As the Democratic presidential candidates prepare to debate Tuesday night in Charleston, S.C., voters in Florida should pay heed to the numbers and remember what they do and dont mean. Only three small states have voted so far, and the total votes cast in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada come nowhere near the combined population of just Tampa and St. Petersburg. Those who either welcome or fear that Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, could become the Democratic nominee should keep the tiny scale of those numbers in mind. The best thing for Florida Democrats to do right now is keep paying attention and wait to vote until the picture becomes clearerand the numbers become big enough to be meaningful. The South Carolina primary is Saturday, and Democrats in 14 states, including California and Texas, vote on March 3.

Take a deep breath. Sanders vote totals so far are so small that they are eclipsed by the number of votes Hillary Clinton got just in Pinellas County in the 2016 general election, and she lost the countyand the electionto President Donald Trump. The other four top vote-gettersformer South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Vice President Joe Bidenhave only 15,000 more votes combined than the number of registered Democrats in Hillsborough County. And former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg has not been on the ballot anywhere yet.

Here are the combined total votes each candidate received in the Iowa caucus, the New Hampshire primary and the Nevada caucus.

The numbers dont really become big enough to begin to clear the landscape until Super Tuesday, March 3, when the outcomes will award more than a third of all delegates for the Democratic National Convention. That day is also the first time Bloomberg will appear on the ballot.

As Florida Democrats watch and wait, after Saturdays South Carolina primary they would do well to remember Winston Churchills words after the first British land victory in 1942 in World War II: Now, this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

Editorials are the institutional voice of the Tampa Bay Times. The members of the Editorial Board are Times Chairman and CEO Paul Tash, Editor of Editorials Tim Nickens, and editorial writers Elizabeth Djinis, John Hill and Jim Verhulst. Follow @TBTimes_Opinion on Twitter for more opinion news.

Read more:

Keep calm. The race to become the Democratic nominee for president is far from over. | Editorial - Tampa Bay Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Dare we call it the Trump Revolution? We call the presidency of Ronald Reagan the Reagan Revolution. Well, consider what Donald Trump has achieved in but three years.

He has revived the economy with ample growth, historic low levels of unemployment and efficiencies in the economy thanks to the removal of unnecessary stultifying regulations. He promises more if re-elected. He has assured international peace and stability. Becoming a prominent terrorist is no longer a smart career choice. Longevity can be problematic. And the president has assured a judicial system stocked with men and women who really believe in the rule of law. Furthermore, he has brought us two U.S. Supreme Court Justices who will abide by the U.S. Constitution. If he has four more years in the White House, he will bring us more.

Yet apparently our countrys intelligence community was out to put the clamps on Mr. Trump even before he was elected. Slowly, we are finding out that, for instance, FISA warrants included warrants that were illegal. We are finding out that these agencies were eavesdropping on Mr. Trump and his aides. Conservatives always defended the CIA and FBI against career civil libertarians. Now, we are finding out that these agencies were used against the president and his people. What did the Trumpians do to antagonize the intelligence community?

Do the heads of these agencies really think that Donald Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin? I have not seen the evidence. A two-year investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller could not find the evidence either. So let us come up with the evidence that will convince Americans that, as John Brennan, formerly of the CIA, has said, Mr. Trumps behavior was treasonous. Treasonous? The evidence?

Possibly the civil libertarians have been right about the threat the intelligence agencies pose to ordinary Americans civil liberties, but now those civil libertarians have fallen strangely silent. Why are they not aroused by the treatment of Gen. Michael Flynn, Carter Page and George Papadopoulos? Does one have to be a communist to gain their support? The silence of the civil libertarians is but one of the many oddities of this latest chapter in American history.

Now what Mr. Trump has dubbed the swamp is erupting with more poison. Just the other day we learned that the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the U.S. Judicial Conference is planning to bar judges from belonging to the Federalist Society. The Federalist Society is a scholarly group of law students, law professors and lawyers whose interest in the law leads them to hold seminars, lectures and other such events that revolve around the law. It has chapters at law schools all over the country. Its members are mainly conservative and libertarian, but it is open to all comers and there are even a few adventurous liberals.

Oh yes, and one thing more. Until recently the Federalist Society was headed by Leonard Leo, a leading conservative thinker and activist. Mr. Leo has rightfully taken a leave of absence from the Federalist Society perhaps because he is a leading figure on the team of advisers who have helped the president pick his nominees to the courts. That the president has had so many of his nominees accepted is proof of how high the Federalist Societys standards are. The Committee on Codes of Conduct of the U.S. Judicial Conference objects supposedly that the Federalist Society is too political. What about the Womens Christian Temperance Union? If the WCTU suggested nominees to the Trump administration, would the Committee on Codes of Conduct object that the abstemious ladies are too political? Is there not a guarantee of freedom of association in the First Amendment? Do not the liberals have an organization equivalent to the Federalist Society?

As a matter of fact, they do. It is called the American Constitution Society. Moreover, it is a highly political organization, as might be expected from liberals. What organization of liberals is not highly political? It takes political positions, counsels on judicial appointments and files amicus briefs. The Federalist Society follows none of these practices.

Now the clever minds of the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the U.S. Judicial Conference has published a bull pronouncing that judges be barred from both organizations. I have a better idea. Let the First Amendments right to free association be affirmed, and let judges be members of either society or of both societies. Better yet, encourage judges to join the Womens Christian Temperance Union. It is an admirable organization that deserves a comeback, especially in light of the spreading legalization of marijuana.

Now let us get on with the Trump Revolution.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author most recently of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc.

See the original post here:

Judicial swamp looking to stymie the 'Trump Revolution' - Washington Times

Ipswich man Anthony Bull has put his hand up to run for Division 2 in this year's historic election.

Mr Bull, a second generation Ipswich resident, works in digital marketing and analytics.

"I went to Redbank Plains State School before moving to Westside Christian College, then I actually enrolled at the University of Queensland at Ipswich before the business element got shut down and moved to St Lucia," he said.

"My history here (Ipswich) also extends to my parents; my dad used to be the president of one of the local soccer clubs. He has a field named after him at Westminster Soccer Club; the Kevin Bull field down in Redbank Plains.

"My mother works in a couple of charities here and my wife is from Ipswich as well."

Mr Bull said he wanted to run for council because he had a passion for politics and believed he could do better than the previous council.

"The previous council was a perfect example of an unchecked government," he said

"I'm a big believer in government transparency and government accountability; that the people who work in government have to answer to the people who voted them in."

Mr Bull has three main focuses if elected to council, which include not only streaming council meetings but having audio transcribed as a way of ensuring accountability.

"The other two issues that my platform is about are ending the gouging of rate payers by looking at some of the policies that were implemented by the previous government," he said.

"Perhaps some of the services we agreed to aren't the best service at the same price.

"The fact that there was corruption makes me think that there are some services there that need to be looked at."

Mr Bull was very open and admitted he hadn't done any specific research as to why he thought rates were higher but has looked at some previous budgets made by council.

He said he also wanted to support business growth, believing that embracing more business would make way for more jobs in the region.

Mr Bull registered with his wife as a group for council election in order to run as a Liberal Democrat because the party is not registered with the Electoral Commission of Queensland.

"The Liberal Democratic Party of Australia is only registered at the federal level at this stage but not at the state level," Mr Bull said.

"I kind of convinced her to run with me, I didn't want to run as an independent," he said.

"I wanted to let my flag fly and who I am is a member of the Liberal Democrats and for that reason I needed her help.

"You can't run as a group with one person and for her she's really helped me out a lot, she's mostly in it to help me out. She was thinking about running but she's mostly here to help me out for sure."

Mr Bull's wife, Jacinta, is registered as a Division 1 candidate but has since decided to change to Division 3.

"We just sort of did some polling and found there was more support in that area we did some research and thought that (Division 3) was a better fit."

Mrs Bull is not taking media interviews regarding her candidacy for Division 3.

See original here:

Proud Libertarian to run in upcoming council election - Queensland Times

A source confirmed that Roberts has indicated he would not read a question from Paul regarding the whistleblower at the center of the House impeachment inquiry.

The question from Paul is expected to name the individual. Because Roberts is responsible for reading the questions that would put him in the position of publicly outing the person on the Senate floor.

Paul indicated to reporters after a closed-door Republican dinner that he was not backing down from trying to ask his question.

Its still an ongoing process; it may happen tomorrow, the libertarian-leaning senator told reporters as he headed back to the Senate chamber.

Senatorshave been submittingtheir questions to Republican leadership, who were responsible for weeding out duplicative questions.

I dont think that happens, and I guess I would hope that it doesnt, he told reporters.

Excerpt from:

John Roberts blocks Rand Paul's question on whistleblower | TheHill - The Hill

Published: 1/30/2020 11:28:45 AM

One day last week, the temperature was close to 60. It felt like spring. The grass seemed greener, and the smell of damp-not-frozen soil was in the air. I took off my jacket when feeding the cattle. It was warm. Alas, two days later, with the icy wind piercing my down jacket, it seemed like 20 below zero. Winter was back. Encouragement is needed and when the cold seems never-ending, here comes Ground Hog Day!

The second day of February marks the midway point between the winter solstice and the vernal equinox. Its when groundhogs supposedly emerge from their burrows, and if the weather is sunny and they are frightened by their shadows, they dive back into their holes, and winter persists for six more weeks. Its a Pennsylvania Dutch superstition. Over the years, Punxsutawney Phil has come to be the celebrity groundhog, and all eyes are on him.

For farmers with critters to feed, Feb. 2 has serious significance in the adage: Half your hay by Ground Hog Day, meaning if youve used more than half your hay, youre probably going to run out.

Ground Hog Day is not only the half-way point for hay-feeding but this year, its also the precursor for our Feb. 11 first-in-the-nation presidential primary. This is the season when the state is flooded with politicians. They show up at farmers markets, on street corners, in grocery stores, and during the 2016 race Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson showed up at our farm: twice. Of course, for each politician, there seem to be hundreds of out-of-state supporters, well-known TV personalities, and camera-people trailing the candidates and seeking local color.

If New Hampshire can upend political wisdom by elevating under-dogs, why cant we also topple Punxsutawney Phils monopoly on predicting the end of winter? Scientific observation does not support Phils findings, which means any animal is qualified to forecast the weather and that the exact day doesnt matter. Theres an opportunity knocking on the barn door.

This year our mini-pig, Tazzy D. Moo, has agreed to challenge Phils role as end-of-winter-predictor by dressing up like a ground hog. This is an opportunity Tazzy has been waiting for her whole life. To honor tradition, she will wear a fashionable ground hog costume, but unlike Phil, who doesnt speak, Tazzy will give a speech. This is New Hampshire, and even if she is a pig, her voice matters. Its hard to know who wants to hear what she has to say, but isnt that true of politicians too?

Stop by the farm on Feb. 1between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. to see Punxy Tazzy at work. Well also have cows to feed; Curious Bleu, the Scottish Highlander steer, to sit on; calves to brush; and marshmallows to roast. Who knows, maybe the news media will be there looking for local color and someone to quote. If so, Tazzy will be ready.

Read more:

Half the hay by Ground Hog Day - Concord Monitor

Libertarians and other political third-parties will soon find out if fairness in federal courts extends to political third-parties, or is fairness confined to major party candidates. The answer will establish the degree of loyalty each branch of government has to political parties over the Constitution.

On the week of February 10, 2020 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, will hear argument in Jacobson v. Lee. This case is on appeal from a district court ruling that held unconstitutional a Florida statute that granted top ballot position to all candidates of the Governors political party. In Florida there has been a Republican Governor since 1998.

The Democrats argue that granting the top spot on all ballots to Republicans gives them an electoral advantage. Expert evidence at trial established that first listed candidates have gained an average electoral advantage of five percentage points due to ballot position. Since Governor Scott was elected in 2010 by a 1.2% margin and in 2018 Governor DeSantis won with only a 0.4 % margin, ballot position determined the outcome of both races.

In down-ballot races, the effect gives a 3.1% to 5.6% advantage to top spot candidates.

In Jacobson, the lower court found the impact of ballot placement based on the outcome of the last Governors race to be a denial of equal protection and discriminatory because it selects ballot position based solely on party affiliation.

The lower court offers solutions; at least 29 states either rotate or randomize the order of candidate names in general elections to neutralize the effects of position bias. For example, Ohio requires candidate ballot position be rotated from one precinct to another. Hawaii requires candidates be in alphabetical order. Colorado arranges candidate ballot position by lot, however, it undercuts its neutrality by dividing the candidates into two groups: major party and minor party candidates.

Jacobson is important to every minor party. For decades minor parties have fought merely to secure ballot access. A few have gained access in many states, but usually not all states. Now, minor parties have evidence that ballot placement is a critical matter once ballot access is secured.

Rigging elections occurs in many ways, not just intimidation and fake news. Denying fair ballot position also manipulates votes. The impact of these discriminatory actions is to limit the votes received and the fundraising potential of minor parties, while denying attention to their ideas.

Many articles ago, I addressed the monopoly the two major parties have over our political system.

The two major parties manipulate election laws to ensure one of their loyalists almost always wins the election. Controlling who wins directly translates into what laws are enacted, which citizens or corporations receive subsidies, who is taxed more or taxed less, how commerce is regulated and who will judge us should we violate any command.

According to an article in the Daily Kos ,there are 519,682 elected officeholders in the United States. Of this total, the Libertarian Party, in 2017, claims 168 of these officeholders; the Green Party in 2016 held 143 offices, and the Constitution Party holds 12 offices. Many of these positions are non-partisan offices. There are also, at least 26 Independent office holders, including 2 U.S. Senators who caucus with the Democrats, and 26 Democratic Vermont Progressives. A basic calculation places the third-party competitors share of the political market at 0.0006754%; almost zero.

What makes the power of the major parties so baffling is that political parties are not mentioned in our Constitution. Political parties are merely groups of individuals who organize to control government. In fact, for the first several years of our Republic, there were no political parties. Moreover, the major parties maintain complete control of the political marketplace against the fact that 57% of Americans believe a third political party is needed, according to a Gallup poll.

Again, I ask: does judicial fairness apply to minor political parties?

It may not, but the ballot position cases offer clear evidence of discriminatory impact on minor parties and open up a new line of attack for minor parties to seek fairer elections and greater voter participation.

A November 1, 2019 report in Ballot Access News illustrates how discriminatory our electoral system is against minor parties. It found [t]he U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear every election law cert. petition presented by a minor party or independent candidate starting in 1992, unless the Republican Party or the Democratic Party was also a party to the same case.

Action

Since Jacobson is only a dispute between the major parties, both having a great stake in the outcome, it is likely to be resolved by the Supreme Court. This gives the minor parties a chance to file Friends of the Courts briefs to educate the court on the plight of minor parties in ballot cases and the impact of discrimination on the voice of voters.

Party affiliation should not guarantee a 3.1% to 5.6% vote advantage to the two major parties; they have legislated themselves too many electoral advantages. Elections are for citizens to elect their representatives, not for political parties to control the nation.

See the original post:

Will SCOTUS Hearing on Ballot Position Apply to Minor Political Parties? - The Libertarian Republic

Business lessons may not always apply to government

MANY PEOPLE have a favourite book that they like to hand out to friends and colleagues, ranging from Doris Lessings feminist bible The Golden Notebook to Ayn Rands libertarian saga The Fountainhead. The chosen tome of Dominic Cummings, a special adviser to Boris Johnson, Britains prime minister, is rather more specialist. It is High Output Management by Andrew Grove, the late chairman of Intel, a chipmaker.

As management books go, Mr Cummings made an excellent choiceGroves text is clear, practical and free of both pomposity and jargon. Any manager could benefit from his insights into issues such as planning and performance reviews. The book has been popular in Silicon Valley ever since it was first published in 1983.

But how much use will the book be to British civil servants, or indeed any government official? At Intel, Groves goals were clear: to produce the most powerful, reliable microprocessors at the lowest possible cost. The market reinforced efforts to meet these goals every day. A competitor might always produce a better, cheaper product (hence the title of another Grove book, Only the Paranoid Survive).

Even though they involve management, governments are not businesses. They are rarely engaged in manufacturing. The services they offer are not usually being provided in a competitive market. And the outputs they produce are notoriously hard to define.

Take the provision of welfare benefits. A government might choose to aim at a whole range of targets. The provision of benefits at the lowest administrative cost; ensuring that no genuine claimant goes without food or shelter; reducing fraud; making the application system as simple and transparent as possible; setting the level of benefits so that applicants are encouraged to seek work; and so on. Some of these targets might be incompatible with others. Politicians may choose to prioritise one but they will come under pressure if they fail to meet another: if fraud rises, say, or if claimants are left destitute. So civil servants may be forced to chase all the goals simultaneously (more like the modern-day notion of stakeholder capitalism than the shareholder focus Grove represents).

Nor can one rely on everyone to pursue the targets that politicians set. In the 1980s the British government changed the definition of unemployment in a number of ways that reduced the claimant count. But the result was a rise in the number of people on sickness benefit. The doctors who attested to the sickness claims were not under the direct control of ministers. Many were sympathetic to claimants at a time of rapidly rising joblessness.

The theme which runs through Groves book is the breakfast factory: a restaurant that serves the customer with an egg, toast and coffee in the most efficient fashion. But running a government is a lot more like operating a caf where some customers are vegan, others are gluten-intolerant, some want mint tea, and the staff treat the enterprise as a workers co-operative and (possibly to their bosss dismay) refuse to take money from patrons.

Where Grove does on occasion stray into public policy, it is easy to see where his approach falls short. He compares the way that American embassies assess visas with manufacturers testing components. The vast majority of visas are processed without fuss, so why not test a sample rather than every single application, and reduce the time wasted by staff and applicants? Politicians would be extremely reluctant to take such a line, in case a single terrorist entered the country on an unchecked visa. Groves analysis of Americas criminal-justice system suggests that the main constraint is a lack of prison places. At no point does he consider whether, in a country which has long locked up more people proportionately than anywhere else, prison is the most effective way of dealing with crime.

This does not mean that government can learn nothing from business. But the idea that businesspeople will automatically translate their success into government has been proved false by a host of examples, from Silvio Berlusconi in Italy to Rex Tillerson, head of ExxonMobil turned Americas secretary of state. They pull levers and find that nothing moves the way they expect.

It wont do civil servants any harm to read High Output Management. But it is not a road map for managing government. At least the officials can be grateful for small mercies: Mr Cummings isnt making them read The Fountainhead.

This article appeared in the Business section of the print edition under the headline "From the cradle to the Grove"

Read more:

From the cradle to the Grove - The Economist

Is it a death grip or a limp handshake? President Donald Trumps grasp on the Republican Party grassroots will get its first big test of 2020 next month in Iowa.

Iowa Republicans attending the Feb. 3 caucuses will have the opportunity to cast their preference for the partys presidential nomination. Thats different from other recent election cycles, when parties with incumbent presidents have not held true contests or reported accurate results.

Iowa political parties have peculiar history with uncontested presidential caucuses

For true small-government conservatives, there are many reasons to oppose Trumps reelection bid.

Competitive GOP caucuses in 2020 would be good for America

Actually, we need more candidates running for president in Iowa

Former U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh and former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld are campaigning against Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. Trump is favored, to say the least. Polls show nearly 90 percent of Republicans approve of Trumps job performance, while around 80 percent support his renomination.

For true small-government conservatives, though, there are many reasons to oppose Trumps reelection bid: He has let the national debt balloon uninhibited, failed to replace Obamacare, largely reneged on his promise to wind down our unwinnable wars and regularly bucked the limits of his executive power (not least of which was withholding Congressionally approved aid from Ukraine, the subject of the ongoing impeachment trial).

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

The two Republican challengers are simultaneously contemptuous of Trumps enablers in Washington, D.C., and sympathetic to the voters who put them in power. They are convinced there is hunger in the Republican base for an alternative to Trump, never mind the polls.

Walsh one-term Tea Party congressman from Illinois and a former talk radio host spent much of last week watching Trumps impeachment trial in the Senate and firing off spicy takes on Twitter, including calling out Republican senators by name. He has little hope the current crop of GOP legislators can be redeemed.

I think theyre too far gone. You gotta be on the record right now about Trump and Trumpism. These people like (U.S. Sen. Marco) Rubio and some who are trying to stay quiet, you cant do that. You either support him or you dont, Walsh told me last week.

GOP politicians redemption tour comes to Iowa

On the issues, Walsh takes libertarian and fiscally conservative stances. He seems less concerned nowadays with many of the divisive culture war issues he discussed in his talk radio career.

Walsh has made increasingly frequent trips to Iowa in the past couple of months, and plans to be here every day until the caucuses.

I want people to wake up after the caucuses and be surprised and say, Wow, there is a primary going on on the Republican side. Ive gotta do well, and Im staking a lot on Iowa, Walsh said.

Weld a former two-term Republican governor from left-leaning Massachusetts holds out hope that some Republican legislators will snap out of blindly supporting the president, but time is running out.

Ive been predicting for some time that its not going to go well for Republicans in the legislative elections in 2020. Well have a Democratic Senate if they just roll over and play dead, so Im hopeful they wont, Weld told me.

Are Republicans willing to disagree? Caucus challenger wants to find out

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

Weld also has a broad libertarian streak, balanced with an old-school pro-business conservatism. He even ran with the Libertarian Party for vice president in 2016. At the partys nominating convention that year, he promised members he was a Libertarian for life, and wouldnt go back to any other party.

But in a guest column published last week by the conservative blog the Bulwark, Weld gives an impassioned defense of Republican values, and doesnt mention his Libertarian Party stint.

Ive been a libertarian since I was in law school and took up Friedrich Hayek and The Constitution of Liberty, Weld told me.

The reason I decided to run as a Republican this time is that someone needed to stand up and plant a flag against Trumps misdeeds, and I didnt see anyone else doing it.

Trump challenger is part of great American party-switching tradition

Its hard to say what a bad night for Trump in Iowa would look like. Assuming the president wins a clear majority of Iowa Republicans support, how many points would his challengers have to siphon off to make a statement?

Theres only one modern election that offers a comparison. In 2012, Iowa Democrats reported the full delegate counts from the caucuses, which they did not do in 1996: 98.4 percent for President Barack Obama, 1.5 percent uncommitted.

It looked like a total blowout for Obama, but his figures may have been inflated by party loyalists maneuvering. The caucus agenda included time for a livestream webcast from Obama, but preference groups to pick a candidate were only held if 15 percent of attendees agreed to it.

Under those rules, only Democrats with a little bit of confidence and knowledge of the process were able to have their preferences counted, as independent journalist and Democratic activist Laura Belin reported at the time.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

The Iowa Democratic Partys caucus rules and procedures put many obstacles before Democrats who arent satisfied with the presidents performance, Belin wrote on her Bleeding Heartland website.

Disgruntled Republicans will face somewhat different challenges this February. There is no viability threshold, so all the votes will be counted. But the party infrastructure is all-in for Trump the Republican National Committee voted last year to commit undivided support to the Trump campaign and caucus chairs might resist efforts to speak in support of other candidates.

The hope is that a lackluster tally for Trump in Iowa would generate momentum and national attention for the opposition candidates. Both Weld and Walsh told me they are committed to staying in the race past Iowa and New Hampshire, when several Democrats will likely be dropping out.

Perhaps some unforeseen crisis will change minds and trigger massive turnout to late GOP primaries. Trumps removal from office or a battle at the party convention are extremely unlikely, but maybe not impossible.

Assuming Trump is on the general election ballot, both Walsh and Weld reserve the right to endorse an opposing candidate or even launch a third-party campaign of their own. The ultimate goal, theyre both adamant, is to end Trumps presidency.

Im dedicating my life to stopping Trump. If it doesnt work out through a Republican challenge in the Republican primary, I dont know what Ill do next. ... I would do anything if I thought it would help stop him, Walsh said.

Comments: (319) 339-3156; adam.sullivan@thegazette.com

Follow this link:

Unstoppable? Iowa GOP caucuses will measure depth of Trump's support - The Gazette

Former Massachusetts Gov. William WeldWilliam (Bill) WeldAdvocacy group launches tour to encourage religious voters to vote against Trump Trump allies to barnstorm Iowa for caucuses Republican group calls for 'President Pence' amid impeachment trial MORE (R) is betting on undeclared voters in New Hampshire to fuel his long shot challenge against President TrumpDonald John TrumpDemocrats outraged over White House lawyer's claim that some foreign involvement in elections is acceptable Senators take reins of impeachment trial in marathon question session White House announces task force to monitor coronavirus MORE, believing the states fierce independent streak and potential for cross-over voters could turn him into a contenderafter the Feb. 11 primary.

Weld faces astronomically long odds in his effort to win New Hampshire. Trumps grip on the Republican Party is as tight as ever.

Over the course of 120 events Weld has attended across the Granite State over the past year, he said theres been no evidence to suggest that Trumps voters are warming to him as an alternative.

However, Weld says hes gaining traction among left-leaning independents and undeclared voters who are eligible to vote in either partys primary in New Hampshire.

When people say, how are you going to turn around those die-hard Trumpers Im not, Weld said in an interview at The Hills office. My job is to enlarge the electorate of people who vote in the Republican primary.

Weld said he and his wife have been throwing boutique soap parties to convince independents to cross over on primary day to cast a ballot against Trump.

The soap is so voters who become independents for a day can take a long hot shower and go back to being a Democrat after casting a ballot against Trump in the GOP primary, Weld said.

Weld faces near impossible odds in his quest for the nomination.

A WBUR survey of New Hampshire from last month found Trump at 74 percent support, against 9 percent for Weld.

The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee (RNC) combined to raise more than $463 million in 2019. The Weld campaign brought in about $1.3 million in the first three quarters of 2019.

About a half-dozen states will not even hold GOP primaries this year, and the RNC has taken other steps to head off a potential primary challenger as well.

But Weld says the bar for success is so low that hes set up to shock the world on primary day in New Hampshire.

The wise guys, Weld said, expect him to get only 1 or 2 percent in New Hampshire, so a 10 percent showing or better might be all he needs.

If I got 20 percent, theyd be like, holy shit, whats happening here?, Weld said.

Regardless, Weld said hes in the race for the long haul to ensure that Republicans have a candidate running in the unlikely case Trump is removed from office by the Senate or some unforeseen political pressure chases him from the ballot.

Unless the roof falls on my head, Ill keep going as long as I can, Weld said.

Weld, who ran on the Libertarian Party ticket with former New Mexico Gov. Gary JohnsonGary Earl JohnsonWeld bets on New Hampshire to fuel long shot bid against Trump The 'Green' new deal that Tom Perez needs to make The Trump strategy: Dare the Democrats to win MORE in 2016, said if he does not win the GOP nomination, he will not run as a third-party candidate again.

Rather, Weld said he could happily support former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenSenators take reins of impeachment trial in marathon question session Sanders campaign says it raised more than .3 million in one day after negative ad Warren's dog campaigns in Iowa while senator sits in impeachment trial MORE in a matchup against Trump. Weld even volunteered to campaign for Biden and believes hed be an effective surrogate for the campaign in convincing moderate Republicans to reject Trump.

They could use me if they want crossover votes and Id be there, Weld said.

The former Massachusetts governor said he likes and admires Sens. Bernie SandersBernie SandersSanders campaign says it raised more than .3 million in one day after negative ad Warren's dog campaigns in Iowa while senator sits in impeachment trial Weld bets on New Hampshire to fuel long shot bid against Trump MORE (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenSanders campaign says it raised more than .3 million in one day after negative ad Warren's dog campaigns in Iowa while senator sits in impeachment trial Weld bets on New Hampshire to fuel long shot bid against Trump MORE (D-Mass.), but would have a tough time supporting either of them, believing their progressive politics are out of step with where most of the country is.

And hes worried about how a candidate from the left would fare in a head-to-head matchup against Trump.

I think itd be tight and I dont want it to be tight, Weld said.

Weld also said hed also be happy if either Rep. Justin AmashJustin AmashWeld bets on New Hampshire to fuel long shot bid against Trump Sanders co-chair: Greenwald charges could cause 'chilling effect on journalism across the world' Trump rails against impeachment in speech to Texas farmers MORE (I-Mich.) or former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee secured the Libertarian Partys nomination.

Regardless, Weld says he wants Trump out of office at all costs. He believes the president should be removed from office immediately by the GOP-controlled Senate.

I think he should be removed from office right now by the Senate and we can all get back to our normal lives, Weld said. I think thats what the founders would say. This is precisely the conduct they were most worried about they were thinking about someone who would interfere with the structure of government.

Weld says he thinks GOP senators stick with Trump out of fear of retribution from the president and his supporters.

Its fear and its fueled by an obsession with getting reelected, he said.

Weld is warning Senate Republicans that absolving Trump of wrongdoing in the impeachment trial will backfire, and that instead, the GOP will pay a price at the ballot box for not removing him from office.

When asked if he thinks Republicans will lose the Senate, Weld responded: I think its quite likely.

Link:

Weld bets on New Hampshire to fuel long shot bid against Trump | TheHill - The Hill

For decades, Charles Koch has been committed to radically changing American society into a libertarian paradise, free from taxes and regulations, in which the wealthiest oligarchs, like himself, can destroy the environment, exploit their workers, and reap astonishing profits.

His "Structure of Social Change," first introduced by his top strategist, Richard Fink in the late 1970s, was a plan to weaponize philanthropy by using three areas of influence that would, together, gradually push far-right economic ideas into the American mainstream. The strategy begins with the funding of free-market university programs, something the Charles Koch Foundation has done at hundreds of higher education institutions including George Mason University, Florida State, and Western Michigan University, to produce the "intellectual raw materials" for libertarian policies. Then, Koch and his wealthy allies fund think tanks and policy shops that would convert the academic literature into usable policy proposals, which, in the third stage, Koch-funded advocacy groups promote to government officials and the greater populace.

Koch's strategy has been a wild success, but it may not have been as effective without another avenue of influence: favorable media.

A CMD investigation has found that the family foundations of Charles Koch and a number of similarly-minded right-wing megadonors, along with two donor-advised fund sponsors that they use to shepherd their charitable contributions and receive special tax breaks, have donated at over $109 million to media operations since 2015, nearly all of them conservative.

DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund (DCF), the connected donor-advised fund sponsors, have sent more than $45.7 million of their clients' money to finance media nonprofits, including the Media Research Center, Real Clear Foundation, and the National Review Institute, since 2015.

Longtime right-wing funders such as the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Charles Koch Foundation, and the Charles Koch Institute have showered many of the same media groups with millions of dollars over the same period. The recipients range from the nonprofit behind The New Criterion, a magazine that runs lengthy think pieces from conservative intellectuals, to the libertarian Reason Foundation, to James OKeefe's far-right smear operation, Project Veritas.

The host of conservative media outlets have faithfully met the needs of their often billionaire funders. The Daily Caller, heavily funded by the Charles Koch Foundation, printsopinion piecesfrom senior fellows at the climate change-denying Heartland Institute claiming the idea that human-caused climate change is destroying the earth is a "delusion." The Media Research Center's CNS News site printsessaysby right-wing personality Ben Shapiro attacking critics of free-market capitalism. Reason.com promotesthe wonders of capitalismand makes podcastsextolling the legacy of the late David Koch, a longtime Reason Foundation trustee. Project Veritas attempts tosmearthe presidential campaign of economic populist Bernie Sanders andearns praisefrom President Donald Trump. The Motion Picture Institute produces films thatattack regulationand achildren's video seriesin which an economics professor who is affiliated withseveralKoch-fundedprogramsteaches kids about the value of free-market economics. And PragerU publishes five-minute videos attackingsocialism,climate science,socialized medicine, andthe leftin general.

The 21 conservative donor nonprofits researched by CMD for this report are:

The donors investigated by CMD provided more than half of the contribution revenue over the researched time period for several conservative news operations, including the Lucy Burns Institute and the American Media Institute.

Here are some of the biggest recipients of grants from these funders.

TheLucy Burns Institute, a Madison, Wisconsin-based nonprofit and member of the right-wing State Policy Network, received the most money from these nonprofit donors out of all media recipients. From 2015-18, the Institute took in nearly $13.4 million, mostly from DonorsTrust and DCF but also from the Coors Foundation, Bradley Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Searle Freedom Trust. The Institute's 2018 tax return is not yet publicly available, but grants from these six donors amounted to 76 percent of the Institute's contribution revenue from 2015-17.

The Lucy Burns Institute runs the mainstream political database Ballotpedia. Its president, Leslie Graves, is married to GOP operative, Koch and Tea Party allyEric O'Keefe, and Institute staff have beentrained by Koch institutions.

The Lucy Burns Institute Board of Directors has members who are fixtures in the Koch-backed conservative political movement. Director Tim Dunn, the founder and CEO of an oil and gas company in Texas, is chairman of theEmpower Texans Foundation, a group funded by DonorsTrust that has worked with Koch's Americans for Prosperity, and vice chairman of the Koch-funded Texas Public Policy Foundation. Board member Jack McHugh is senior legislative analyst at the Koch-backed Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

Director Todd Graves is an attorney who represented the Wisconsin Club for Growth, a Koch network nonprofit whose leadership includes board member O'Keefe, the founder of the media group now known as theFranklin News Foundation, in Wisconsin's John Doe investigations. Plaintiffs in the case accused then-Gov. Scott Walker of illegally coordinating with the Wisconsin Club for Growth. Conservative nonprofits researched by CMD gave over $1.1 million to the Franklin News Foundation, which publishes conservative news wire and websiteThe Center Square, from 2015-18.

Brent Bozell'sMedia Research Centerwas also a major recipient of right-wing foundations' cash from 2015-18, scoring nearly $11.2 million from nine nonprofits tracked by CMD. The family foundation of Breitbart financier Robert Mercer gave $7 million to the Center from 2015-17, and DonorsTrust ($1.3 million) and the Sarah Scaife Foundation ($1.3 million) have given large amounts since 2015. The nine donors provided 27 percent of the Media Research Center's contribution revenue from 2015-17.

The Media Research Center, which operates conservative sites such as CNSNews.com and Newsbusters and bills itself as a media watchdog, is a huge favorite of right-wing politicians and media personalities. In its2018 annual report, the Center boasts of accolades from the likes of Vice President Mike Pence, Trump fanatic and Fox News host Sean Hannity, and Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

The Center's work is "a fundamental element of my show prep daily; they always have been and they always will be," said talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

Libertarian think tank the Reason Foundation received close to $9.6 million from eight nonprofits researched by CMD, including $3.8 million from the Searle Freedom Trust and nearly $1.7 million from the two Charles Koch nonprofits, from 2015-18. The late David Koch was a Reason trustee.

The Reason Foundation publishes Reason Magazine and Reason.com, which includes podcasts and a video series by libertarian media personality John Stossel.

Right-wing propaganda organizationProject Veritas, the group that took down ACORN and smeared Planned Parenthood, receives nearly one-third of its contribution revenue from DonorsTrust. From 2015-18, DonorsTrust funneled over $7.8 million to Project Veritas, accounting for 31.3 percent of its contribution revenue. The Bradley Impact Fund added $31,000 during that time period.

James O'Keefe and his Project Veritas attempt "stings" on Democratic politicians, liberal nonprofits, and media companies, most of which fail to prove anything close to the malfeasance O'Keefe hopes to expose. Perhaps most notably, the group tried to lure Washington Post reporters into writing about a woman who pretended to have had an underage affair with Alabama Senate candidate and right-wing extremist Roy Moore, but the reporters were able to sniff her out.

The American Media Institute bills itself as an independent investigative news service, but from 2015-16, Donors Trust, Donors Capital Fund, the John William Pope Foundation, and the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave it nearly $6.1 million, which was more than two-thirds of its total revenue. The following year, the Institute's revenue dropped significantly, from $5.5 million in 2016 to $577,000 in 2017.

According to Media Matters, the Institute has "duped" mainstream news outlets into publishing its stories, which included one critical of the Clinton Foundation that originally didn't meet the standards of its publisher,Fusion.

The Real Clear Foundation, which funds investigative reporting for the site RealClearPolitics.com, is almost entirely funded by seven conservative nonprofits researched by CMD. DonorsTrust is the biggest donor, having given $3.8 million from 2015-18, and other contributors include Donors Capital Fund ($1 million), the two Charles Koch foundations ($458,000), the Ed Uihlein Foundation ($250,000), and the Thomas W. Smith Foundation ($100,000). The Koch total includes a$375,000 consulting contractpaid by the Charles Koch Institute in 2018.

The Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) funds much of the content of the Daily Caller website, a site that has several ties to white nationalists and was co-founded by now-Fox News host Tucker Carlson with $3 million from right-wing donor Foster Freiss. As of 2018, Carlson was secretary of the DCNF board of directors.

Charles Koch Foundation officialsmay express concernover the site's extremism, but the foundation is DCNF's biggest donor-by a mile. The Koch Foundation and the Charles Koch Institute combined to give over $3.3 million to the Daily Caller News Foundation from 2015-18, representing 37 percent of the group's contribution revenue during that time period. Including grants from DonorsTrust, the Sarah Scaife Foundation and others, conservative nonprofits researched by CMD provided the DCNF with 58 percent of its donation revenue.

Charles Koch alleges he is not a fan of Trump, butDaily Caller and other Koch grant recipientshas often been generous to the president. In fact, Daily Calleraccepted an estimated $150,000from the 2016 Trump campaign to rent its email list. Recently, reporting revealed that Trump family friend Tom Hicks, Jr. said last year that the Daily Caller editorcould be counted onto advance Trump's personal political goals regarding Ukraine.

An anti-Muslim nonprofit led by Daniel Pipes, the Middle East Media and Research Institute is another favorite of right-wing megadonors. The Institute, an organization at the "inner core" of the nation's Islamophobia network that "attempts to portray Muslims and Arabs as being inherently irrational and violent," according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, took in $5.1 million-or 23 percent of its contribution revenue-from four conservative foundations from 2015-18: Sheldon and Miriam Adelson's family foundation ($4 million), DonorsTrust ($564,800), the Sarah Scaife Foundation ($450,000), and the Bradley Foundation ($70,000).

Other recipients of funding by the 21 groups that CMD researched include far-right propaganda video operationPrager University Foundation($4.2 million), theNational Review Institute($2.8 million), the American Enterprise Institutes magazine, National Affairs (over $1 million), theAmerican SpectatorFoundation ($663,000), and neoconservative magazineCommentary, Inc. ($125,000).

The Center for American Greatness, an extremist, pro-Trump group that has publishedalt-right-style posts online, has on staffa former Trump officialand an editor who won fellowships from the Earhart and Bradley foundations. The group earned its 501(c)(3) nonprofit tax status from the IRS in July 2017. The following year, DonorsTrust gave the Center for American Greatness $538,000, with the Bradley Foundation and Thomas W. Smith Foundation adding $150,000 and $50,000, respectively.

The Bradley Foundationwebsitedetails an additional $3 million that it gave to media groups such as the Center for American Greatness and Encounter for Culture and Education, the conservative publisher of Encounter Books, in the first nine months of 2019.

See more here:

Right-Wing Megadonors Are Financing Media Operations to Promote Their Ideologies - PR Watch

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is reportedly considering dozens of executive orders he could sign to go around Congress, and hes already promised to implement major parts of his immigration plan unilaterally if it stalls on Capitol Hill. Before dropping out of the race late last year, Senator Kamala Harris of California vowed to enact her gun-control agenda herself if Congress didnt act within 100 days of her inauguration. Even former Vice President Joe Biden, who has campaigned as a legislative consensus-builder and has been dismissive of his rivals plans to circumvent Congress, has proposed an aggressive use of executive orders.

This embrace of executive authority has disappointed, but not surprised, advocates who want to reverse a decades-long shift in power from a largely dysfunctional legislative branch to an ever more muscular executive.

Executive-branch circumvention of Congress is what everyone expects by now, says Philip Wallach, a senior fellow in governance at R Street, a libertarian think tank. It has been a decade since Congress last enacted a major new policy program, aside from a few big tax cuts and spending bills, he notes.

Read: The alarming scope of the presidents emergency powers

The past three presidents have tried to push the bounds of executive authority. In the years after 9/11, civil libertarians and some Democrats criticized the George W. Bush administration for its expansive interpretation of the presidents power to act in the name of national security. Republicans took President Barack Obama to court over his move to grant legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants after Congress refused to pass a comprehensive bill providing a path to citizenship. (The Obama administration rejected an even wilder idea of minting a trillion-dollar coin to obviate the need for Republican votes to raise the debt ceiling.)

Congress is at fault too. Over the years, lawmakers have written overly broad laws that have given executive agencies wide latitude to interpret and implement them as they see fit, argues Elizabeth Goitein, the director of the liberty-and-national-security program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a left-leaning think tank. Many disputes over such laws end up in the courts, leading to years of litigation, as has been the case with the Affordable Care Act, for example. Congress has essentially abdicated the job of lawmaking and has left that to the president, Goitein told me. Presidents have also taken to stretching the bounds of those delegations and going beyond what Congress has authorized.

Warrens advisers told me she views Congress as a partner, noting her support for repealing the authorizations of military force that were passed in 2001 and 2003 and that presidents have used to justify military actions across the globe in the decades since. But Warren is also a candidate who conceived of and built from scratch an entire federal agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that was designed to be insulated from congressional sabotage and oversight. For years, she has pushed the executive branch to be more aggressive about using its vast power to improve peoples lives. She has really thought deeply about how you can use all the tools of government to actually deliver for people, Bharat Ramamurti, the campaigns deputy director for economic policy, told me.

Follow this link:

2020 Democrats Are Already Giving Up on Congress - The Atlantic

Conservative: Thanks for the Judges, Harry!

With Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnells help, President Trump has appointed federal judges at about twice the rate of his three predecessors, notes The Washington Examiners editorial board. But Trump should be thanking McConnells predecessor, former Democratic Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada. In 2013, with President Barack Obama in the White House and Democrats controlling the Senate, Reid made the fateful and short-sighted decision to change Senate rules so that a bare majority was enough to confirm a judge, instead of 60 votes, as before. During his campaign, Trump regularly and energetically promised to appoint well-credentialed conservatives with excellent character and scholarship to judgeships a promise he has kept, much to his credit.

Culture critic: From Woodstock to Populism

Middle class in Britain was once defined by a safe, lifelong career, allegiance to the Conservative Party and defending tradition but now, Jonathan Rutherford sighs at The New Statesman, it has lost its role and the authority invested in it and has been overtaken by a new middle class fraction forged in the cultural revolution and university expansion of the 1960s. The Woodstock generation went into politics, eschewing traditionally left-wing populist economic democracy in favor of a libertarian identity politics of gender, race and sexuality. Left-wing parties became parties of the new liberal middle class, increasingly contemptuous of lives and experience of mainstream working-class voters. Yet working-class voters pushed back and voted for Brexit and their historic class enemy: the Tories. Back in 1969, no one could have believed it would turn out like this, but liberal elites have only themselves to blame.

Foreign desk: Hurrah for the US-UK Marriage

Among elite opinion-makers, Brexit is destined to turn Britain into an isolated backwater. Not so, says Brandon J. Weichert at American Greatness. The island nation had extraordinary power on its own, and subordinating British national sovereignty to the supranational government in Brussels was always a mistake. Now that its almost out, Britain should forge a stronger relationship with the United States, an Anglo-American marriage that would ensure that Brexit is meaningful and real and not at all damaging to Britain. The good news is that President Trump has already promised a new free-trade agreement with London which will allow Britain to shake off the sclerotic superstate that is the European Union.

Libertarian: A Year of Peak Entitlement

If you listen to many politicians and pundits, you would think the United States is doing terribly while the government isnt spending a dime yet the truth is the exact opposite, argues Reasons Veronique de Rugy. Among other things, the economy is entering its 11th year of expansion, while poverty is at an all-time low, and the unemployment rate hasnt been so low since 1969. Meanwhile, the government is racking up gargantuan budget deficits, largely because both political parties are spending on a whim and condemning our free-market economy the very system that has produced the wealth that everyone takes for granted. The problem, she insists, isnt that free markets dont work, but that we may have reached peak entitlement mentality.

Urban beat: Calis Homelessness Hopelessness

Despite Californias homelessness crisis, Sacramento and city halls across the Golden State are mired in the we-need-more-money mindset a mindset, sighs Issues and Insights editorial board, that has never worked. In fact, despite all the spending, and the pleas and plans for additional money, homelessness has spiked 30% since 2017 in San Francisco, 16% in Los Angeles and a whopping 43% in San Jose. As a result, nearly half of the nations homeless who sleep on the streets today do so in California. Instead of feeding government bureaucracies with taxpayers money, government officials should follow the example of San Diego, where the city took a tough-love approach that rejected widespread street camping and watched its homeless population fall. The shift in thinking and in acting is paying off.

Compiled by Karl Salzmann

See the rest here:

Thanks for the judges, Harry Reid, and other commentary - New York Post

While a pregnant woman should be legally required to help the fetus survive outside of her body whenever that is possible, she should retain the legal right to evict the fetus at any time during her pregnancy.

That was the resolution of a public debate hosted by the Soho Forum in New York City on December 8, 2019. It featured Walter Block arguing for the resolution and Kerry Baldwin arguing against it. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein moderated.

It was an Oxford-style debate. That means the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most groundmostly by picking up votes from the "undecided" categoryis victorious. Block prevailed by convincing 13.85 percent of audience members to change their minds. Baldwin was not far behind, picking up 12.31 percent of the audience.

Block is the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a prolific author on Austrian economics and libertarian theory. He's the author of Defending the Undefendable I and II, among many other books.

Kerry Baldwin is an independent researcher and writer with a B.A. in Philosophy from Arizona State University. Her work can be found at MereLiberty.com and at the Libertarian Christian Institute.

The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village.

Produced by John Osterhoudt.Photo credit: Brett Raney.

Filaments by Scott Buckley https://soundcloud.com/scottbuckley Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported CC BY 3.0

Read more from the original source:

Libertarianism and Abortion: A Debate - Reason

The Stark County Board of Elections denied to certify two candidates in the race the 7th Congressional District due to petition signature issues.

CANTON U.S. Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Lakeville, is now the only candidate for Congress to represent the 7th Congressional District on the March 17 primary ballot.

On Monday morning, the Stark County Board of Elections certified a ballot that didnt include the names of the Democratic and Libertarian candidates for Congress representing the 7th. The board staff said they had failed to submit enough valid signatures.

However, a Knox County elections official said her office mistakenly designated 10 signatures submitted by a Libertarian candidate as invalid.

Brandon Lape, 38, of Danville, filed a formal request Monday afternoon asking the Stark County Board of Elections to reverse its decision to kick him off the ballot.

Three candidates met Wednesdays filing deadline to seek their partys nomination to be congressman for the 7th District, which includes most of Stark County.

They were Gibbs, Lape and Democrat Patrick Pikus, of Plain Township, who also ran in 2018.

Gibbs and Pikus, as members of major parties, had to submit 50 valid petition signatures by registered voters in their party who lived in the congressional district.

Lape, 38, as a member of a minor party, had to submit 25 valid petition signatures.

Pikus submitted the minimum of 50 but board staff found nine signatures to be invalid.

Pikus, 54, a business manager for the Timken Co., said he accepted responsibility for "rookie mistake. ... I thought I had 50 good ones."

He said he had been reluctant to run again, but when he saw that no other Democrat was apparently interested in running, he started collecting signatures and "took them at their word that they were registered (to vote)."

"Nobody is at fault besides me for not double checking," he said, adding that he would review his options.

Because all of the people who signed Lapes petition lived in Ashland and Knox counties, the Ashland and Knox county boards of election verified the signatures. Stark County, as the most populous county in the 7th District, decides whose candidacies to certify.

Elections staff in Ashland and Knox counties initially invalidated 23 of 42 petition signatures submitted by Lape, leaving him with only 19, six short of the minimum. They found two signatures were by people not registered to vote, two were not registered to vote from the addresses provided and one signature was invalid because it was by the petition circulator. They found 18 were signed by voters who had voted in a recent Republican or Democratic primary, which made them ineligible to sign Lapes petition.

But Kim Horn, the director of the Knox County Board of Elections, said hours later her office mistakenly concluded that 10 of candidate Lapes signatures were invalid. Horn said her offices voter registration database wrongly designated several voters as Republican or Democratic voters when they hadnt voted in a Republican or Democratic primary since 2016.

By law, a person ceases to be affiliated with a political party if they dont vote in that partys primary for at least two calendar years.

Regine Johnson, the Stark County Board of Elections deputy director, said the board would choose whether to hold the hearing of reconsideration. If it takes place, it would likely happen by Jan. 13.

Stark County Commissioner Janet Weir Creighton, a Republican whos not up for re-election in 2020, said in an interview about the petition process this month that she always advises candidates to get more signatures than the minimum. And to have an official at party headquarters check the signatures against the rolls of registered voters.

"If youre required to get 50 good signatures, you dont get 50. You get more than what you need," she said. "If you cant follow these rules then I question why youre running for office. ... I would be sick if it cost my candidacy because of an error."

Creighton added the earlier petition filing deadline made it harder to get signatures as people were more focused on the holidays.

Write-in candidates have until Jan. 6 to file for the March 17 primary. They have to fill out a form but do not have to submit signatures. They are not listed on the ballot. In the Democratic primary for 7th Congressional District congressman, which now has no candidates, the write-in candidate who has at least 50 voters write in their name on the ballot and wins a plurality of the write-in vote would then become the Democratic candidate. That persons name would be listed on the ballot in November along with Gibbs name, said Travis Secrest, an administrative assistant for the Stark County Board of Elections

Non-partisan candidates who wish to run for Congress and be listed on the November ballot have until March 16 to file, said Secrest. They must submit at least 2,616 valid signatures by any registered voters in the district.

Candidates denied a place on the ballot due to signature issues are not eligible to run as write-in candidates or non-partisan candidates.

The Board also chose to leave off the ballot liquor options for Aldi Ohio in the Canton 6-C precinct and the Palace Theatre in Canton 2-B due to both entities submitting an insufficient number of valid petition signatures.

In addition, the Board also declined to certify three candidates seeking party committee positions due to an insufficient number of valid signatures. That included Patrick J. Glasgow, who was seeking to be the male member on the Libertarian Party State Central Committee for the 7th Congressional District. Glasgow would have been unopposed. And also denied a spot on the primary ballot were Gloria Ann Jeter of precinct Canton 6-C and Patrick Hoch of Canton 7-F for Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee.

Patrick Dorosky is now the only candidate for the Canton 6-C Stark County Democratic Party Central Committeeman. No one else sought the Canton 7-F seat. Eligible write-in candidates may seek the spot or if no one does Stark County Democratic Party

Chairman Samuel J. Ferruccio, whos also the chairman of the Stark County Board of Elections, can appoint any Democratic registered voter in Canton 7-F to fill the seat.

Reach Repository writer Robert Wang at (330) 580-8327 or robert.wang@cantonrep.com. Twitter: @rwangREP.

Read more from the original source:

Bob Gibbs now unopposed in 2020; other candidates removed from ballot - Massillon Independent

Back in the dark ages when mandatory seat belt use was relatively new in Indiana, I had a colleague who liked to say that she never nagged people about buckling up when they were riding with her. In fact, she never mentioned it to her passengers.

Why? she was inevitably asked.

Natural selection was her answer.

I like to use that story as a good analogy for what I consider proper government. She gives people the information needed to make good choices, sometimes offers incentives for making good choices and can even provide the mechanisms to make good choices easier. But if people insist on making poor choices anyway, well, thats on them.

Of course, our government driver (to continue the analogy) seldom stops when she should. She employs various coercive tactics to get those passengers in line. (Yes, I am being deliberate in the choice of pronoun; were talking about the nanny state, after all.)

Such as, buckle up or this car isnt moving. Or, if you dont buckle up, I will harangue you mercilessly for the whole trip. Or, the penalty for not buckling up, payable at the end of the journey, will be a hefty fee that I will send collectors out to get from your childrens children into the 10th generation.

In my experience, people who advocate for government solutions, and even bigger and more expensive government when those solutions fail to materialize, seldom have to justify themselves. They are merely following the spirit of the age, no explanations required.

But those of us who advocate government restraint or, heaven forbid, limited government, are always put on the defensive. We are either insensitive to human misery to the point of heartlessness or hopelessly ignorant of the need for immediate action to avert imminent disaster.

In all the response I get to these columns (thank you very much), by far the most common form of criticism is from readers who misinterpret, either carelessly or deliberately, the libertarian thrust of my government critiques.

I always mean, in those pieces, the least government necessary, which, believe it or not, was a founding principle of this country. They always insist I really meant, no government at all, then proceed to deliver the Gotcha! they think I deserve.

What about the fire department when your house is burning down, they will ask, or the police department when youre robbed? What about that pothole you want filled in?

Arent those all socialism, you self-serving hypocrite?

Actually, no, theyre not. They are legitimate government functions.

My favorite Gotcha! showing up in my email with tiresome regularity is, So, I guess youve refused your Social Security payments, huh?

No, I have not. Had I the opportunity to opt out and use the money for my own retirement investments, I would have done so. But participation was mandatory. To whom am I trying to prove what if I dont take money out of the system I was forced to put money into?

The tenet of libertarianism people seem to have the most trouble grasping, though it really should be the easiest, is that government legitimately tries to keep us from hurting each other but risks overstepping its bounds when it tries to keep us from hurting ourselves. Autonomy should be sacred.

So, I find myself having to explain that, no, I do not object to Gov. Eric Holcombs proposal to ban Hoosier motorists from using their cell phones while driving unless theyre hands-free.

There are rules for the road that are open to challenge on libertarian grounds. There is no reason to require me to use seat belts when driving or wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle except to keep me from behaving stupidly.

But there are also rules that protect me from others stupid behavior, such as the one against driving while drunk.

Mandating hands-free-only cell phone use falls into the latter category. I am the one you might run into while youre fiddling with that stupid phone.

See? Simple.

Of course, there are a couple of potholes in the road an earnest libertarian should be aware of whenever he gives in and acknowledges that, yes, OK, fine, government should do this.

One is the maxim that by the time government acts, government action is usually beside the point. Most cellphones today have Bluetooth, and most new cars have systems that sync to it, so its likely that the moment you get behind the wheel your phone automatically become hands-free.

The other is that when government is given the legitimate inch, it will go the illegitimate mile. Setting reasonable speed limits is a legitimate function, but it requires local knowledge of local conditions. But few were shocked to see a national 55 mph limit that, for a time, was the most ignored law in America.

If Holcomb gets his way with cellphones, all sorts of distracted driving will be on the endangered list, everything from playing the radio to scarfing down those fries you got from the drive-through. Then dont be surprised if there are hefty fines for talking to your in-car companions and there are calls for hands-free nose-picking.

Government will always always, always, always go too far.

I know you might not believe that. But the evidence is plentiful if you choose to ignore it, thats on you.

I respect your autonomy.

And, you know. Natural selection.

Leo Morris is a columnist for Indiana Policy Review, a magazine published by the conservative think tank Indiana Policy Review Foundation, which is headquartered in Fort Wayne. Contact him at leoedits@yahoo.com.

See the original post:

Flashpoint: Holcomb and cell phones: The inch that becomes a mile - Terre Haute Tribune Star

The most interesting candidate from the 2016 presidential race has a new political home, and hes making plans to visit Iowa next year in what appears to be another shot at the White House.

Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafees campaign last cycle was widely mocked by political elites. He appeared in just one Democratic presidential debate, where his most memorable TV moment was telling the CNN moderator that he was being being a little rough in criticizing Chafees vote in the U.S. Senate to repeal banking regulations.

Chafee dropped out of the race fewer than two weeks after the debate. Now hes back in politics, under a new political banner.

Chafee changed his official residence to Wyoming this year, and took the opportunity to update his party registration after being a Republican, and independent and a Democrat at various times in his political career. Chafee said the Libertarian Partys values aligned most closely with his own.

Anti-war, anti-deficit, in favor of the 4th Amendment and gay rights, anti-capital punishment. Thats me, Chafee told me in a recent phone interview.

Chafee is scheduled to attend the Libertarian Party of Iowas state convention next February, alongside at least three declared Libertarian presidential candidates. For now, Chafee says hes only getting involved and meeting new people, but he has made zero effort to refute media speculation that hes planning another bid for the presidency, this time as part of a third party.

The two leading leftist candidates for president Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have both faced questions about their loyalty to the Democratic Party. Warren was a Republican until the 1990s, while Sanders has identified as and run for office as an independent for most of his life. Another Democratic candidate, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, has been accused by party elites of being a Republican plant.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

On the Republican side, President Donald Trump has previously been registered as a Democrat and an independent, while donating to candidates from both major parties. One of his challengers for the 2020 GOP nomination, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, was a Libertarian Party candidate for vice president last cycle.

Trump challenger is part of great American party-switching tradition

But nobody running for president has as peculiar a political history as Chafee, who has run for state or national office as a Republican, a Democrat and an independent.

Chafee was appointed to the U.S. Senate in 1999 as a Republican after the seat was left vacant by his own fathers death. He won reelection as a Republican the next year, served one full term, and was defeated in 2006 by a Democratic challenger.

After leaving the Senate, Chafee registered as an independent and endorsed his former Senate colleague Barack Obama for president in 2008.

In 2010, Chafee was elected governor of Rhode Island as an independent, with a narrow plurality over the Republican and Democratic candidates, making him the countrys only no-party governor at the time.

As governor, Chafee switched again to be a Democrat, in part because there was no national political support for independent governors. However, he was seen as a vulnerable incumbent and ultimately decided not to seek reelection.

Chafee is quick to point out that his registration has varied, but his position on important issues has stayed the same: I have not waffled or changed.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

To the extent Chafee is discussed in national politics at all these days, he is defined by his quirks the poor debate performance, the unauthorized Lincoln Chafees Dank Meme Stash page on Facebook, or his weirdly intense dedication to transitioning the United States to the metric system, to name a few.

Its an unfortunate and unfair characterization for a political figure who is saying something different from anyone else on the national stage. His prosperity through peace platform from 2016 emphasized a realistic foreign policy, not so hellbent on policing the world and raising tension with foes.

Chafee hopes polarizing and unpopular candidates nominated by the major parties in 2020 will propel a third-party candidate to greater success.

This 2020 has potential to be very, very unique depending on who the Democrats nominate. Certainly, President Trump has his base core, but with the daily chaos I think the potential is going to there for something to be very different, he said.

Comments: (319) 339-3156; adam.sullivan@thegazette.com

See the rest here:

Lincoln Chafee is coming back to Iowa, with yet another party affiliation - The Gazette

Surrounded by fellow Libertarians during a 2018 election night watch party at a rented Airbnb in Fort Worth, Eric Espinoza, who was running for state Rep. Jonathan Sticklands seat, saw a Facebook message notification pop up on his phone.

Its people like you who are preventing other candidates from winning, he recalls the message saying, though he doesnt recall which candidate the sender supported.

I was like, Hey, guys, look I think I finally made an impact, Espinoza remembers saying, as he passed his phone around to others in the crowded living room.

That to me was like, OK, cool, I was able to affect something so much that somebody who knows nothing about me, and nothing about why I ran, blames me for somebody losing when its not the votes. Its not that I took votes from them; its that people didnt want to vote for that person, and they had a better option.

Republicans and Democrats alike will blame third-party candidates for siphoning votes from traditionally two-way races. Espinoza not only took votes that might have gone to Stickland, a Republican, but he had more votes than Sticklands margin of victory. Stickland beat his Democratic challenger by fewer than 1,500 votes, and Espinoza, in third place, had racked up more than 1,600.

Its still rare for third-party candidates to capture enough votes to potentially sway an outcome in the past three general elections, there have been just six such instances, according to a Hearst Newspapers analysis. But the number is growing, in a sign of tightening Texas elections.

Tight races getting tighter

As races in Texas become tighter, more third-party candidates are having an impact on elections. Over the past three general elections, there were six races in which a third-party candidate won more of the vote than the margin of victory.

Year

Race

Highest-Scoring Third-Party Candidate

Party

Third-Party Candidate's Percentage of the Vote

Margin of Victory

2014

U. S. Representative District 23 (Democrat Incumbent Democrat Pete P. Gallego and Republican Will Hurd)

Ruben Corvalan

Libertarian

2.54%

2.10%

2016

U. S. Representative District 23 (Republican Incumbent Will Hurd and Democrat Pete P. Gallego)

Ruben S. Corvalan

Libertarian

4.74%

1.33%

2016

Member, State Board of Education, District 5 (Republican Ken Mercer and

Democrat Rebecca Bell-Metereau)

Ricardo Perkins

Libertarian

4.72%

3.94%

2018

State Representative District 132 (Republican Mike Schofield and Democrat Gina Calanni)

Daniel Arevalo

Libertarian

1.66%

0.17%

2018

Member, State Board of Education, District 12 (Republican Pam Little and Democrat Suzanne Smith)

Rachel Wester

Libertarian

2.66%

1.52%

2018

State Representative District 92 (Republican Incumbent Jonathan Stickland and Democrat Steve Riddell)

Eric P. Espinoza

Libertarian

2.75%

2.39%

In 2014, one third-party candidate had the potential to affect a races outcome. In 2016, there were two such races. And in 2018, there were three. (None won an election.)

Two of the six races were Republican U.S. Rep. Will Hurds victories in Congressional District 23 in 2014 and 2016. Two were State Board of Education races.

Only one of those third-party efforts could be considered an outright spoil, when Libertarian Daniel Arevalo got 1,106 votes in a Texas House race in 2018 that saw Democrat Gina Calanni beat Republican incumbent Mike Schofield by just 113 votes.

In all six races, the margin of victory was low, most at about 2 percent or less, and the third-party candidates were Libertarian.

A year after some of the most competitive state-level races in decades, Texas Republicans moved to make it easier for third-party candidates to receive and maintain a spot on the ballot. In doing so, they returned ballot access to the Green Party after it lost it following the 2016 election.

Maybe Republicans are just kind of viewing this as, either you could call it an insurance policy or maybe its a way to subject the Democrats to things theyve been subjected to on the part of the Libertarians, said Phil Paolino, an associate professor of political science at the University of North Texas who has studied the effect of third parties on presidential races.

As elections get tighter, Paolino said, you might see a few more races where third-party candidates are able to cover the margins whether itll have the effect of altering the results is a big question.

During a more competitive election, with the stakes higher, some voters may be less likely to vote for third-party candidates and risk a major partys chances, Paolino said. In the six recent cases where third-party candidates drew more votes than the margin of victory, its impossible to know the outcome if they hadnt run whether their supporters would have voted for a Democrat, Republican or skipped going to the ballot box at all, he said.

For subscribers: Texas Green Party has qualified for 2020 ballot and welcomes Democrats climate change focus

If the Republicans behind the bill were hoping to hurt their Democratic competitors by allowing Green Party candidates, who typically pull votes from Democrats, onto the ballot, that appears unlikely from a historical standpoint, at least. Green Party candidates never came close to tipping a race when they were on the ballot in 2014 and 2016.

Whitney Bilyeu, a representative to the Libertarian National Committee for a five-state Southern region that includes Texas, said she thinks Republicans and Democrats in Texas are getting very afraid of us.

When we see things like this, which we expect them to continue to happen, it is a sign that people are finally figuring out, No. 1, they have other options, Bilyeu said. And No. 2, that third option, which is us, is the only one that actually gives them what they want and are about what they claim to be about.

Bilyeu said both major parties have reacted to Libertarian candidates success by trying to limit their access to the ballot.

The Texas Green Party did not respond to requests for comment.

Another voice that is pushing ideas

Republican Rep. Drew Springer, who sponsored the bill, said he hadnt studied third-party election results until a reporter presented him with an analysis. The North Texan has run unopposed since he was first elected in 2012.

Springers bill required that third-party candidates either pay a filing fee or submit a petition to run for election, just as major party candidates are already expected to do. Filing fees range from $300 for a State Board of Education seat to $3,125 for a U.S. House race.

Prior to Springers bill passing, Republican Rep. Mayes Middleton had tried to pass a bill, HB 4416, which would have doubled the threshold for parties retaining ballot access by requiring candidates receive 10 percent of the vote in the previous general election.

An amendment Springer later added to his own bill reduced the ballot access threshold to 2 percent of the vote in the previous five general elections. Springer said its purpose was not to impact election results but to bring more voices to the table.

The biggest effect is the fact that you have another voice that is pushing ideas during the campaigning process, Springer said. Democrats and Republicans have to factor those policies into what theyre doing; I think that helps the whole process.

Of the presidential races that Paolino studied, third-party candidates did guide presidential priorities in some cases, such as in 1992, when Ross Perot took 19 percent of the vote, the most won by any independent or third-party candidate since former president Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.

Perots campaign about the dangers of the deficit did create some motivation for the two major parties to think about ways to reduce the deficit and ultimately, as we saw by the end of Clinton administration, produced a surplus, Paolino said. Its the idea that if 19 percent of the voters out there might be concerned with this, then its going to be better if we can show were doing something about it.

While Libertarians success in Texas has mostly been in local elections, Bilyeu said she still thinks the direction at the Legislature has been influenced by the partys platform, including its advocacy for marijuana legalization. The Legislature added several more conditions to the states medical marijuana program in its most recent session.

We are impacting elections one way or another, whether were covering the spread (between Democrats and Republicans) or not, because were getting messages out there that would not be heard otherwise and were putting candidates from these old parties on notice, Bilyeu said.

For subscribers: Libertarian, Green parties sue Texas over ballot requirements

Ballot-access battle

The Texas Libertarian and Green parties, as well as other minor party groups and some individuals, in July sued the state over its ballot requirements, including those imposed in Springers bill.

They argue that ballot access requirements one of which calls for them to track down thousands of voters who did not cast ballots in a primary election and get their signatures create a financial barrier to candidates. A federal judge denied the states motion to dismiss the suit Monday but declined to temporarily block the requirements.

Also on Monday, House Speaker Dennis Bonnen requested that the Committee on Elections during the interim period until lawmakers next meet in 2021 monitor the bill, among others, to ensure intended legislative outcome.

Espinoza, the Libertarian candidate in the 2018 race won by Stickland, said laws that restrict third-party ballot access wont prevent them from spreading their message and getting through to voters.

You can do all the political posturing you want to, but if the public does not see the change they want, thats not going to matter, Espinoza said. Theyre going to try to vote for someone outside the two-party system whos going to do what they say theyre going to do and enhance the individual freedoms of each voter.

Data reporter Stephanie Lamm contributed to this report. taylor.goldenstein@chron.com

Excerpt from:

As Texas elections get tighter, more third-party candidates are making inroads - Houston Chronicle

Former two-term Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld became the first Republican to mount a long-shot primary challenge against President Donald Trump. He announced his candidacy for president on April 15, 2019. The 2016 Libertarian vice presidential candidate told ABC News he would have been "ashamed" if he'd passed up on running against the president for the Republican nomination. Weld has touted his bipartisan record and ability to court independent voters in early voting states as his pathway to the White House.

Name: William "Bill" Floyd Weld

Party: Republican -- with a stint in the Libertarian Party from 2016-2019

Date of birth: July 31, 1945

Age: 74

Hometown: Smithtown, New York

Family: Weld has five adult children -- David, Ethel, Mary, Quentin and Frances -- with his first wife, Susan Roosevelt Weld, a great-granddaughter of Theodore Roosevelt. Now, Weld lives in Canton, Massachusetts, with his wife, author Leslie Marshall, and has three adult stepchildren.

Education: Weld graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College with a bachelor of arts degree in Classics in 1966. He received an international economics degree from Oxford University the following year, before returning to Harvard Law School and graduating in 1970.

What he does now: After announcing his candidacy, Weld took an unpaid leave of absence from Mintz Levin law firm. He is currently a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and an associate member of the InterAction Council. He also sits on the board of directors of cannabis company Acreage Holdings, alongside former House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and on the board of Just Energy Group Inc.

What he used to do: Weld ran as the vice presidential nominee on the 2016 Libertarian ticket. He served as governor of Massachusetts from 1991-1997. He previously served at least seven years as a federal prosecutor, first as U.S. attorney for the district of Massachusetts from 1981-1986 and then as U.S. assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division of the Justice Department from 1986-1988. Early in his career, Weld participated in the Watergate impeachment inquiry as legal counsel on the House Judiciary Committee.

Key life/career moments:

Weld began his legal career as junior counsel on the House Judiciary Committee's staff in the Watergate impeachment inquiry. After working as a staffer in Congress and then as a private attorney in Boston, President Ronald Reagan appointed Weld as U.S. attorney for the district of Massachusetts in 1981. Five years later, Reagan promoted Weld to assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division of the Justice Department.

Weld was elected governor of Massachusetts in 1990, becoming the first Republican to win a gubernatorial election in the state in 20 years. During his governorship, Weld cut taxes 21 times, led 16 international trade missions, oversaw six upgrades for the state's bond ratings, expanded abortion access and broadened LGBTQ rights, according to his campaign website. He was regarded as one of the most fiscally conservative governors in the country.

In 1996, Weld ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate, losing to John Kerry. Weld resigned as governor in 1997 to pursue a nomination by President Bill Clinton as the U.S. ambassador to Mexico but withdrew his nomination after former Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., effectively blocked it in committee. For the next decade, Weld worked a variety of legal and financial jobs including a stint as the chief executive officer of Decker College in Louisville, Kentucky. He re-entered the political sphere in 2005, in an unsuccessful bid for governor of New York.

Weld ran for vice president of the United States in 2016 on the Libertarian ticket with Gary Johnson. He returned to the Republican party in early 2019 when he announced his presidential exploratory committee.

Where he stands on some issues:

Weld has positioned himself as a Republican who blends fiscal conservatism with social liberalism. His campaign told ABC News that getting their candidate on a debate stage with the president is a top priority -- but that's unlikely to take place.

"The RNC and the Republican Party are firmly behind the president. Any effort to challenge the president's nomination is bound to go absolutely nowhere," a RNC spokeswoman told ABC News in July.

In his first 100 days in office, Weld said he would first tackle cutting spending and rebuilding relations with close U.S. allies.

Weld strongly opposes Trump's tariffs and his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal but has agreed with him on wanting to remove troops from Afghanistan, according to Axios. His website indicates that on the economy, Weld supports tax cuts and reigning in spending. On social issues, Weld supports gay marriage, abortion rights and marijuana legalization.

Weld's campaign website prioritizes the issues of "income inequality, debts and deficits, and climate change." He said he would have the U.S. rejoin the Paris climate accord.

Fundraising:

As of July 2019, Weld's campaign told ABC News that since entering the race in mid-April, they raised nearly $700,000 from 7,000 total donors. On top of supporter contributions, Weld gave at least $181,000 of his own money to the campaign, bringing the second quarter total to $869,000. The average donation for the quarter was $98, according to the campaign.

Weld reported $208,043 cash on hand following the third quarter deadline in mid-October.

During the 2016 presidential race, when Weld ran on the Libertarian ticket, he accepted donations from super PACs.

What you might not know about him:

In 1994, Weld was reelected as Massachusetts governor with 71% of the vote, the largest margin of victory in state history.

Weld's family traces its history back to America's early days, with one of his ancestors' graduating from Harvard College in 1650 and another, William Floyd, signing the Declaration of Independence.

Former special counsel Robert Mueller's sole federal contribution on record went to Weld in 1996 -- two checks totaling $450 during Weld's U.S. Senate race, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In his time between serving as Massachusetts governor and running for New York governor, Weld published three novels.

ABC News' Will Steakin contributed to this report.

Read more:

Bill Weld: Everything you need to know about the 2020 presidential candidate - ABC News

According to an October Rasmussen poll, 38 percent of likely voters say they intend to vote for "someone other than President Trump or the Democratic presidential nominee" in the 2020 US presidential election.

In a three-way presidential race, 38 percent constitutes a winning plurality, assuming it's distributed among the states such that the Electoral College outcome reflects it.

As a longtime activist in America's largest "third" political party, the Libertarian Party, I'm prone to find that number encouraging.

On the other hand, I've seen numbers like this before and I've watched them not pan out on Election Day. Here's why:

Pluralities or majorities of independent, "swing," and even Democratic and Republican voters always respond positively to polls asking them, generically, about the desirability of a "third party" in American politics.

But generically and specifically are two different animals.

America already has numerous "third parties." In addition to the Libertarians, we have the Greens, the Constitution Party, and a wide assortment of ideological parties across the spectrum, from openly socialist to openly fascist. Even the Prohibition Party, founded in 1869, still nominates a presidential slate every four years.

But most voters who perennially say they don't want a Democrat or Republican for president next time don't agree on a specific alternative. They either vote for the Democrat or Republican for president, or just stay home, when Election Day rolls around.

Even in 2016, when the "major" parties each chose widely disliked and distrusted presidential candidates, only about 5 percent of those who voted strayed outside the major party fold.

Why don't third-party candidates do well, especially at the presidential level? A number of factors play into the poor results.

One is that third-party candidates, already far outspent by the Democrats and Republicans, have to spend lots of the money they raise just getting on ballots. Their actual campaign budgets amount to rounding errors compared to those of their major party opponents. Even those who might prefer a mouse to a whirlwind have trouble hearing the offerings of the former over the din of the latter.

Another is a "fear factor," naturally occurring but energetically encouraged and cultivated by the big players. Don't "spoil" the election. Vote against the major party candidate you fear most, rather than for the minor party candidate you like best. Your only "real" alternative is "the lesser evil."

A third problem is bad voting systems. Ranked choice voting would allow those fearful voters to choose the candidates they prefer while remaining confident that if their first choices failed, their second choices wouldn't be eliminated.

Next year, voters will be told by the major parties that they must choose either four more years of the banana republicanism they chose in 2016, or a buffet of microwaved and reheated 50- and 80-year old New Deal and Great Society programs doused with supposedly "progressive" sriracha.

That won't be the case. Third-party options will likely be on offer in all 50 states. The 38 percent of voters who claim to want one should actually choose one instead of finding reasons not to.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

Go here to read the rest:

Voters who say they want a third-party option need to actually vote for one - Southgate News Herald

Conservatives are often slandered as being racist, classist and misogynistic as a result of their traditional political views. While there are certainly conservatives who may display some of these traits, they are generally condemned by the mainstream conservative movement as being too extreme. Recent months have seen fringe conservatives attempt to legitimize themselves by claiming to be the future of the conservative movement in the United States. These fringe conservatives represent a far-right threat to the conservative movement. In reality, the fringe conservatives and their allies attempt to slander the conservative party by incorrectly claiming that they represent the right-wing of American politics. They are what liberals conflate with the moderate conservatives that make up nearly 50 percent of U.S. citizens.

At the core of the conservative movement is constitutional rights, personal freedoms and economic stability through capitalism. While people may disagree with these political stances, these are in no way fringe ideologies. These are mainstream political agendas held by many politically active individuals. The fringe that exists within the right-wing is a loud but small minority that is used to smear anyone right of the center.

In recent months, far-right provocateurs have flooded mainstream conservative events in a desperate attempt for attention and recognition. These far-right individuals are outright rejected by the mainstream conservative movement for their radical, racist and overly nationalistic rhetoric. Led by an individual who hosts a podcast called America First, these far-right young men believe in an America for white Europeans. This is by no means the mainstream conservative perspective. The mainstream conservative movement focuses on individual rights, constitutionalism and strong state governments. None of these are in any fringe.

One of the largest conservative organizations, Young Americas Foundation, recently distanced themselves from Michelle Malkin, who previously was associated with them. This individual had ties to far-right extremists, and the organization immediately excommunicated her. The firing comes as a result of Malkin's vocal support for 22-year-old far-right provocateur and his allies. YAF gives a platform to a broad range of speakers with a range of views within the mainstream of conservative thought," wrote YAF. "Immigration is a vital issue that deserves robust debate. But there is no room in mainstream conservatism or at YAF for holocaust deniers, white nationalists, street brawlers, or racists." YAF, which is often smeared as being supportive of white supremacists, has made it clear that they will not associate with such figures.

As far-right groups continue to push for recognition and legitimacy, it is essential that both liberals and conservatives alike condemn the far-right for its fascist ideology, illegitimate support base and weak arguments. The true voice of the conservative movement boasts classical liberalism, libertarian economic ideology and a weak federal government that allows local governments to govern their people. Any ideology acting upon race, class or ethnicity, should not and is not welcome in the modern-day conservative movement.

To conclude, there are several key organizations that represent the conservative movement on college campuses. On heavily liberal campuses, such as the UMass system, these organizations are weak in their appearance due to limited membership. Young Americas Foundation represents a conservative movement with an emphasis on free speech and a strong military presence. Young Americans for Liberty is a more libertarian-minded organization with a strong emphasis on prison reform, drug legalization and a weak federal government. Many of their positions promote liberal ideology as well. Turning Point USA promotes capitalist economies, supports a border wall and exhibits heavy support for President Donald Trump, which oftentimes contradicts their small government philosophy. College Republican clubs often exist on college campuses; however, they can push loyalty to the Republican Party rather than the conservative movement. Each of these organizations do have flaws, however, I would suggest true conservative students involve themselves with YAF and YAL in order to truly see how the conservative movement exists within the frame of a college campus.

Young America's Foundation Excommunicates Michelle Malkin for Defending Nick Fuentes

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/president

Read the original here:

True conservative views are not fringe - The Mass Media