after his inauguration on 20 January 2017.  He continues to hold campaign-style rallies as if he were still running for the office that he now (temporarily) holds.  Well, guess what?  I was right!  On the day of his inauguration, Donald Trump filed his 2020 campaign with the Federal Elections Commission!  Is this not the epitome of arrogance?

Yesterday, Trump made public his 2020 campaign when he announced his intention to run, and also named Brad Parscale as his campaign manager.  Parscale is closely aligned with Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who recently lost his security clearance and is at the center of an investigation into his ties with foreign agents.  It is said that Trump is ‘itching’ to get back out on the campaign trail, and his favourite activity of performing for an adoring crowd.  Wait … isn’t he supposed to be in the Oval Office working at the job for which he was elected?  I mean, we are paying him $400,000 plus fringe benefits to do a job, and … he’d rather spend his time campaigning to get the same job in 980 days?  Does anybody see a problem with this?

Parscale

Brad Parscale, campaign manager

Thus far, Trump has held no less than 19 campaign rallies since his election in November 2016.  The campaign has raised funds and run two nationwide advertising campaigns.  Given the campaign he ran in 2015-2016, where his campaign slogans seemed to be “Crooked Hillary” and “Lock her up”, I am unclear how he can campaign this early, as he has no opponent to brutalize.

But even though there are still 980 days until the next presidential election on 06 November 2020, and even though there is not yet a clear candidate on the democratic side, there are already polls!  And the good news is that Trump is trailing, on average 10-18 against almost any potential candidate, including Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or Kirsten Gillibrand.

He already has a small campaign staff, including Brad Parscale (campaign manager), Michael Glassner (campaign committee manager), John Pence (campaign committee deputy executive director) – yes, he is related to Mike Pence – his nephew, in fact, Bradley Crate (campaign treasurer).  And by the end of 2017, his campaign had already received more than $36 million in contributions.  In addition to his tired old slogan of “Make America Great Again”, he has added a new one: “Promises Made, Promises Kept”.  Shoot me now, please.

In 2016, I complained that nearly two years was far too long for a political campaign to go on, that it was draining and demoralizing for the public.  I suggested that 3-6 months is plenty of time for a few debates, some ads, and a handful of rallies, and would allow we, the voters, to maintain at least an illusion of sanity.  So, what do they do?  They extend it to four bloomin’ years!  Shoot me now, please.

With the scandals and chaos that define the Trump administration, and with collusion between the Trump campaign (the old one from 2016) almost certain to land squarely in Trump’s lap before this year is out, I think it highly unlikely that Donald Trump’s name will be anywhere on the ballot in 2020.  If I am wrong, if he can not only run, but win in 2020, then our system will have somehow failed miserably.

Worst Idea Ever …

The headline in The Washington Post:

In A New Poll, Half Of Republicans Say They Would Support Postponing The 2020 Election If Trump Proposed It

Noooooooo.jpgThus far, Trump has not proposed such a move, but if he gets wind that half of his party would support it, I would not be surprised to see him begin thinking along those lines.

It started over Trump’s claim that there was widespread voting fraud last year that ultimately cost him the popular vote.  That really seems to eat at him, even though he is the one sitting in the Oval Office … or, rather, on a golf course in New Jersey at the moment. The claim has been proven to be a lie, there was no widespread voter fraud, and Trump actually lost the election despite Putin’s best efforts.  But … perhaps more importantly, a substantial number of republicans believe Trump, even though his claim has been disproven multiple times.

With that in mind, The Washington Post performed a survey of 1,325 Americans from June 5th through June 20th. Granted, this is too small a sample to be considered representative, but nonetheless, it is chilling. The questions asked were whether Trump won the popular vote, whether millions of illegal immigrants voted, and how often voter fraud occurs. Then they were asked two additional questions:

  • If Donald Trump were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote, would you support or oppose postponing the election?
  • What if both Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote? Would you support or oppose postponing the election?

And the results are that nearly half of Republicans surveyed (47%) believe that Trump won the popular vote. Larger fractions believe that millions of illegal immigrants voted (68%) and that voter fraud happens somewhat or very often (73%). 52% said that they would support postponing the 2020 election, and 56% said they would do so if both Trump and Republicans in Congress were behind this.

As the Post cautions, “Of course, our survey is only measuring reactions to a hypothetical situation. Were Trump to seriously propose postponing the election, there would be a torrent of opposition, which would most likely include prominent Republicans. Financial markets would presumably react negatively to the potential for political instability. And this is to say nothing of the various legal and constitutional complications that would immediately become clear.”

Do I think it likely to happen?  No, not under the current circumstances.  Then why do I even bring it up?  Because, while I do not think it likely, or even possible, under the current circumstances, I can see circumstances altering, if Trump remains in office until 2020, that may change that assessment dramatically.  As has been his trademark thus far, his incitement of violence and fear could convince a large portion of the nation that there is a credible threat, real or contrived, that must be dealt with in a manner that must ‘temporarily’ suspend a portion of our democratic freedoms.

I am merely speculating, but I do not think we can afford to dismiss the idea as the ravings of a nutty Filosofa.  In the words of David Frum writing for the Atlantic …

“No society, not even one as rich and fortunate as the United States has been, is guaranteed a successful future. When early Americans wrote things like “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” they did not do so to provide bromides for future bumper stickers. They lived in a world in which authoritarian rule was the norm, in which rulers habitually claimed the powers and assets of the state as their own personal property.

The exercise of political power is different today than it was then—but perhaps not so different as we might imagine. Larry Diamond, a sociologist at Stanford, has described the past decade as a period of “democratic recession.” Worldwide, the number of democratic states has diminished. Within many of the remaining democracies, the quality of governance has deteriorated.”

I think it behooves us to be “eternally vigilant”.

NOT AGAIN!!! 2020 Or Bust …

Most of last year I groused that the campaign season for the presidential election was too bloomin’ long.  It started heating up in mid-2015, nearly a year-and-a-half before the election.  My humble opinion is that 3-6 months is plenty long to subject us to the endless drivel and detritus that defines campaigns in this country.  But now … NOW … the campaigns for the 2020 election are already building momentum!  I want to close my eyes, put my headphones on and listen to classical music for the next three-and-a-half years!  But alas, we have already seen what wearing blinders and earplugs does, so …

Not only have candidates begun speaking at events and cozying up to major-dollar donors, but even Trump himself has been holding campaign-style rallies in places he knows he can succeed in rustling up a crowd that is still friendly to him.  Note that you do not see him doing pep rallies in New York or San Francisco!

Among those starting to act like candidates are Senators Tom Cotton and Ben Sasse, Ohio Governor John Kasich, Mike Pence … whoa … Mike Pence?  Did I just say Mike Pence, as in current 2nd banana?  Of course, we all hope and believe that the head clown will not be on the 2020 ballot, but this is 2017, a full 39 months before the next presidential election!  There is rather an umwritten law … or perhaps it is written … second banana will remain quietly in the background, supporting the first banana no matter how rotten, until such time as the first banana is no longer a viable candidate.  Now, were Trump in his second term, then yes, this would be in the paramaters of normal, though it is still far too early.  But in his first term?

According to  Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns of the New York Times, Pence is “creating an independent power base, cementing his status as Mr. Trump’s heir apparent and promoting himself as the main conduit between the Republican donor class and the administration. The vice president created his own political fund-raising committee, Great America Committee, shrugging off warnings from some high-profile Republicans that it would create speculation about his intentions.”

When the aforementioned article came out on Saturday, Mike Pence had a moment of panic, knowing that retaliation from Trump would be swift and painful, so he put out the following statement:

“Today’s article in The New York Times is disgraceful and offensive to me, my family, and our entire team. The allegations in this article are categorically false and are just the latest attempt by the media to divide this Administration.”

Only thing is, he lies, for as The Washington Post notes, “Pence has been meeting with donors, has been creating an independent power base (as the Times reported), has hired a politically combatant chief of staff and has been the main channel of communication between Trump and Republicans on the Hill.”

2020-5But what Pence apparently fails to consider is that he has thrown his lot in with Trump, for better or for worse, and his fate or fortune is closely linked to that of Trump. And with that said, I do not wish to discuss the 2020 election until at least the middle of 2019, though I realize that is a pipe dream, given the current state of chaos in the current administration.  My only hope is that by 2020, Donald Trump is either banished to Siberia or else wearing an orange jumpsuit and busting rocks by day.

One interesting, humorous note:  It would seem that there is already an unofficial slogan for the 2020 election …

2020

There are already t-shirts, sweatshirts, phone cases, wall art, coffee mugs and bumper stickers available, folks.  Sigh. Gonna be a long three-and-a-half years, folks.

President Mark Zuckerberg???

“Progress now requires humanity coming together not just as cities or nations, but also as a global community.” – Mark Zuckerberg

Alright, folks, we have tried it on for size and it did not fit.  We tried putting a billionaire businessman in the big White House, and the experiment failed miserably within the first week, so why would we want to try it again?  It is not that I have anything in particular against billionaires or businessmen, but the reality, as we have seen, is that being a billionaire businessman does not qualify a person for the role of president.  In fact, I suspect it should automatically dis-qualify them.

Since January, when Zuckerberg announced his plan to visit all 50 states by the end of the year, there have been rumblings and rumours that he intends to run for the office of president.  He said that his journey around the country would involve road trips with his wife Priscilla Chan, visits to Facebook offices, meetings with teachers and scientists, and stops in small towns and universities.

“I’m looking forward to this challenge and I hope to see you out there!”

Sounds rather like a politician, doesn’t he?

During his travels this week, he ‘dropped in’ on a family in northern Ohio and dined with them, making worldwide headlines – another very political sort of thing to do.

zuckerberg-dinner.png

Zuckerberg is a better man than the current experiment sitting the Oval Office.  He has donated to many worthy causes over the years, he is intelligent, and he is a humanitarian.  However, he still lacks the skills and experience to lead the nation.  The basis for the rumours, in addition to his political-sounding announcement, lies in the unsealed court filings from a class-action lawsuit filed in April, revealing that Zuckerberg and two board members had discussed how Zuckerberg might pursue a political career while retaining control of Facebook. Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, one of the company’s most prominent investors, texted Zuckerberg in March to say that the “biggest issue” of the corporate proposal was “how to define the gov’t service thing without freaking out shareholders that you are losing commitment”. Uh-oh … I smell conflict-of-interest and ethical issues already.

I will not spend much time dwelling on Zuckerberg as a candidate … it is just too early in the game to do more than briefly speculate and then move on.  But let us take just a quick look at Mark Zuckerberg, the man.

Zuckerberg and his wife are philanthropists … real ones, not the fake kind who donate pictures of themselves to charity.  Along with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, Zuckerberg signed “The Giving Pledge”, in which he pledged to donate at least half of his wealth to charity over the course of time.  Zuckerberg founded the Start-up: Education foundation and donated $100 million to Newark (New Jersey) Public Schools, one of the lowest socio-economic school districts in the state.  In 2014, he and his wife donated $25 million to combat the Ebola virus disease, specifically the West African Ebola virus epidemic.  He has made numerous other charitable donations, some of which have been controversial, and I leave those out for the moment.

Zuckerberg’s political views are largely unknown, however I have read a few things I liked, and some I did not.  He is supportive of the Black Lives Matter movement and actually seems to understand it, which many do not, saying, “Black Lives Matter doesn’t mean other lives don’t — it’s simply asking that the black community also achieves the justice they deserve.” He is also supportive of immigrants and against bans and deportation, which raises him a notch higher in my book.  He is also a supporter of the LGBT community.

On the flip side, he led the launch of a 501(c)(4) lobbying group called FWD.us.  The goals of this group are basically worthy, including immigration reform, improving the state of education in the United States, and enabling more technological breakthroughs that benefit the public.  However, they have also advocated a variety of oil and gas development initiatives, including drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Keystone XL pipeline.

Personally, I do not care about a candidate’s religion or lack of … I am more concerned with his experience and qualifications, and I consider religion or lack of to be a personal decision.  However, I am in the minority on this, and many people seem to judge candidates based on their religious preference.  I remember that this was a problem for John F. Kennedy, being a Catholic.  In today’s environment of religious zealots, to be an atheist would doom any candidacy.  Until December 2016, Zuckerberg, though raised in a Jewish household, identified as an atheist.  But last December, some believe in preparation for a political run, he renounced his former atheism, saying, “I was raised Jewish and then I went through a period where I questioned things, but now I believe religion is very important.”

Again, I believe Zuckerberg is a good man with his heart in the right place, which is certainly in contrast to the current president, but I know of nothing that actually qualifies him for the job.  He has no experience in public service, no Constitutional Law background, no foreign relations experience, and I believe we have seen what those lacks can lead to.  However, I reserve the right to change my opinion over the course of the next three years, if I see that Zuckerberg is, indeed, a worthy candidate for the office.

Carson and Christie … the Comeback “Kids” in 2020?

Ben Carson, the retired neurosurgeon who briefly led the Republican presidential race before his campaign began an extended public implosion, told his supporters in a statement Wednesday afternoon that he does not see a “path forward” and will not attend Thursday’s debate in Detroit. “I do not see a political path forward in light of last evening’s Super Tuesday primary results,” the Wednesday statement said. “However, this grassroots movement on behalf of ‘We the People’ will continue. Along with millions of patriots who have supported my campaign for President, I remain committed to Saving America for Future Generations.” Though he is done for the 2016 election, I do not think we have seen the last of Dr. Carson on the political scene.

Though from day one I considered him highly unqualified for the job of president of the United States, there are a few things I like about Dr. Carson, not the least of which is his calm, mild-mannered demeanor. He is soft spoken, yet well spoken. He comes across as intelligent and reasonable, which is more than I can say for the “leaders of the pack” The nation does not need a personality like Trump, now or ever. That said, Dr. Carson would be well-advised to suspend his campaign and stop spending money today! He never did stand even a 1% chance of winning the GOP nomination. However, if he spends his time and money wisely over the course of the next four years, I think he could possibly become a viable candidate in 2020 or even 2024, if that is what he really wants to do.

This plan would mean a lot of hard work, but his past tells us he is not averse to hard work. He needs to spend the next four years studying, learning, and studying some more. Dr. Carson is already a renowned neurosurgeon, but his knowledge of government and history is sorely and acutely lacking. His first step needs to be to start back on the first rung of the educational ladder, this time with an eye toward Political Science, Environmental Issues, and Foreign Relations. Courses in American History, World History, Constitutional Law, Contract Law and Criminal Law are essential. Within the four years between now and 2020, he could do all of that and more. It would also be an expensive venture, but if he drops out of this lost-cause presidential race now*, he could likely meet all his educational requirements with the money he will save!

Again, I like Dr. Carson as a person. Compared to the rest of the pack of 2016 GOP candidates, he shows remarkable reserve and intelligence. I think that in addition to his educational needs, he will need to develop a stronger backbone, a shell, and a more fiery voice, but only a little. The other thing is he will need to learn to discern the truth from a lie and stop thinking that lying about his past will make him appear more of a “tough guy”. We don’t need a tough guy nor a wuss in the White House, we need a thinker, and I believe that Ben could ultimately be that thinker. 2016 may well have been a get-your-feet-wet test run for him. If so, he needs to look back, see what he is lacking, and take steps to fill in those blanks. I doubt we have seen the last of Dr. Carson, and that may be a good thing.

Carson is 64 years old, meaning that in 2020 he will be 68 and in 2024 he will be 72. A bit long in the tooth by 2024, but then Bernie Sanders is 74 and Hillary Clinton 68 in this election year. I don’t discriminate here, but he would be 80 when he left office, assuming two terms, and … I don’t know about any of you, but I really don’t want to be working that hard when I am 80!


Chris Christie is by any standards a good man. He has a conscience, he cares, he has government experience, but unfortunately he made some bad moves and “Bridgegate” became his nemesis. The most important thing that Christie needs to do now is to immediately and firmly distance himself from the Donald Trump Carnival of Horrors. Instead, he chose to endorse Trump, though from the picture that has been broadcast far and wide, it appears that he is now asking himself “WTF have I done???”

I am disappointed in Christie. Not for Bridgegate … that is politics, the media and the past. I am disappointed in him because he sold his soul to the devil. Governor Christie hates Trump as much as I do (believe me, that is a lot), but a day after the gov dropped out of the campaign, before he even had time to lick his wounds, he endorsed Trump. Why? Only one possible reason … he is seeking to be the trumpeter’s running mate. As I see it, this was the absolute worst move he could have made. The man still stands a shot in 2020 or even 2024, but not if he aligns himself with the Trump circus.

What do I like about Governor Christie? He probably won me over in the aftermath of hurricane Sandy in 2012. He was there, he was involved, he genuinely cared, and he risked the love of the republican party to stand with President Obama to get help to people as timely and efficiently as possible. Christie is, or at least was, a more moderate politician than most in today’s GOP. His views on firearms and gun control are more reasonable than most of the right-wingers: he supports a ban on assault weapons and .50 caliber weapons, especially after the mass shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. He has shown his willingness to be a team player, to compromise when necessary in order to get things done. If he has backed down in the past year, I blame the GOP circus-atmosphere that has every republican candidate turning in circles, chasing their tails trying to figure out how to bring down the trumpeter.

Can Christie make a comeback in 2020? I think he can. What he needs to do, not only for himself, but for the survival of the GOP (if it isn’t too late already) is return to his own beliefs and stop trying to do what others expect of him. There is no better advice I can ever offer to any political candidate than to “stay true to yourself, your beliefs”.


Though I am not a republican, not by any stretch of the imagination a conservative, I do care what happens within the GOP, as it affects us all, democrat or republican, liberal, moderate or conservative. We are all in this together, and at the end of the day we all stand together or we go down together. I believe that if Christie and Carson can get their acts together, they can help bring the GOP back to a more moderate, more acceptable stance and be a driving force four years from now. It should be interesting to watch.

 

*Note:  I wrote this a few days ago.  Since that time, Dr. Carson has suspended his campaign.