Political Animal
Blog
Sigh.
The restless political middle — emboldened by the recent inability of a special congressional committee to agree on a debt-reduction deal — is staking out a controversial plan to insert itself into the 2012 election.
A bipartisan group of political strategists and donors known as Americans Elect has raised $22 million and is likely to place a third presidential candidate on the ballot in every state next year. The goal is to provide an alternative to President Obama and the GOP nominee and break the tradition of a Democrat-vs.-Republican lineup.
The effort could represent a promising new chapter for political moderates, who see a wide-open middle in the political landscape as congressional gridlock and bitter partisan fights have driven down favorability ratings for both parties.
“Voters are saddened by the inability of people in Washington to deal with the issues that are important to them,” said the group’s chief executive, Kahlil Byrd, a Republican strategist who once worked for Massachusetts Gov. Deval L. Patrick (D).
I don’t doubt that these people are well intentioned. Their hearts are in the right place; they want what’s best for the country; and I’m glad they’re taking an interest in the election.
But gimmicks are not going to solve meaningful challenges facing the country.
Americans Elect wants a split presidential ticket, requiring their nominee to pick a running mate from a different party. It’s not clear why. Parties have different agendas, which is why there are different parties. Why should a president and vice president have different views about government and policy? Because it would apparently make Americans Elect feel better.
How would Americans Elect go about putting together a platform? They don’t know. It’d apparently be “moderate,” which has come to mean “we agree with Democrats but don’t want to say so.”
If they were successful, how would Americans Elect overcome Republican radicalism? Or the filibuster rules? They don’t know this, either.
The folks behind efforts like these have a terrific opportunity to make a real difference. They could evaluate the two parties, determine which of the two are offering compelling solutions to the problems they care about, and then provide the kind of support their allies need to win and advance their agenda.
An online reality-show campaign may sound very nice in a boardroom, but it’s a waste of time, energy, and resources that could be put to far better use.
Facebook
Twitter
Equal Opportunity Cynic on November 25, 2011 10:00 AM:
Sssh. This is great news as long as Democrats can hold ranks better than Republicans. With Mitt or someone even worse than Mitt, Republican shrinkage could be quite high (although it would be better to have someone to the right of Mitt, or maybe we'll get lucky and that will happen too).
I know it's exasperating but for now we need to take one for the team. In the long long run, once the Republican era of idiocy is done, i hope to see 3rd, 4th, and 5th parties spring up and bring about REAL electoral reform.
siameese.cities on November 25, 2011 10:07 AM:
Like presidents even matter--
At least not for this type of movement. If this cannibalizes the political middle's vote, then conservatives will vote in who they want.
Good luck with the Republican majority congress you awesome third ticket, split party, white house!
The libertarians in Vermont have the right idea. Try to concentrate voters in one area, change the political landscape and then maybe you can change the politics.
Stop Nadering elections!
c u n d gulag on November 25, 2011 10:12 AM:
Oh, but I bet Bobo, Friedman, Douthat, etc., are all giggling and sporting 'third party' woodies, just thinking about this.
I can already smell the centrist deliciousness of Bloomberg/Byah 2012!
We don't need a Third Party. We need a Revolution.
And by that, I mean a Revolution to counter the "Reagan De-evolution!"
linus b on November 25, 2011 10:19 AM:
These efforts always seem naive and half baked. The only value I could see to this is if it becomes an alternative for conservatives to the lunacy of the Republicans and splits the right wing vote. Of course, after a couple of cycles the conservatives would realize they will never win a majority again if they don`t join up, but at least it would help to rest the center.
Tom W on November 25, 2011 10:20 AM:
"The restless political middle" mistakenly regarded as curious, well informed people.
martin on November 25, 2011 10:21 AM:
I don’t doubt that these people are well intentioned. Their hearts are in the right place; they want what’s best for the country;
Which, coincidentally, is what's best for them.
stormskies on November 25, 2011 10:22 AM:
I hereby nominate BOZO to be their candidate for the President of the USA. Bozo will win hands down .......
Equal Opportunity Cynic on November 25, 2011 10:27 AM:
The libertarians in Vermont have the right idea. Try to concentrate voters in one area, change the political landscape and then maybe you can change the politics.
VT or NH? Sounds a lot like the Free State Project, which AFAIK hasn't hit its critical mass yet but is aimed at having people move to NH.
I do like the idea. Florida real estate has taken a huge hit, and Ohio is in the doldrums.... hmmm....
Equal Opportunity Cynic on November 25, 2011 10:28 AM:
(To clarify that last comment, the dynamics are a bit different for Democrats willing to move, who should be moving to where they can influence national elections the most. For libertarians, a small state like NH is ideal.)
Brenna on November 25, 2011 10:36 AM:
Ed Koch wants Bloomberg to run for office. I think he would split the republican ticket.
m2 on November 25, 2011 10:39 AM:
oooh. 22 million. dollars?
If everybody super agrees to be super agreeable, which party's dweeb gets to be the President? Lemme guess.
Ned on November 25, 2011 10:41 AM:
I went to the Americans Elect website and completed their questionnaire about the issues I felt were important, and the positions I believed in. What I found was that my answers put me in the vast majority in most cases - and that my leftist Democratic views were the views of the Americans Elect voters.
My guess is that this effort is designed to take votes from a progressive Democratic agenda (a la Ralph Nadar in 2000), and put a Republican in control of the legislative and executive branches of government.
A more useful exercise for these folks would be to take the Republican Party back from the fringe extremists who have hijacked it. Then we might have a real middle alternative.
Diane Rodriguez on November 25, 2011 10:42 AM:
But darling, all the best people are moderates. "Moderates" is shit-for-brains Brooksian speak. The last thing we need is more mushy heads defining reality in this country.
jjm on November 25, 2011 10:47 AM:
Thanks to @Ned for making the effort clear: siphon off votes for Obama. End of story. This should be firmly opposed.
Anonymous on November 25, 2011 10:48 AM:
i hope this won't be Ralph Nadar of 2012 who split the democrats' votes.
but it's likely to be a moderate republican candidate. Democrats and Democrat leaning independents like Obama fine. Unless this group is actually secretly helping Republicans.
if Ron Paul runs as the libertarian party candidate, that would be great!
many young voters think of "libertarian" means "moderate conservative";
socially liberal /fiscally conservative.
but Paul libertarians are actually far right, radical Republicans like Paul Ryan in America.
we will see...
siameese.cities on November 25, 2011 10:51 AM:
Yes, NH, sorry.
If Dems wanted to do this, Florida would be good, lots of cheap real estate, BUT hurricanes are a big turn off.
If you can deal with the cold, Michigan, cheap real estate, a chance to gentrify a city, and political stronghold.
Let's do it! Detroit Vote City.
Anonymous on November 25, 2011 10:55 AM:
are you sure this isn't secretly Republican sponsored group?
who doesn't know a democrats leaning third party is giving votes to Romney against Obama?
their website has links to Colbert Report and MSNBC.
but they aren't supporting this idea, are they?
Davis X. Machina on November 25, 2011 10:59 AM:
Americans -- present company included -- hate politics.
This is the "Eat whatever you want, and still lose weight" of politics.
Politics, without all the nasty politics.
Davis X. Machina on November 25, 2011 11:02 AM:
To clarify, I'm guessing present company hates politics-the-industry. The process of coming together to govern ourselves, that we like. Doing it better is the answer, not pretending to not-do it.
But the never-ending Niagra of bullshit... not so much.
Anonymous on November 25, 2011 11:11 AM:
Democrats and Libertarians are polar opposite in its economic philosophies.
Well, at least libertarians in today's America are. They are not like Alan Greenspan who studied under Ayn Land. It became something else.
Mexico is one country where libertarian economic policies are used. or 19th century America. do you want that?
no public safety nets, no unions (no overtime pay or minimum wage), no class action law suits, no customer protection (can't return your products, no regulations against false advertising), no federal intervention/supports toward states on educations, businesses or environments .
It would make NY, CA and Texas very very very powerful and rural states will become even more poor. it will make the rich even richer and the poor poorer.
Anonymous on November 25, 2011 11:13 AM:
@Davis X. Machina
good analogy.
DAY on November 25, 2011 11:14 AM:
I have a name for them:
The "Why can't we all just get along" party.
Josef K on November 25, 2011 11:15 AM:
An online reality-show campaign may sound very nice in a boardroom, but it’s a waste of time, energy, and resources that could be put to far better use.
Showtime already did one back in 2004 called "America's Candidate", hosted by Montel Williams (I kid you not); think "Survivor" but with 11 simultaneous 'Presidential campaigns'. Thankfully it ran only one season.
Hopefully this latest...effort...won't last one show.
Tom Allen on November 25, 2011 11:20 AM:
The Democratic Party (at least the leadership) is pushing austerity.
The Republican Party (at least the leadership) is pushing austerity.
American Select (at least the leadership) is pushing austerity.
Oh, the choices are bountiful right now, all right. Must we keep going through this charade indeed.
MGLoraine on November 25, 2011 11:21 AM:
Anyone taking a position in the "middle" between 0bama and the Republicans is STILL going to be a right-wing extremist. How does having three right-wing extremists running for the Decidership offer American voters anything like a viable alternative to the one-percenters presently vying for the White House?
Basilisc on November 25, 2011 11:26 AM:
"We like sound, corporate-friendly policies with a focus on balancing the budget through a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. We just don't want a dark-skinned guy carrying them out."
hells littlest angel on November 25, 2011 11:31 AM:
If we had a Democratic president and a Republican vice-president, how long before the talking heads on Fox began suggesting assassination as a legitimate political tactic?
Jose Padilla on November 25, 2011 11:38 AM:
"I don’t doubt that these people are well intentioned."
I do.
N.Wells on November 25, 2011 11:40 AM:
Americans Elect appears to be a one-man attempt by billionaire Peter Ackerman to break the two-party system ( http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/tag/peter-ackerman/ ) Ackerman apparently made much of his money working in junk bonds and asset stripping at Drexel Burnham. He basically bought up Unity08, and has been running it under the name Americans Elect in order to get an independent candidate onto the ballot in all states next election. He took it private so that it does not have to disclose its donors, but the Board of Directors seems to have a lot of people that he owns.
There might a market for a third-party candidate this time around. Nonetheless, any dreams of an third-party president without plans for a complete supporting slate at lower levels is incredibly stupid: it's hard enough for a president to do anything when there is only one party in opposition, but an independent president guarantees that neither side in the Washington establishment will have any interest in an independent president being successful.
E.Hatt-Swank on November 25, 2011 11:41 AM:
Davis X. Machina -- love that quote: "Doing it better is the answer, not pretending to not-do it." Beautifully put.
I just went over to the Americans Elect website to have a look. Hmmm, let's see who they've got featured as their top candidates: Buddy Roemer (R), Jon Huntsman (R), Gary Johnson (R), Dennis Ross (R), Trey Gowdy (R), Ron Paul (R) and Barack Obama (D). Yep, that's a very non-partisan list, don't you think?
It is a relief to know that these silly efforts seem to come along every few months and then fade away about twice as fast.
Anonymous on November 25, 2011 11:50 AM:
@Tim Allen
oh, good point. it's Americans who are in denial that we need austerity.
People who don't want to listen to the economic reality that you can't keep tax-backed social programs and tax cut at the same time. how sad.
"only if we could change a president, we don't need to cut our benefits and keep our tax cut! "
But don't worry. automatic cut and bush tax cut expiration favor the middle class more than the rich. austerity will be tough but it won't be so bad, either. don't be afraid. America is not like Japan or Euro countries.
We all need to change our life styles and lower expectations but we can do this.
schtick on November 25, 2011 11:54 AM:
Let's see, a 3 way race in 2000 helped to appoint Bush as pres. A wacko third party run by repubs helped elect tealiban members in 2010, and now they sre suppressing votes in a whole bunch of states and come up with a third party to split up the vote again.....let me guess, no one is seeing a pattern here.
A third party set up by the tealiban, led by the tealiban, just like the baggers and no one will notice. Nope. They won't. Dumbing down America. Almost at the bottom of the turd pile. Not third world banana republic, third world banana republican.
mortg on November 25, 2011 11:57 AM:
a bit of background on Deval Patrick:
http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/holmesandco/2010/10/29/deval-patrick-and-ameriquest-no-this-was-not-vetted-last-time-around/#axzz1ejlFVIk5
jdog on November 25, 2011 12:17 PM:
We have a single member district system, with plurality wins the seat for each district. In such a system, third parties never last long, unless they displace one of the two major parties.
Thus, we have a two-party system as a result of rules embedded in the Constitution. If you want to change the system, change the rules: change the Constitution to a proportional system.
Ted Frier on November 25, 2011 12:23 PM:
What is so discouraging and dangerous about the American Elect phenomenon is that it represents an abandoment of "politics" by people who should know better.
It's understandable why "low information voters" who are disgusted with the gridlock in Washington would declare "a plague on both your houses" and look for a third party or any alternative from the hapless status quo.
But elites like Thomas Friedman really ought to understand that the modern GOP has found a way to institutionalize minority rule via the filibuster in a way that John C. Calhoun and the Southern "fire-eaters" were never able to do in their effort to neutralize the national government through nullification and interposition.
The far right of the GOP abandoned politics a long time ago by declaring themselves allergic to the very idea of compromise. Without compromise there is no politics, and without politics no democracy. What's dangerous about the support Americans Elect is getting from certain political elites is that the Tea Party Republican Party is no more interested in compromising with a third party than it is with the Democratic Party.
And so, instead of "reforming" the American political system the best American Elect can hope to do is discredit the American political system in the eyes of voters. And we know from history where that leads. When the public of a great nation finds it cannot be governed by their existing political system which is incapable of getting anything done, they will turn to alternatives that can get things done, even if that alternative is a dictatorial strongman able to cut through the BS, and even if that BS is called democracy itself.
By their disengagement from democratic politics the far right of the GOP is bringing about exactly the conditions it seeks: popular frustration with incompetent democratic government and growing support for alternatives, perhaps even right wing authoritarian alternatives that can act because they are accountable to no one but themselves.
There is no reason, then, that well-intentined, if naive, "reformers" should help the right wing out in its effort to affecdt democratic regime change in America.
toowearyforoutrage on November 25, 2011 12:24 PM:
Relocate?
Think bigger.
Go to Wyoming.
It'd take a relative pittance of humanity to flip two Republican Senator Seats.
Americans Elect doesn't select established candidates.
An ordinary citizen who'd never dream of running for office can offer to serve the country.
This person presents their platform and if his platform garners a majority of the membership vote, he's nominated.
It wouldn't be all that hard to find an almost identical copy for a VP pick from the opposite party.
Plenty of Republicans hate the religious part.
Plenty of Democrats want to cut spending. (not that it's necessarily smart to do that NOW.)
I liked the idea. I signed up.
Then...
The fundraising became more important than the ideas.
The request for input was grossly limited into questionnaire format.
The voting appears to be getting funneled through that all-encompassing cesspool of the gullible, ignorant masses: Facebook.
I'll watch for opportunities to nudge AE towards a productive, useful outcome, but my hopes that this would be a meaningful movement were severely damaged by recent developments.
Efforts to look into support mechanisms that would reveal conservative machinations have not borne fruit, but I wouldn't be surprised if they existed. It's starting to smell of bullpucky and where there's BS, there's conservatives.
LL on November 25, 2011 12:31 PM:
my sole question here is: are these people really as genuinely stupid as they sound? Because if they are, they need some kind of help. What kind, I have no idea, but the possibility that ostensibly grown adults can be so profoundly obtuse is more than a little disturbing.
R on November 25, 2011 12:44 PM:
Has there been a "centrist" movement in the past 40 years in this country that was anything other than Republicanism without the anti-choice terrorism and the anti-gay bigotry (at least, not out loud)?
Secondly, as Atrios pointed out, $22 million is pocket change in presidential politics, particularly considering the wealth of the plutocrats behind this sham.
TCinLA on November 25, 2011 12:59 PM:
They're like all the other upper middle class "good government" reformers of the past 130 years - their "cure" is worse than the disease.
What they'll do is split the Democratic vote, not the Republican vote, and put the Republican into office. That'll get 'em all the "moderation" they want, won't it?
Most of these morons are so stupid they think Ralph Nader is a good guy.
CDW on November 25, 2011 1:08 PM:
Anything the Kochs are behind is bad for the 99%.
The Kochs are behind a 3rd party candidate[Bloomberg].
Ergo: A third party candidate[Bloomberg] is bad for 99%.
Anonymous on November 25, 2011 1:44 PM:
@Ted Frier, jdog
hmm very interesting.
overall good discussion, everyone!
reading through comments online disgust me often but this one makes me feel better about online free discussion.
PTate in MN on November 25, 2011 2:16 PM:
This is a nice example of the adage that "how you define the problem determines its solution." The problem is not that the Republicans and Democrats are gridlocked by extremists, both unwilling to compromise; defining the problem that way does lead logically to thoughts of a centrist 3rd party. But that defining the problem that way is misinformed; it's Republican propaganda, not truth.
As has been pointed out, the problem is actually that Republicans are bat-sh*t crazy. The problem is that Republicans have declared war on America. The problem is that--with the enthusiastic collaboration of media coverage which ranges from bigoted right-wing propaganda on Fox to fake equivalencies and Tom Friedman inanities on the right center--the Republicans have been able to misinform average voters and undermine Americans' confidence in our institutions of self-government.
In other words, the problem is that the majority of Americans are misinformed, and they don't want to call themselves Democrats. Because, evidently, Democrats aren't cool. The solution then is not to create third parties, the solution is for Americans to learn the truth; those uncool, tax-and-spend Democrats actually support the same policies that a majority of Americans support. Vote Democratic.
bluestatedon on November 25, 2011 2:21 PM:
So billionaire Peter Ackerman thinks out-of-work Americans should cast their vote for somebody who has less of a chance of getting elected President than the shambling corpse of Ronald Reagan does?
The sad thing is that there are plenty of people who are only too eager to repeat their vote for Nader in 2000.
T2 on November 25, 2011 2:34 PM:
From what I've seen, the AE bunch seems to be all white folks. Sounds like another "Let's take our country back ( from the black guy)" group.
rrk1 on November 25, 2011 2:41 PM:
This sounds like it's meant to attract one time Obama supporters now disaffected. Yet another Rethug stealth ploy to elect one of their own nutcases. The Rethugs are trying every trick their devious minds can conjure up to steal this next election, and that should give everyone pause. Devious tricks work.
This 'centrist' bullshit has to stop. How can you have a Democratic leaning candidate paired with a crazy Rethug? Just to get votes? There is no such workable compromise possible anymore. Centrism doesn't exist. When one side is willing to talk and the other wants total, unconditional surrender, which it's getting inch-by-inch, exactly where is the middle? Privatized social security, medicare, medicaid, and no public education, only corporate owned charter schools? Is that a Solomonic solution? Cutting the baby in half? Or is it 2/3 - 1/3? More like 80-20.
I'm just waiting for a Bloomberg/Huntsman ticket to be proposed. A politically ambiguous billionaire Jew and a Mormon with magic underwear. That one could easily suck votes from both sides. Obama would probably be toast. It might even throw the election to a Rethug controlled House and where would we be then?
The only third candidate, never mind party, that would help the country is Ron Paul running as an independent. I think this not because I support him because he's pretty crazy too, but because he would split the Rethugs and draw more independents from the right. That would help Obama.
Am I happy with Obama? No. Do I want to see a Rethug elected. Hell no! I've always said you can't be a virgin in a whore house, and if only the Dim-Dems could be half as devious as the evil Rethugs we might accomplish something. Meanwhile, an independent Bloomberg/Huntman ticket might be a survivable solution if it could win, but it can't. Even a strong showing for that ticket might upset the applecart for both parties. A wake up call for the Dim-Dems (although I doubt it) and a poison pill for the Rethugs. Well, I doubt that too since they manage to rise from their own ashes as limitless corporate cash and the billionaires club resurrects them.
Wouldn't it be sweet to see the Rethug coalition implode.
jcricket on November 25, 2011 2:46 PM:
Where conservatives can't suppress the vote, the second best method of election shenanigans is to dilute the vote. As bluestatedon points out, there will be a 2012 Nader. There will have to be. Whoever carries the Republican banner in 2012 will be too weak to garner enough votes without the help of some kind of external component in the mix.
toowearyforoutrage on November 25, 2011 3:40 PM:
THANK YOU
N.Wells on November 25, 2011 11:40 AM:
for the link to the Americans Elect articles web site.
My favorite was THIS one:
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/03/25/contrary-to-peter-ackerman-americans-elect-will-not-communicate/
As for all the Nader bashers:
Gore 2008 was a wishy-washy centrist Bill Clinton wannabe, not the environmental warrior activist he later became. 2006 and a 60 vote margin never would have happened. Given the filibustering opposition of the Republican Senate, I'm content with Obama's performance. (Deliriously happy if it turns out SoS Hilary is behind the Arab Spring.) Does ANYONE think we'd have universal health care or our first black president after a Southern cracker wins a third term?
Maybe it's not worth the price we paid, but take the good with the bad, folks. As you curse Nader, temper it with these silver linings in the dark clouds of Bush/Cheney 2000-2008.
Mark on November 25, 2011 4:30 PM:
Why not just make a clean break from the two-party system, and elect a leader from another country altogether to manage the USA?
I hear Sylvio Berlusconi will soon be available, and if you're lucky you might be able to get first dibs on Nikolas Sarkozy!
TCinLA on November 25, 2011 4:39 PM:
These morons should look up their US history, to see why it was that the Constitution was amended so that the President and Vice-President should come from the same party.
All this "progressive, independent centrism" sure looks good with the way multi-billionaire "independent" Michael Bloomberg runs New York, eh? You know - club journalists reporting his thuggery, cut off the subways, shut down air space, so all his paramilitary machinations can go on in secret? A billionaire like Bloomberg and a billionaire like Ackerman are going to rule in favor of the billionaires. Anyone who believes they won't probably still believes in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.
Rabbler on November 25, 2011 5:33 PM:
This faux 'centrist' collaboration, if it occurs, ensures the reelection of Obama. Does anybody really think the billionaires are unhappy with Obama? Any Republican candidate who appeals to the modern conservative base is a far greater threat to the current situation than Obama.
rikyrah on November 25, 2011 5:48 PM:
I don’t doubt that these people are well intentioned. Their hearts are in the right place; they want what’s best for the country; and I’m glad they’re taking an interest in the election.
See, that's where you begin wrong.
If they are well-intentioned,then why are they HIDING their donor list?
this is but another scheme to attempt to defeat the President
sometimes, Mr. Benen, I get tired of you trying to give people the benefit of the doubt.
sometimes, snakes are just snakes.
fred on November 25, 2011 6:42 PM:
This is nothing more than another angle by GOPers to try split the moderate vote and defeat Obama. Romney is 'moderate' enough for them but his association with the party of crazy is never gonna get him elected without peeling some moderates away from Obama.
Sandro on November 25, 2011 11:12 PM:
So, a secretive special interest sponsored astroturf organization founded by Peter Ackerman - a billionaire from the Ivan Boesky & Michael Milken era of Wall Street shenanigans. He was actually Michael Milken's right hand man. Not promising.
It changed it's form to a 501(c)4 corporation meaning it now benefits from (and has been using) the Citizens United decision allowing it to keep it's donor list secret. Not a ringing endorsement for transparency.
Peter Ackerman hired his son to run the rules committee. Nice cronyism.
Anonymous on November 25, 2011 11:47 PM:
Ron Paul 2012! that would be hilarious.
Elite Republicans kept their rural/low income constituents uninformed/misinformed so that they vote "R" against their own economic benefits.
It would be amusing then if those uninformed voters would vote for an unelectable candidate or a third candidate against the establishment's candidate (Romney) because of all the misinformation they've been feeding them.
Jan Marra on November 26, 2011 8:49 PM:
Ridiculous. The only person with any power is the President. The Vice President is merely a ceremonial place-holder and POSSIBLE replacement should something happen to the Prez.