WHY TRUMP DOESN’T NEED A GROUND GAME AND CLINTON DOES

The political pundits and media commentators have found a new conventional wisdom to share.  They are decrying the fact that Donald Trump doesn’t appear to have a solid ground game which they have decided is necessary for him to win in November. And, Democrats especially in states where the Trump campaign seems less organized structurally, may be adding this ground game factor into their already naive “Trump can’t win therefore we can’t lose” belief.

Since most of these commentators, especially those just out of college, have little or no campaign experience it is a wonder that they even know what a ground game is.  Before deciding if a candidate needs one we should ask what exactly constitutes a ground game.

In my experience a ground game, or field campaign, is the organizing of volunteers and paid staff to do a number of campaign actions.  First and foremost to canvass door to door spreading information about the candidate and identifying the candidates supporters. This is particularly important in contests that do not attract media attention and massive television /radio advertising that can spread the message. In today's age, when few voters are interested in reading more than a bumper sticker, literature has lost its value and certainly when your platform is “Make America Great Again” you don’t need to distribute a slogan.

It is also critical to identify supporters if one plans a major pull operation on Election Day to get a maximum turnout.  Trump’s apparent plan to win is to get the angry, the disaffected, the disgruntled, and the disappointed to come out as never before and protest all that they don’t like by voting for him. He has no identifiable bloc of voters he can safely blind pull. And, those secret Trump voters are not going to identify themselves to canvassers or phone callers. Trump’s GOTV plan will be to bombard people with TV ads to generate turnout.

Clinton on the other hand, with an enthusiasm problem, and in a way appealing to those satisfied with the status quo but who would like to see some changes needs a sophisticated ground game.  She needs to “blind pull” minority voters: African-Americans, Latinos, and Asian-American’s to get a maximum turnout from those groups which polls show will vote overwhelmingly for her.  She needs to focus on key states that fit the demographics of her supporters and because of the Electoral College system she needs selective state strategies.

Trump is basing his campaign on a national homogeneity. Not one of ideology but one of similarity.  He is appealing to the masses that become fans of a particular television show and cut across the age and gender and race demographic lines.  These are the very TV shows he has produced and made a name for himself in -- the reality shows.  The 21st century version of the silver screen or the living room tube.    

For some time it has been evident that the Presidential contest gets the greatest voter turnout in our country.  If it were not for the Electoral College, which makes some votes worth more than others and leads to a focus on states that polls show are very close, there would be no need to pull out voters for President. A ground game involves covering polling places - inside to prevent abuses; outside to greet voters and at the doors and on the phones pulling out voters.  I have already explained why you don’t need to pull voters in a Presidential election unless there is clear evidence of closeness of the expected vote.  As for poll overage - few of our precinct officials today know how, if it is possible to alter or affect the results, and our volunteer watchers usually have little knowledge of how to prevent it if they do.  As for poll greeters since the Presidential race is driving the turnout most voters are interested in sample ballot cards for down ballot candidates since their Presidential choice is the reason they are coming out to vote.

Before the electoral debacle of 2000 and Obama’s close wins in North Carolina and Omaha in 2008 the political punditry had been talking more and more about the homogeneity of the American electorate especially when it came to voting for President.  In fact if we look at our recent Presidents, more have won by carrying most of the states, e.g. FDR, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Clinton in ‘96. In fact what has often been the case was a tendency for a national consensus to develop behind one candidate.  The new use of social media and the predominance of 24/7 cable news may have made the ground game much less crucial to victory in a Presidential general election.

12 July 2016

ENGLAND HAS LEFT THE E. U. WILL AMERICA LEAVE THE WORLD?

As decades roll by it often occurs that people seemingly forget the trials and tribulations of past years.  In fact the often replace those learned memories with a nostalgia for a time before them which is seen as simpler and peaceful.  Such is apparently happening in the United Kingdom, parts of Europe and in America.

For almost five hundred years the nations of Europe consolidated their borders and warred with each other forming often different alliances based on religion and on national ambition.  With the devastation of World War I, and the almost  total annihilation of populations in WWII, many European leaders began advocating some form of European integration.  With American support first the Benelux nations formed a common market and then when DeGaulle and Adenauer reconciled the two great rival nations France and Germany the European Common Market was born.  In the 1970's with both of those out of power the Common Market merged with a rival European Free Trade Union and created the European Union which the United Kingdom (after a popular referendum) joined. The EU was the culmination of efforts to forge a new Europe one with continental identity and one that would exist in peace. When soviet control of Eastern Europe imploded in 1990 those nations sought entrance into the EU as a sign of their desire to be European.

Almost forty years have gone by since England voted to join the EU.  And it is now over seventy years since the end of World War II.  The causes, the incentives and the motivations for integration in Europe apparently have been forgotten as national economies struggle with  recession and debt. And, a great migration of Middle Eastern refugees (Muslim) floods the EU countries which allow easy entry from one nation to the other. 

In the United Kingdom a coalition of the disaffected and dissatisfied, often inflamed by the fears of the Muslim migration, voted to "Leave"  the European Union.  Despite the support for remaining in Europe which was announced by every major British political party the vote to leave garnered 52%.  There are now increased fissures within the four nations of the United Kingdom and great uncertainty in Europe where right wing groups in other nations are urging withdrawal.

As America watches post war Europe unravel it faces an possible Exit of its own. US foreign policy since the days of Theodore Roosevelt has been based on urging the world to unite to solve problems. The United States was the moving force behind the League of Nations (which we did not join), the World Court (which we also failed to ratify), and after WWII the United Nations, and a myriad of specialized agencies: the International Labor Organization, the Universal Postal Union, the United Nations Children's Fund, the World Trade Organization, and others.  America also led the formation of regional organizations mostly keyed toward mutual defense and collective security: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, The Organization of American States, the Association of East Asian Nations -- and other regions soon copied these models, e.g. The Organization of African Unity, the Arab League, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union the a Commonwealth of Independent States.  America has preached two political philosophical values across the world -- Democracy and Federalism.

In 1940 a non-politician - Wendell Willkie - took the Republican nomination for  President  by  a popular people’s revolt against the party establishment.  Willkie among his many remembered arguments was his belief that we now lived in One World. It was that phrase and his advocacy that moved the Republican Party away from isolationism and began, what Sen. Vandenberg of Michigan completed, a bipartisan foreign policy that lasted almost fifty years.  It also enabled FDR to bring America into the role of world leader - the role it had rejected when sought by Woodrow Wilson.

Now a new non-politician, Republican Donald J Trump, says make America independent again.  Independent  of  What? Of Who?. He would leave NAFTA (a three nation trade agreement). He will rely on the right wing extremists who already  advocate leaving the UN.  Trump says we don’t need NATO.  Apparently he would have America retreat behind oceans and a wall and deal unilaterally with 191 other nations singly and separately.  America is the one economic/military superpower left on the planet. The entire world looks to our every action.  And despite our own negative views of our country, most people still see America as the shining city on the hill that the Puritans opined for.  What Trump is doing is appealing to nostalgia for a simpler time. His make America Great Again and his make America Independent Again are brilliant marketing slogans that appeal to whatever the voter/consumer considers Great  Again or Independent  Again to mean.

The world is getting smaller. New generations, using social media, identify  themselves as people and citizens of the world. They don’t accept  the artificial differences of color, ethnicity, and nationality and gender that the wealthy economic interests have used for centuries to maintain control over the masses of people.

In 1918 the little nations, and the oppressed nationalities, saw the League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles as a harbinger of peace and collective security to come.  It was said that when the United States rejected the League in 1919 “America broke the heart of the World”.  One hundred years later we cannot let a manufactured and manipulated fear of Muslim migration cause us to withdraw behind a Fortress America and leave the world - this time we would not just break its' heart -- we might break the world.

5 July 2016

PENNSYLVANIANS NEED A NEW SENATOR

I have been a personal friend and political supporter of Joseph Sestak since January 2006 when he first visited with me to discuss his running for Congress. I was impressed that day and have become more impressed over the years with his integrity, and his commitment to and caring for others.  And so of course I supported him for Congress twice and for the US Senate twice.  I believe he would be our US Senator today if a few pols in PA hadn’t stood by allowing the ghost conservative Toomey to win because of personal pique at Sestak’s willingness to take on their long time friend Specter.

This year the entire state party establishment (by that I mean the leaders not the activists and committee persons) decided to stop his so far successful effort to wage a six year campaign for a Senate seat.  They engineered a candidacy and they appealed to those in DC with access to party funds to assist at the last minute in sabotaging Joe’s reputation with scurrilous ads.

  

The party establishment was successful in winning that primary and we know how much they care about November from their inactivity six years ago.  Incumbent Senator Toomey the conservative enabler, who ideologically believes the kind of things that Trump speaks about, is now poised keep his seat.

The political pundits and the media all focus on -- will Bernie’s supporters vote for Hillary?  The question in PA is will Joe Sestak’s supporters vote for the Democratic candidate for Senator in November.

If those of us who supported Joe allow our personal annoyance, in fact disgust, at the actions of the self proclaimed political giants, to prevent us from voting Democratic for US Senate in the general election then we are allowing the Senate seat to be decided by our personal pique.

I do not believe the Democratic candidate for Senator was the best of the three presented in the primary.  But to allow the incumbent Toomey to be re-elected - NO. Let us be clear in our thinking.  If Clinton is President and the Senate remains Republican we face four more years of non-functioning government in DC.   And, if Trump is President and the Senate is Republican we face a body of enablers who will ratify his appointees to the Supreme Court and accept his nostalgic desire to return America to the age of the Roaring Twenties.

Whatever we may think about the personalities or campaign style of either of the candidates let no one forget that Toomey opposes 99% of what Democrats in DC and Harrisburg offer as solutions to our nation's problems.  If one is in support of the Democratic administration and its current efforts than one cannot allow Toomey to in another term.

We cannot allow Mitch McConnell and the Republicans to remain in control of the Senate. We cannot allow them to block needed gun control reforms, we cannot allow them to continue to block decent SCOTUS appointees, and we cannot allow them to ignore immigration and voting rights problems.  And the replacement of Toomey with a Democrat to work with Senator Casey will be a step in the direction of restoring sanity to the Senate. 

We will not have the opportunity to send Admiral Sestak to the United States Senate but we can retire the man he campaigned so valiantly against these past six years.

I wanted to vote one more time for my friend Joe. I wanted to be there with him the night he won his Senate seat. That will not happen.  But I cannot be true to all Joe has fought for and stood for in the Congress and in his campaigns if I pass on this contest and allow Toomey to get another term.  The United States Senate is the second office on the November ballot just after the joint vote for President/Vice President.  I would urge all those who supported Joe to join me in pressing the Democratic button for Senator.

30 June 2016

IT’S OVER -- CONTINUE THE REVOLUTION -- STAND WITH CLINTON

The Democratic presidential primaries are over. The contest for the nomination is ended.  It is clear by any method of computation that Hillary Clinton has won the Democratic nomination for President.  She has won a majority of the pledged delegates.  As for the so-called super delegates she has a majority whether you count them by their announced wishes, or by the states won by the candidates, or by a proportion similar to the votes in their state.  Absent an act of God the Democratic convention will nominate Hillary Clinton at its conclave in Philadelphia in July.

There remains the adoption of the party platform which has in some instances, e.g.1896, set the tone and policy of the party for fifty plus years.

There remains the adoption of party rules which in many instances in the past has had both intended and unintended consequences in subsequent nomination contests.  And, there remains the nomination of a Vice Presidential candidate.  

Senator Sanders of Vermont, who has had and continues to have my support, has amassed some 1900 delegates.  He should lead those delegates to fight for a progressive party platform even if that includes proposing and voting for minority reports.  He should lead those delegates in demanding reforms in how nominees are chosen in the future -- no super delegates, no caucuses - open primaries.  He should have his name placed in nomination and a roll call taken.  But his supporters need now to accept that Clinton will be the nominee.  I was a delegate for Gary Hart in 1984.  We fought for platform changes and rules changes and we voted for our candidate as did those pledged to Jesse Jackson.  We knew before we arrived in San Francisco that Walter Mondale would be the nominee.

It serves no purpose for Sanders supporters to put off facing the choice they have in November: Clinton or Trump. It is said that Democrats need to fall in love with their candidate while Republicans fall in line.  Well the Republicans are falling in line behind Trump and those who believe that the Democratic Party can be the best vehicle to accomplish social and economic justice for our people must now do the same for Clinton.

I did not support Clinton in 2008 or in this year’s primary contests.  But there are some important reasons why a liberal progressive should vote for Hillary Clinton in November.

   

In the next four years it is likely that 3 or even 4 seats on the Supreme Court of the United States will become vacant.  Who fills those seats sets the control of that court for decades to come.  If you believe that most of the decisions of the Court since 1956, e.g. Brown (integrated education), Roe v. Wade (freedom of reproductive choice), Griswold (right to privacy - contraception), Baker (one person one vote) should be upheld and one Citizen’s United overturned then there is only one choice for president -- Hillary Clinton.

 If you believe as I do that world leadership means leading like-minded nations not bullying them and threatening them then there is only one choice for president - Hillary Clinton.

If you don’t want to see one party, the Republican Party, dominate the federal government and all its branches for possibly the next fifty years then there is only one choice for president - Hillary Clinton.

If you believe that America is in the right direction by assuring equality to all regardless of religion, race, ethnicity or life style then there is only one choice for president - Hillary Clinton.

If you believe, as  I do, that we must stop the drift of our country into a society owned lock stock and barrel by a few then we cannot elect the poster child for that style of greed Donald Trump.

Do not assume that I have no differences with Clinton. I do and I have. She is too beholden to Wall Street for me, she is far from a reformer when it comes to political party processes and structure, and she has failed to articulate a vision that our young people can rally behind.

But, neither Franklin Delano Roosevelt nor Ronald Reagan is running in 2016.  We have a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

I will make that choice not as a Democrat but as an American and a grandfather.

As an American I will vote for the continued progress of the country that my father’s ancestors fought for and built ever since they came to these shores in 1607; and the country that opened its’ doors to my mother and her family in the 1920's when they fled the depression in Europe.

As a grandfather I will vote for a future for my country that my grandchildren can thrive in. I want them to be in the middle class I grew up in not a new peasant class that the wealthy would create. In November this liberal progressive is voting for his grandchildren: Elizabeth, Sarah and Joseph

I have voted for every Democratic nominee since Hubert Humphrey in 1968.  I apologize for none of those votes.  I preferred Mo Udall, Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart and Bernie Sanders over the eventual nominees; I make no apology for those endorsements.

To be true to the things I believe in and the values I espouse; to continue the fight to make a Great America a Great Society I will vote for Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

17 June 2016 

I AM PROUD TO VOTE FOR JOE SESTAK FOR SENATE

It will come as a surprise to no one that I am voting for JOE SESTAK in Tuesday’s Democratic primary election for US Senate.   I have known the man since the day he began his race for Congress in my district. He is fiercely independent; in fact he was registered independent all those years he served in the Navy because he believed that a naval officer should be politically non-partisan.  He can be stubborn as he clings to his principles.  He expects those who work for him to work as hard as he does and love 7am meetings.  He evaluates a situation or a proposal and then makes a determination.  He can be convinced to alter that determination but only by a clear recital of relevant facts.  Political arguments, especially what does or does not benefit him politically, carry no weight with him.  He does not think like a politician but he is a great candidate for office.  And he was a superb Congressman for the four years he represented the people of three counties. He is a Liberal but not knee-jerk.  He is progressive in his thinking but moderate in his rhetoric.  He is an advocate of a strong defense yet supports negotiation over confrontation.

A cynical public may doubt his reason for seeking and holding public office which is to give back to the country that provided him with a superior education (Naval Academy and Harvard University) and the health insurance that saved his daughters life.  I know the man and I know that his reason is sincere. He has spent the last 5 years continuing to campaign for the US Senate time and again not seeking other offices just for political advancement. When in the midst of his last Senate campaign in 2010, I suffered a stroke and underwent an 8 hour operation, it was Joe Sestak learned of the operation, found the hospital and spent time comforting my wife and daughters while they waited. He never told that story during that campaign. 

We live in a time when lying and creating one’s own facts are the standards of the day in political campaigning.  In Joe’s case his opposition, is the Democratic Party establishment of Pennsylvania and DC. (By establishment I mean the party officials and Democratic public officials who are self proclaimed leaders of the party. Joe is actually supported by many of the rank and file committee persons and local activists.) These Democratic leaders have lowered themselves to the level of distorting his liberal progressive and pro-Obama administration Congressional voting record.  And, they are even spending 4 million dollars (of contributions made by sincere donors to the DSCC to help make the Senate Democrat) to defeat Joe in the upcoming primary. Their choice is someone they are more comfortable with and someone they think will do and act as they are told to.  You see that’s Joe’s political problem.  He refuses to think, talk, vote and act like other political leaders want him to. If he agrees with them of course he will advocate for their position.  If he disagrees with them he won’t remain silent.

I know this better than most because I was chairman of the Democratic Party of Delaware County for most of the four years that Joe Sestak was Congressman. I have spent my entire adult life in politics and some have said that I eat, sleep and drink politics.  I have known many elected officials in my life; some of the best and some of the worst.  Joe Sestak is not a politician.  He is a decent compassionate man.  He is a hard working and really great candidate for public office.  He is a conscientious, tireless public official.  He served his country for years on the seas in war and peace. He served his county for four years in the Congress of his nation. As for the United States Senate “He is Ready to Serve”. And, the sinking ship that is the US Senate certainly could use an Admiral to set it upright.  

22 April 2016.    

I STILL "FEEL THE BERN"

Next Tuesday April 26th is the Pennsylvania Presidential primary.  The contest in the Democratic Party is of great interest to me as I have spent my entire adult life as a Democratic Party politician holding both public and party offices.  I’ve been campaigning for Democratic presidential candidates since I distributed cards for Adlai Stevenson on my block in Ridgewood Queens in 1956. I consider myself a Liberal Democrat and also a Progressive which word I have never used to hide the L word but to supplement it.

I will vote in next Tuesday’s primary for Bernie Sanders of Vermont to be our party’s candidate for President. I will do so even though I’ve been a part of the party establishment (attended three national conventions as a delegate) because I believe that my party establishment today has become rigid in its thinking; self absorbed in its exercise of power, and subservient to the Wall Street interests and the military industrial complex that it fought so hard and so successfully in the New Deal era. I believe my party needs to be reformed; it’s commitment to the middle class and the programs of the New Deal and Great Society needs to be renewed; and its structure needs to be rebuilt.  And only Bernie Sanders shows a determination to achieve that end and the capacity to energize a new generation of Americans to accomplish it...

FDR enacted Old Age Insurance (a.k.a. Social Security) for all Americans not just some.   JFK challenged America to put a man on the moon not just get half way there and return.   LBJ signed Medicare for all seniors; and guaranteed Voting Rights for all Americans.  He didn’t just settle for some health care to some older people; nor did he settle for repealing some voting restrictions he opened the doors and let the sunshine of human rights in.   After George McGovern’s defeat in 1972 a traumatized Democratic Party establishment encouraged by a centrist Jimmy Carter began to tone down its rhetoric and run away from the word Liberal. And what was the result - the Reagan revolution.  By 1992 the party had adopted the strategy made popular by Bill Clinton of being moderately progressive and working with the economic powers that be.  What was the result - the Gingrich Revolution.  It is time the Democratic Party returned to its roots: the political reformist and economic populism of Bryan, Wilson and Roosevelt. 

Bernie Sanders advocates expanding social security to increase the benefits and extend the lifetime of the system.  I ask Why Not?  Bernie Sanders supports extending the public commitment to free public education beyond the 12th grade to a college degree.  I ask Why Not?  Bernie Sanders says, as our party leaders have before, Break Up the big banks? And with Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson I ask Why Not? Bernie Sanders calls upon us to rebuild the great American Middle Class that the programs of FDR’s New Deal and his G I Bill helped create.  And, I ask Why Not?  The centrists in our party say we can’t afford these programs.  Yet we could afford to save the World in 1945 and rebuild Europe in 1948.  We could afford to bail out Wall Street and the Big Banks in 2008 and General Motors in 2009.  If this country’s history has shown anything it has shown that whether it was the Erie Canal, the Transcontinental Railroad or the Space Shuttle America can do anything it believes in.

I was not born in time to vote for FDR.  I was not old enough to vote for JFK or LBJ.  I can vote for Bernie Sanders.  I can vote for someone whose lifetime commitment to reform and progressive proposals will serve as a continuation of the liberal progressive movement that began at the end of the 19th century over 120 years ago (with ideological roots that went back much further).Twenty years from now young people of today will be the candidates, the party activists and the majority of the nation’s electorate.  I want them to have a future they can believe in. I want them to look on Bernie Sanders as my father’s generation looked on FDR and mine looked on JFK.  So I will vote for an American they can believe in - I will vote for Bernie Sanders.   

20 April 2016         

THE IOWA CAUCUSES: D for DEMOCRACY or DEBACLE

In the early years of our nation Presidential candidates were chosen by a Caucus of the members of Congress who considered themselves loosely affiliated with the parties, i.e. Federalist or Democratic.  The last such Congressional Caucus was held in 1824.  There were five candidates for President that year (one John Calhoun ultimately dropped out and became everybody’s candidate for Vice President).  The caucus was controlled by supporters of William Crawford of Georgia.  And while there were congressmen who supported Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams there were few behind Andrew Jackson.  His supporters throughout the country began having state legislative bodies adopt nominating resolutions declaring for Jackson’s candidacy. Jackson campaigned against what he called King Caucus and in support of popular election of the President. Though Jackson did not win in 1824 John Quincy Adams who did was not the caucus candidate. 

The rematch in 1828 of Adams and Jackson which the latter won saw the complete defeat and elimination of King Caucus.  In 1832 Jackson had the Democrats copy the Anti Masonic concept of a national convention and from then on national conventions were used to nominate Presidential tickets.  After 1832 the political process battle became how to select delegates to the national conventions.

At the turn of the 20th century direct primaries were instituted in many states to allow the voters to choose the party candidates for public office.  And, at the Presidential level a preferential primary was adopted in many states which allowed the voters to express their preference among candidates while still allowing the delegates at the national convention the authority to choose the nominees.  With John F Kennedy’s nomination in 1960 the political establishment clearly accepted that the preference primaries were in fact choosing the candidates. After the battle of 1968 the Democrats, and then the Republicans, began changing their rules to require that delegates chosen to the convention either by primary or local and state convention should express their presidential preference before hand and consider themselves bound to follow their public choice.

Many states preferred to stay with their system of state conventions choosing national delegates and so the manner of choosing delegates to the state conventions began to figure into the Presidential campaigns.  In 1972 George McGovern’s campaign encouraged the neighboring state of Iowa to have the delegates that were chosen at precinct level party caucuses to attend county conventions that would choose delegates to the state convention to be chosen at all these levels expressing a candidate preference.  McGovern then won the preferences and used that to catapult himself into more serious contention in the following primaries.  In 1976 Jimmy Carter a relatively unknown former Governor Georgia started in 1975 to campaign in Iowa to win these preferences at the precinct caucuses and did so which grabbed media attention - vaulted Carter into the first rank of Democratic Presidential candidates that year and the Iowa caucuses became the first in the nation expression of popular support for Presidential candidates.

And that was of course true last week when on Feb.1 Iowa held their precinct caucuses.  The system, first designed in 1972, has become more complex in fact one could call it a mathematical nightmare.  Democrats require viability thresholds, regrouping without necessarily full recounting, selection of county convention delegates proportionally allocated to the candidate groups, a rounding off system to determine the exact allocation of county delegates and even a coin toss to decide who gets the delegate if the candidate groups are equal in number.  The state party then reports to the media not the number of Democrats in each precinct who supported each candidate; no, nor the number of delegates by candidate chosen in each precinct to attend the county convention.  The state using a mathematical formula that seems to defy explanation translates this data into “delegate equivalencies” which I can only assume means how many delegates each candidate will have at the state convention after the county conventions meet and select other delegate.  These delegate equivalencies both raw number and percentage are what the public and the media are given as the Iowa caucus results e.g. on Feb 1 Clinton had 701 delegate equivalencies and Sanders 697 -- “a virtual tie”.

The complexities of the Democratic caucuses in Iowa really do reduce the value of the exercise which is unfortunate because hundreds of thousands of Iowa voters come out to participate. The Democrats have evolved a system that is too complex, so complex in fact that state party workers and group leaders of both candidates often had trouble understanding what the next step or the next mathematical computation was.  Even the Republican caucus system which is much simpler and is basically a paper ballot vote for President so distorted the reported results in 1980 and in 2012 in such a way as to impact on the subsequent Republican nominating process.

Andrew Jackson wouldn’t refer to this as King Caucus he’d probably call it Rotten Caucus.  And he’d be right.  The candidates for one national public office in the United States of America chosen by the entire national electorate should be chosen in a manner that reflects direct democracy. There should be a national primary, with a run off if no candidate gets at least 40% of the vote the first round (40% because that’s what Lincoln got in 1860 and he turned out pretty good).  If the political establishments can’t handle the democracy of a national direct primary then let there be four regional primaries over say a two month period allowing for the candidates to campaign in all the states.  And assuming our political leaders find that approach too radical than at the very least we should abolish the caucus system for selection of Presidential candidates and require every sate to hold a direct primary.  And we should use the good features of the Iowa system - allowing same day registration and party selection; allowing 17 years old who will be 18 by the general election to vote; essentially making every citizen’s vote of equal weight.

Al Smith, Democratic Presidential candidate in 1928 is reputed to have said “The only cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy”.  The caucus system used in Iowa and variations used in a large number of states is broken and unrepresentative of the population at large.  We don’t need to fix it or tweak it we need to Abolish it.  Let the People decide who their President will be at every step of the process - and that includes abolishing the Electoral College and voting directly for President in November (but that’s a subject for another post).

4 February 2016