After the Trump/Newsmax debacle, this isn’t a surprise.

Still, does The Donald really believe he has a chance?

From The Hill:

Donald Trump changed his voter registration Thursday to Independent, his special counsel confirmed to The Hill.

“[Trump registered] in order to preserve his right to run as an Independent after the finale of ‘The Apprentice’ in May, if he is not satisfied with whom the candidate is,” Michael Cohen told The Hill.

Cohen added that Trump is unhappy with how the Republicans “are handling the payroll tax issue” and how the Obama administration “continues to allow China to take advantage of the trade agreement.”

From my POV, I think Donald knows he would only pull support from the GOP and he won’t run because of it.

Still, he could be entertaining in the 2012 campaign. And he certainly has enough funds to make a run. But between his birther opinions and his ego, Trump may prove to be a fixture yet.

More as it develops…

Charlie Cook runs the numbers and sees the tide turning against the “less government” crowd.

From National Journal:

Why is this important? Because independent voters are the ones who matter most in American politics. More than 90 percent of Democratic voters can be expected to vote Democratic, just as more than 90 percent of Republicans reliably vote Republican. In a bad year for Republicans, such as 2006, voters who call themselves Republican voted for GOP candidates over Democratic candidates by 91 percent to 8 percent. Last year, a great one for the GOP, Republican voters stuck with the party by 95 percent to 4 percent. In 2006, a great year for Democrats, party members voters cast their ballots for Democrats by 93 percent to 7 percent; last year, the numbers were 92 percent to 7 percent.

It’s not about defections, and it isn’t so much about turnout either. In 2006, 38 percent of all voters called themselves Democrats and 36 percent called themselves Republicans. In 2010, it was 36 percent for each party. The big difference was that independents in 2006 swung from backing Democrats over Republicans (by 57 percent to 39 percent), to preferring Republicans last November (by 56 percent to 38 percent). The swing in both elections was 18 points.

All the usual caveats apply…it’s just one poll…blah blah blah, but looks like this has been a pretty decent indicator as to how independents vote in the past couple elections and there’s nothing to suggest anything is changing now.

More as it develops…

The initial reports today speculated about presidential aspirations. But what tomorrow’s press conference is really about is his intentions for the Senate.

Politico has the story…

Lieberman will announce that he will not seek re-election Wednesday in Stamford, Conn., ending months of speculation about whether Lieberman would run as an independent, a Republican, a Democrat, or simply retire.

Several knowledgeable sources on Tuesday confirmed Lieberman’s decision not to run.

“He feels that after 24 years in the Senate and 40 years in public life, it’s time for a new season,” a Lieberman aide said Tuesday night. The aide said Lieberman isn’t bowing out because he was worried about re-election. “It would be tough fight, but that’s not a reason not to run for re-election.”

After his tough fight in 2006 and his support for McCain in 2008, even after McCain picked Palin (which clearly made Lieberman uncomfortable), this isn’t necessarily surprising.

More as it develops…

Source: Resurgent Republic

Buried under the mountain of navel gazing, finger-pointing, self-serving spin, and bitter invective in the left-o-sphere, we can still find a few gems of sparkling analysis, insight and useful advice. We’ll mine two examples of Progressive postmortems. One is a rich vein of solid gold analysis, but to get to it we must first separate and dispose of the slag.

Jonathan Chait of The New Republic cannot hide his bitterness and anger in this devastating dismantling of the straw man he props up for that very purpose:

Split Ends – The myth of divided government
(full text at The Cagle Post)

It apparently makes Chait feel good to monotonously apply the pejorative of a “fetish” to the divided government voting heuristic, but it does exactly nothing to further his argument (as I’ve noted before).

This might be a reasonable argument, if the reason that independents voted for divided government was with the express hope of ushering in an era of bipartisan cooperation, moderation and compromise. It wasn’t. Bipartisan cooperation may or may not happen in the next two years, but it has nothing to do with the reason why many independents voted as they did. They voted to restrain the excesses of this latest edition of One Party Rule (Democratic version). They voted in reflexive horror after witnessing two examples of mind-numbingly bad and jaw-droppingly expensive legislation – ARRA (Stimulus) and PPACA (Obamacare) – that were both made possible and steamrolled by One Party Democratic Rule.

Whether our impending divided government produces bipartisan cooperation or not, it remains a fact that true bipartisan cooperation is impossible when one party holds all the cards. For the last two years the Democrats held all the cards. If the divided government of the next two years does nothing else but prevent or moderate legislation like ARRA and PPACA, then it will meet the objectives of many independents that voted for it.

For an antidote to Chait’s toxic mix of bluster, logical fallacy, and dismissive ad hominem offered up as an explanation of the election, electorate and governance, consider Lee Durham of the Progressive Policy Institute. Durham presents some real data-centric analysis, offers real insight, and comes up with some good suggestions for Democrats and President Obama in:

“How to Understand the Independents (and how to win them Back)“:

I’ll leave it to the reader to compare and contrast these two very different progressive perspectives of the election, electorate, and, most importantly, the way forward. Consider which of the two is informed by common sense, logic and data and which is informed by rhetoric, sophistry and rage. I submit they are representative of two significant and incompatible constituencies within the Democratic Party. The schism has been there all along, but was papered over in 2006 and 2008 by the unifying principle of Bush Hate. Regardless of how skilled Axelrod, Gibbs, and Plouffe may be at “triangulation”, the Obama administration cannot simultaneously turn left and turn toward the center. I hope Democrats choose wisely, as I really don’t want to see us return to one party Republican rule in 2013. If they rely on Palin and Tea Party to hand the 2012 election to the Democrats, they just may be disappointed…

Again.

Portions excerpted and cross posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall

It’s jumped considerably since the 2008 election.

But do people really want the Tea Party to be the third way?

Gallup with more…

My gut tells me that most folks understand that the Tea Partiers are just really angry conservatives who are lashing out at their own for supporting fiscally irresponsible behavior. And yes, there are some independents who identify with that too, but once those folks scratch the surface of the Tea Party, I guarantee 90% of them will not like what they find. And the other 10% were conservatives who just liked to call themselves independents.

And to that point, note how the number of conservatives wanting a third party has shot up more than any other group. Coincidence?

Still, liberals and independents want a third way more and I think there’s appetite for a moderate left/middle progressive-lite alternative to the Tea Party message. One that stresses fiscal responsibility, social justice and basic fairness…all wrapped up in a populist “let’s get back to work” message. It won’t happen in the next election cycle, but don’t be surprised if it pops up in 2016 if Obama wins or Obama loses in 2012.

Either way, it’s on the horizon.

What say you?

USA Today highlights an interesting trend that may be good news for the centrists, indies, moderate repubs and moderate dems out there.

A taste…

WARWICK, R.I. — Lincoln Chafee comes from a long line of Rhode Island governors, three in the previous four generations, all of them Republicans. Now the former Republican senator and mayor of Warwick is running for governor himself.

As an independent.

No independent has been elected to lead a state for more than a decade, since pro wrestler-turned-politician Jesse “The Body” Ventura became governor of Minnesota in 1999.

But this year there are three credible independent contenders for governor — a record. [...]

The other two are Tim Cahill, and indy turned Dem who’s running against incumbent Dem Gov Deval Patrick in Massachusetts, and Eliot Cutler, a Dem (who was briefly registered with the GOP) turned Indy who’s running for Governor in Maine. Cutler was a former Carter administration energy official who also helped craft the Clean Water and Clean Air acts while he was a legislative assistant under Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine.

Also, let’s not forget Charlie Crist, who’s now leading in a three way race in Florida for that Senate seat.

I think we all realized that this was coming sooner rather than later, especially with the Joe Lieberman situation. He was one of the first to switch to the middle after his party rejected him…and it seems like he’s been having a pretty good time in the middle. True, a lot of hardcore Dems hate him, but he still toes the party line a majority of the time so Dems might want to wise up. Especially since it’s likely that Romney will be the Rep candidate in 2012 and Lieberman could easily support Obama under those circumstances.

But to get back to the point…

Again, this writing has been on the wall for years. People hate party politics. And even though Fox News and the far right wing have co-opted the Tea Party, what we’re seeing as a result of these primaries is that people don’t want to go with the status quo. 2010 is a bad year for incumbents, be they Dems or Repubs. Most likely this will hit the Dems more because they make up the majority, but the mood is universally “throw the bums out.” Voters see the inherent flaws in being tied to this ideology or that, because politics has always been about the art of the compromise, and these newly minted independent politicians could actually deliver a new path forward.

But will people actually vote for an Indy?

Well…

Sixty percent of those surveyed in the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll say they are very or somewhat likely to vote for an independent candidate this fall, signaling at the least an openness to the idea.

“These are bad economic conditions and an extreme public disenchantment with the major parties,” says Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution and a former political science professor at Brown, in Providence. “That creates an opportunity for independent candidates.”

What’s unfortunate is that the Tea Partiers would be electing people who are far more likely to just be another cog in the right wing machine, as opposed to true independent thinkers. Well, let me back up. It’s not unfortunate because, as mentioned, the net effect may be politicians who are now not tied to any party and can make the best decisions.

Still, we’re not naive. We know that palms will still be greased and backs will still be slapped, but at least it appears we’re moving in a better direction.

So…who will you be voting for in the Fall?

I wont be nearly the first person to be writing about California’s Proposition 14. I’m coming late into the game, having only listened to the vague positive talking points of the California Independent Voter Network (CAIVN), and their allies, who have talked this proposition up. But I began to see some dissent, and took at a look at it myself. To be blunt, if this passes, partly because of support from CAIVN and their allies, I will genuinely be embarrassed to affiliate myself with these organizations that I hold in very high regard for their work fighting for the rights of independents.

Like so many other laws that make it through corrupt, and usually quite partisan, legislatures or ballot initiatives, this law violates the first rule that an ethical lawmaker or political organization ought to look at when drafting a bill or proposition; ‘first do no harm’.

Independents are doing two things that are inexcusable by supporting this proposition. They are supporting a change in the electoral system, only allowing the top two vote getters to make it through to the general election, that has flatly been shown to not accomplish the stated goals of lessening partisanship in the other states and areas that have, or have had, such rules in place.

I am personally quite familiar with these kinds of rules. In my home state of Nebraska, I considered running for state senate, as an independent, myself. This rule was not the only reason I decided not to do so, but looking at a short primary season where I would have had to overcome a huge money, organizational and manpower deficit… it certainly was one of the straws that broke the camel’s back. Had I had the entire campaign season to catch up, my decision could have been different.

In other words… we’re hurting our own chances, in trade for a rule that has no history of lowering partisanship, and actually has a track record of lowering the rate of incumbent turnover.

The second mistake is even more insidious, and the reason why I dub this bill the ‘First DO Harm’ Act. The first could be explained away as being duped, misinformed or (at best) perhaps blindly grasping for straws on a gamble. No… this is wholly deliberate. This is taking a page from the two party duopoly playbook. Its inexcusable and so hypocritical I cringe to think about how it might effect the future of independent movement types should this pass in California.

Independents have been the whipping boy of the political process for the dozen or so years that I’ve been really paying attention to politics. Its terribly hard to have an effect on primary elections, the hurdles to running for office as an independent are disturbingly high in most places and candidates from the two major parties pay attention to us only when races get close.

If there is any group of people that we have some common cause with on electoral reform, its third party organizations. Now, I think that both major parties are far too partisan, and I recognize that organizations like the Green Party and Libertarian Party are even more ideologically extreme in most cases. But my ideological differences with them don’t go so far as to impinge upon my higher conscientious support for basic democratic ideals, and fundamental fairness.

Richard Winger, over at Ballot Access News, hits the nail on the head in his op-ed in the San Francisco Bay Guardian:

“…since minor party candidates almost never place first or second in the June primary, minor party members would never be able to run for statewide office in November. And, the catch is that only the November vote counts for meeting the 2 percent vote test.

and…

“The real irony is that the big newspapers of California know about this problem with Prop. 14 but refuse to mention it. That’s ironic because back in 1981, when Democrats in the Legislature wanted to toughen the ballot-access requirements, the big newspapers of California denounced that bill with full fury. Forty of California’s biggest newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations editorialized against that measure.

lastly…

“Prop. 14 is supported by the Chamber of Commerce, the for-profit health insurance companies, the for-profit hospitals, and various multimillionaires, and the Yes on 14 campaign has a huge war chest. Why won’t the L.A. Times even mention this flaw in the measure? Who are the big dailies afraid of offending?”

And who are these independent organizations afraid of offending… or perhaps who are they pandering to?

This proposition flat out screws the minor parties. This glaring selfishness is made embarrassingly worse by the fact that several independent supporters I have communicated with, or read explanations of their reasoning for support, of the proposition have actually touted this as a way of further marginalizing these minor parties. This rings of a bully at school taking his anger out on even smaller kids because his bigger brothers have been beating on him for years. In fact, this is precisely what this is.

I’m not going to split hairs on this issue. Independents that support this bill should be ashamed of themselves.

For some people, the development of the new Coffee Party USA organization seemed like a godsend in response to the more extreme elements in the Tea Party movement. At first I thought that this could be the grassroots movement I’d been waiting for – one that actually included moderates independents, and actively worked across ideological divides to look for common ground, rather than partisan gain. In short, I was wrong.

After spending a few months helping organize the Nebraska chapter, helping upgrade sections of the national website and working on a few ad hoc subcommittees trying to build some structure in the organization… it became clear to me that the public reputation of the Coffee Party as a liberal answer to the Tea Party was actually quite true.

Some rumors about the organization showed no evidence of being true however.

The rumors about this being funded by some wealthy liberal entity showed no sign of being true from the inside, or the outside if you’re someone who knows what money looks like in an organization. At every turn, the leadership asked how we could accomplish our goals using free to nearly free options, and a number of things were turned down as options that cost merely a few hundred to a couple thousand dollars.

However, there really isn’t any transparency in the organization, so I have no way to verify whether any of these claims are true or not. I did overhear some upper level people talking about low five digits having been raised, on a conference call, but have no idea where, or if, any of it is being spent, and while there has been talk of there being a board… I have no idea who these people are. For an organization claiming to be bottom up, both of these things are inexcusable, easy to fix, and were ignored when brought up by volunteers internally.

Problems like this… fundamental organizational issues, easy to fix and ignored by the leadership… are endemic internally at Coffee Party USA. If I had to pick one reason, other than the ideological bent, that I left, this would be it.

I also saw no evidence of Coffee Party USA having any direct coordination with Democratic party groups. They did seem intent on being sure to remain independent actors, not pawns of larger forces. This being the case, they had no problem hawking liberal talking points, from liberal icons and sources like President Obama, Paul Krugman, several Huffington Post articles and even Daily Kos.

I saw no evidence of Coffee Party USA being “astroturfed” either. Much to the contrary, they’re easily the most disorganized group of any size I’ve ever been a part of that had been around for more than a few months. The leadership of the organization claimed that they did not have time to do the work necessary to put the foundation of the organization on solid ground, but they of course had plenty of time to put together panel discussions, make promotional videos, pontificate and go on TV shows, among other things.

I took a few weeks off after expressing some of my concerns (along with other people) to see if the leadership would actually do anything about them, and left recently because I saw no efforts towards that. The main selling points for me, were the nonpartisan & non-confrontational tack they took, and how they appeared to look for common ground, rather than further raising the political temperature.

Early communications built an image of a somewhat left leaning organization who’s core was nonpartisan. But over time, as the conversations turned into action, it became clear that this wasn’t the case, and were neither nonpartisan, non-confrontational nor committed to working across traditional partisan divides.

While I was there, there was no active effort to bring people in from the center or right, while the liberal messaging, unwillingness to make it plain that we weren’t in fact a liberal response to the Tea Party (this was brought up several times internally, but rebuffed because they didn’t want to discourage liberal activist members), and with the media predictably painting the Coffee Party as such allowed the organization to be defined as what it in fact is… a liberal grassroots-ish organization.

A quick look at CPUSA’s Facebook page, the website, emails they’ve sent out, message boards and especially the internal conversations, among other things… show a fairly standard liberal grassroots organization. To be plain, this organization wishes to be seen as a nonpartisan group only so it can have a glean of high minded nonpartisanship and gain members in the center so they can better justify their liberal positions.

It didn’t help that the leadership flip flopped on early promises to only support the use of non-confrontational tactics by local chapters. They also flip flopped on a promise to make decisions on what issues the organization would take stances on through open votes among the general membership… among a number of other issues that were brought up internally.

Again, the leadership claimed to not have enough time to do the foundational work that an organization needs to do to be effective. If they have the time to be on panel discussions, make videos, develop new campaign after new campaign, podcasts, blogs, etc etc etc… they have plenty of time to focus on developing the organization. They just choose not to, showing where their priorities were. The most preposterous side of this whole mess was that they actually used the organization as a vehicle for self promotion, promoting the two founders’ documentary through official organization channels. This is clearly unethical.

When people spoke up about some of these issues, the leadership ignored those threads, and usually the conversations would die off after a day or two, with no response or action taken. The issues kept coming up every week or so, and I began to see that they were in no way interested in actually addressing these issues when I received two calls from Billy Wimsatt, one of the top level people, that offered a position higher up in the organization… but only if I would stop bringing up issues I had.

This was unacceptable to me, and should be to most. Independents and moderates beware. Unless you want to be token non-liberals that will be used to reach liberal ends, this is not the organization we’ve been waiting for.

Heard about this? Well, you will.

Basically, open primaries are where the top two vote getters move on to the general, with the hopeful net result being that Dems and Repubs wouldn’t have to appeal to the more extreme elements of their party to get to the big show.

Here’s more…

So, no more party primaries. And that has folks on both sides up in arms.

Republicans think it would result in general elections where you have Democrat vs Democrat instead of Republicans vs Democrats.

Others are worried that it would mean that whoever spends the most money in the primaries will get the most votes and proceed to the general.

Still others think that this would actually crowd out 3rd parties.

Here’s what the Center for Governmental Studies found in their report…

The Center for Government Studies has issued this 102-page report on California’s Proposition 14, the “top-two” ballot measure on the June 8, 2010 ballot. The study, by Molly Milligan, studies whether Proposition 14 would create more moderate California politicians. The study suggests that the measure would tend to create more moderates in the State Senate.

The study also finds that campaign spending would increase, because many candidates who now have a completely safe primary process would need to spend enough money to win twice before the entire electorate. The study also says, on page 17, in footnote 11, that in the Massachusetts special U.S. Senate election of January 2010, if Massachusetts had used top-two, Scott Brown would not have qualified for the second round. In the real world, Brown won the election.

Finally, the study concludes that there would be a good share of legislative races, and some U.S. House races, in which the November election would be between two Democrats. However, the study does not believe there would be November elections between two Republicans.

So what do you think? A good idea?

The vote is in June.

The gap has shrunk a bit, but the economy is turning around so in a year’s time it’s unlikely we’ll have the problems we’re having today. Basically, the question will then be… “Who is responsible for the economic growth in this country?”

Gallup has more on that…

Obama has stated that he “inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression.” And while some of his critics dispute the extent of the crisis, there is little debate that he arrived in Washington amid rising unemployment, struggling equity and housing markets, distressed banking and auto industries, and a rapid retreat in consumer spending. Americans in July 2009 clearly recognized that the nation’s economic problems preceded Obama’s term; at that time, close to half of Republicans (43%) — in addition to most independents (63%) and nearly all Democrats (92%) — believed Obama bore little or no responsibility for them.

And here are the numbers…

Sidenote…currently Obama’s approval rating is averaging about 48%. If this is as low as he goes as we’re pulling out of the recession…wonder what it’ll be this time next year.

Care to make any guesses?

If you dig into the demographics of approval/disapproval on the health care question, some interesting trends emerge…

As expected, those who have health care don’t like reform. Because it won’t mean much for them and Dems haven’t made a compelling case that it will drive down their premiums. Well, not yet anyway. However, those who don’t have coverage, well, they’re head over heels. And those on Medicare, well, they’re close to being neutral. Because they already have government run health care and this won’t change things much either.

Next up…income. I find this one particularly interesting since those who make over $75K only have a net -8 disapproval, while those who make between $50 and $75K have -19 disapproval. Maybe this is where most small business owners fall? And, obviously those who are in a lower income bracket love that they’ll be able to afford health care.

The age demos are the most telling, especially when you’re looking at the long term viability of this program. 18 to 34 have a positive view of it, while all others don’t. It’s definitely harder to get that younger generation out to the polls, so 2010 might not turn out well for the Dems, but in the long term this could be huge for them.

What are your thoughts given this demo info?

Latest and greatest news and views about California’s open primary initiative, Proposition 14, on the ballot June 8. Partisans showed their true colors last week with back-room deals and litigation on the ballot wording. Prominent independent attorney Harry Kresky’s commentary on HuffPo “Words Matter” sheds lots of light on the nature of our democracy. And Phil Keisling, Oregon’s former Sec. of State who went to bat for that state’s Measure 65 which would have opened the primaries to voters who don’t choose to affiliate with a party, has a neat idea to Reduce Partisanship in today’s NY Times.

OPEN PRIMARIES

TAYLOR v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY – Court of Appeals of California, Third Appellate District, Sacramento. (RAYE, J., Leagle.com)

For more news for independent voters, see The Hankster

]]> http://donklephant.com/2010/03/22/ca-proposition-14-democracy-without-independent-voters-is-like-taxation-without-representation/feed/ 9 http://donklephant.com/2010/03/17/obamas-health-care-plan-will-labor-go-independent/ http://donklephant.com/2010/03/17/obamas-health-care-plan-will-labor-go-independent/#comments Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:14:08 +0000 Nancy Hanks http://donklephant.com/?p=18286

SEIU prez Andrew Stern is threatening to “go independent” on local races to oppose Dems who oppose Prez Obama’s healthcare reform bill. One enabling factor in New York is fusion voting, which has empowered third parties like the New York Independence Party, Conservative Party and Working Families Party. Meanwhile, former Dem La Plata County Colorado Commissioner Joelle Riddle didn’t threaten — she went independent for real.

HEALTH CARE, OBAMA AND LABOR

Exploring The Mood Gap (Hotline)

Read more news for independent voters at The Hankster

]]> http://donklephant.com/2010/03/17/obamas-health-care-plan-will-labor-go-independent/feed/ 5 http://donklephant.com/2010/03/17/another-legal-win-for-independent-voters-in-california-court-of-appeals-says-no-to-proposition-14-opponents/ http://donklephant.com/2010/03/17/another-legal-win-for-independent-voters-in-california-court-of-appeals-says-no-to-proposition-14-opponents/#comments Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:34:48 +0000 Nancy Hanks http://donklephant.com/?p=18280

California Court of Appeals says no to Proposition 14 opponents, which is good news for independent voters. From CAIVN: “The Court rejected the CSEA language, preserved the lower court’s language, and ordered the restoration of the Legislative Analyst’s prediction of cost savings associated with the measure.” And open primaries gaining support in Pennsylvania and Illinois. Rock on!

PROP 14

IL: Was the Illinois Senate correct in defeating a bill that would have made primary elections open (not requiring voters to declare a party) in Illinois? (Helium) Yes and No articles HINT: 72% say no

More news for independents at The Hankster

]]> http://donklephant.com/2010/03/17/another-legal-win-for-independent-voters-in-california-court-of-appeals-says-no-to-proposition-14-opponents/feed/ 0 http://donklephant.com/2010/03/15/california-proposition-14-open-primary-ballot-language-decision-favorable-to-independents/ http://donklephant.com/2010/03/15/california-proposition-14-open-primary-ballot-language-decision-favorable-to-independents/#comments Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:02:02 +0000 Nancy Hanks http://donklephant.com/?p=18268

More commentary this weekend on California’s Proposition 14 “top two” open primary referendum after Judge Allen Sumner’s ballot wording ruling on Friday. The ruling was seen as a win for independent voters by attorney Harry Kresky of IndependentVoting and by Californians for an Open Primary/Yes on 14… Meanwhile, state Rep. Hunter Greene, a Republican who chairs the state House Ways and Means Committee, wants an open primary for Louisiana….

PROPOSITION 14

Greene says return to open primaries (The Advocate/Inside Politics)

More at The Hankster

]]> http://donklephant.com/2010/03/15/california-proposition-14-open-primary-ballot-language-decision-favorable-to-independents/feed/ 0 http://donklephant.com/2010/03/12/legal-fight-over-ballot-wording-for-proposition-14/ http://donklephant.com/2010/03/12/legal-fight-over-ballot-wording-for-proposition-14/#comments Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:42:47 +0000 Nancy Hanks http://donklephant.com/?p=18181

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Allen Sumner is expected to rule today on the ballot language for Prop 14. Leading independent Attorney Harry Kresky speaks out on the legal fight over the “top two” open primaries referendum:

“When the California legislature voted to put Proposition 14 on the ballot this June, it crafted a summary of the initiative which will also appear on the ballot, that accurately described what its effect would be if passed. Opponents of the measure have now gone to court to try to change the summary to frighten voters with misleading statements such as, “Eliminates political parties’ rights to be on the general election ballot.” If they have their way, a measure that expands the rights of voters – most especially the state’s three million independent voters – will be reframed as one that eliminates the rights of parties. Since an overwhelming majority of Americans are angry about partisan gridlock, now is not the time to protect political parties at the expense of the voters. The people of California deserve an honest representation of Proposition 14. Let’s hope the court looks out for them.”

The California School Employees Association has sued the Secretary of State (presumably on behalf of the California State Legislature) to change the ballot wording. Read more at California Independent Voter Network.

Keep reading below…

PROPOSITION 14

Christina Tobin, Libertarian for CA Secretary of State, announces schedule and opposes Prop 14 (Independent Political Report blog)

For more news for independent voters, see The Hankster

]]> http://donklephant.com/2010/03/12/legal-fight-over-ballot-wording-for-proposition-14/feed/ 0 http://donklephant.com/2010/03/11/californias-prop-14-the-people-vs-the-parties/ http://donklephant.com/2010/03/11/californias-prop-14-the-people-vs-the-parties/#comments Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:25:34 +0000 Nancy Hanks http://donklephant.com/?p=18172

Independent voters in California (aka “decline to state”) vote in primaries at the whim of the party big-shots. And California Dems (including the school employees union) are playing some bad language games trying to dissuade voters from supporting Proposition 14, the “Top Two” open primary referendum on the ballot for a vote in June that will allow independents full participation. At issue is whether the political parties or the people have the power.

CALIFORNIA PROP 14

California Independent Voter Network

For more news for independent voters, see The Hankster

]]> http://donklephant.com/2010/03/11/californias-prop-14-the-people-vs-the-parties/feed/ 3 http://donklephant.com/2010/01/26/news-alert-media-gets-some-stuff-right-about-independent-voters/ http://donklephant.com/2010/01/26/news-alert-media-gets-some-stuff-right-about-independent-voters/#comments Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:40:00 +0000 Nancy Hanks http://donklephant.com/?p=18021

The Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat continues to reverberate (or is that ricochet?) in the media [for a quick round-up of latest Charlie Cook in National Journal, Robert Reich on Huffington Post, Dan Balz in Washington Post and Kristi Keck on CNN, see today's Hankster] and independent voters remain center stage (the newly elected Senator is that guy who posed nude for Cosmo, right?…) To wit:

Much (much) more over at The Hankster… Oh, an by the way, The Hankster is also blogging at the new Third Party and Independent Daily edited by Damon Eris. Check it out!

]]> http://donklephant.com/2010/01/26/news-alert-media-gets-some-stuff-right-about-independent-voters/feed/ 3 http://donklephant.com/2010/01/05/joe-scarborough-talks-recklessness-restraint/ http://donklephant.com/2010/01/05/joe-scarborough-talks-recklessness-restraint/#comments Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:54:42 +0000 Justin Gardner http://donklephant.com/?p=17818

For my money, Scarborough is one of the best political talking heads around. He’s sincere, thoughtful and genuinely seems like he wants to get to the bottom of the issues.

Recently he penned a must read column over at Huffington Post that’s already feels timeless.

Here’s how he starts…

Ten years ago, Charles Krauthammer took note of what seemed to be conventional wisdom at the turn of the century: that the United States dominated the world economically, culturally and militarily in a way that no other empire had done since imperial Rome. The Washington Post columnist was right, but not for long. [...]

Americans’ hubris at the end of the 20th Century gave way to an time of cynicism and doubt. In a few short years, our unipolar world became multipolar and America looked less like Julius Caesar’s Rome than an empire besieged by an assortment of invading barbarians.

His strategy is straight forward…

1. THE END TO RECKLESSNESS OVERSEAS

Over the past decade, America has found itself bogged down by two occupations that drained our Republic of blood, treasure and credibility. And while we have been exhausting our resources in the pursuit of war, China has been making strategic gains across Asia, Africa and with our economic allies.

America can no longer afford to be the world’s policeman. Instead, we should only go to war as a last resort and then follow the strategy laid out by Colin Powell before the first Iraq War: “We will find the enemy, we will cut off the enemy, we will kill the enemy and we will come home.”

2. THE END TO RECKLESSNESS AT HOME

George W. Bush decided to increase spending at record rates at the same time he added a $7 trillion debt to Medicare, passed massive tax cuts and fought two wars on the other side of the globe. Choosing guns and butter–and trillions of dollars for a new entitlement program–put America’s future in the hands of foreign creditors.

President Bush inherited a $5.7 trillion debt and doubled it.

Barack Obama inherited a $11 trillion national debt and his budget plans will double that debt over the next decade.

By the time the 44th president leaves office, his own administration admits that US debt will equal 100% of America’s GDP.

3. THE END TO RECKLESSNESS IN OUR RHETORIC

Ask a Republican why they refuse to give President Obama the benefit of any doubt and they will tell you it is because of how badly Democrats treated George W. Bush. But Democrats justified those attacks against Bush by pointing to the terrible treatment that Republicans like myself gave Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Many Republicans who attacked Clinton without pause pointed back to the liberal establishment’s harsh, personal attacks against Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.

Unfortunately, there will always be party hacks and political extremists on both sides. But my belief is in this new decade, there will be a growing majority of Americans who will rise to the challenges that face us over the next decade and punish politicians who engage in nasty political campaigns.

This is my belief too, although Scarborough and I certainly differ about reforming health care. But there’s a lot we line up on here, and if an independent candidate can capture the zeitgeist Scarborough sums up here (Maybe as a campaign slogan? “An End To Recklessness?”) it could resonate.

Thoughts?

]]> http://donklephant.com/2010/01/05/joe-scarborough-talks-recklessness-restraint/feed/ 6 http://donklephant.com/2010/01/04/welcome-to-2010-year-of-the-independent/ http://donklephant.com/2010/01/04/welcome-to-2010-year-of-the-independent/#comments Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:06:44 +0000 Nancy Hanks http://donklephant.com/?p=17807

While Dem and Repub parties are bleeding members, ranks of independents continue to rise…

The nation’s foremost ballot access expert Richard Winger continues to wage a formidable effort against the popular open “Top Two” primary referendum that will be on the June ballot in California. While I’m on the other side of the issue, I appreciate Winger’s point about the open primary not being a guarantee of electing so-called “moderate” candidates. IMHO open primaries might be “bad” for parties, but they are good for independent voters and for our democracy, and I’m not particularly interested in controlling the ideological outcome of elections. I have infinitely more faith in the American people than I do in the corruption of our political parties to guide our country forward. Do we the people need to develop politically? Yes. And because we are a democracy, WE collectively with all our differences have a much better chance of leading the country forward than do factional partisan special interests.  >>>>>

And while California will be voting on a citizen referendum, the Republicans in Rhode Island are following their partisan brothers who have sued the state of Idaho to close the primary there and require partisan registration. Independent voters are co-defendants in this important case that will go to trial in February or March.  >>>>>

EXTRA! EXTRA! Revolution Breaks Out in Colorado! – Not since the Western Federation of Miners has there been such an outbreak of spirited independence as what we are witnessing now in Colorado. Today’s backdrop is an increasingly anti-partisan and independent electorate, a stupidly partisan Congress and a beloved President who can’t seem to win for losing (his Party loyalty straining credibility on all fronts….); today’s battle cries are “Open Primaries!” “Non-Partisan Elections!” “An Independent on the Federal Elections Commission!”  ”Watch these two women Joelle Riddle and Kathleen Curry — they’re cooking up quite a puzzle for the good ol’ boys’ clubs in a delightfully independent state!  >>>>>

The Hankster was in attendance for the New Year’s Day inauguration of Mayor Mike Bloomberg, New York City’s first independent mayor.  Here’s to nonpartisan municipal elections in the Big Apple! >>>>>

(In case you’re not acquainted with The Hankster, have a look — there you’ll find lots and lots of news and opinions relevant to independent voters.)

Happy New Year!

]]> http://donklephant.com/2010/01/04/welcome-to-2010-year-of-the-independent/feed/ 7