File 026298

Images

Text

Date: Friday, August 3 2018 03:49 AM
Subject: Fwd: Our May conversation - more thoughts
From: Juleanna Glover
To: jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com>;
Flagging for you. This went out to that circle of third party thinkers. Hope all is well, Jeffrey.!
Begin forwarded message:
From: Juleanna Glover _______________
Date: August 2, 2018 at 2:45:08 PM CDT
To: Juleanna Glover
Subject: Our May conversation - more thoughts
Hi all —
I spent some time mulling additional aspects of a third choice presidential run and wanted to run five
specific attributes for a candidate by you as a group.
This much we know - the Fall elections are shaping up to be a referendum on the most divisive
American President in memory. The battle for potential Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh's
nomination this fall will only amplify the polarity of the political debate that is already deeply
overwrought on both sides. The rising tide of pressure on Donald Trump from the Mueller investigation
shows no sign of ebbing.
Unless the underlying political dynamics are disrupted, the outcomes of these unprecedented events will
still leave us with the same unsatisfactory two front battlefield of the 2016 Presidential election.
Watching these unrelenting, compounding events since our discussion in May, I am guessing we are all
asking the same question: now what? For the 48 percent of Americans who believe Donald Trump
should not be in the White House, perhaps we too want our own "chaos" candidate in 2020?
Should Trump run again, this could be a "break glass" moment for the majority of Americans who don't
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 026298
support him. Do we want to break the genteel precedents of two parties running their ceremonious and
seemingly illogical nominating process to select a candidate? (Why do Iowa and New Hampshire play
such outsized roles? What kind of small-d democratic process relies on superdelegates?) The system
failed in 2016, with both parties producing terribly flawed candidates in a race to the bottom. We need to
build a back-up plan in the event the system fails again.
It's possible, of course, that we won't need a third-party candidate. Trump could decide not to run for
whatever reason. The Democrats could nominate a winning 2020 candidate. I am not willing to take
those bets.
The ideal candidate for a new third party is someone who is widely perceived to be that rare combination
of both good and great. We are looking for a proven leader of men and women, someone with clear,
democratic — and moral — values that reflect the best of America, not our worst. We know people like this
on the national stage now.
As a thought experiment, consider the possibilities of a ticket outside the partisan lanes and imagine the
chemistry of radical combinations: Biden/Romney? Bill Gates/Hogan? Bloomberg/Haley? Howard
Schultz/Bob Corker? Sandberg/Kasich?
As we have discussed narrow path to electing the first president outside the two major party primary
system in 168 years is more navigable than most think. Heading into 2020, converging trends in
American's demands for a third party (a historic high of 61%), disapproval of Donald Trump holding
steady above 50%, and the increasingly leftward drift of the Democratic Party suggest that electorate may
be susceptible to merits of a new centrist party. Cynics will say that the structural impediments of ballot
and presidential debate access, the overwhelming advantages of legacy parties' fundraising and voter
turn-out operations preordain failure, but they're wrong; the legal and logistical hurdles are amenable to a
combination of lawyering and resources. The bigger, more consequential factors come in terms of
candidate quality and policy. I believe a candidate with five specific characteristics including a unique —
and purposefully non-specific - policy agenda could limbo a win.
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 026299
• This is what I think a successful third-party candidate looks like; a dream third party ticket would
start off with enough name ID to be an instant contender. Building the name ID to run nationally is
just too long and expensive of a process to accomplish in the 28 months until the next presidential
election. We can't beat a celebrity without some celebrity of our own, whether from politics,
sports, business, or entertainment. Instantaneous name ID is so crucial because the candidate must
start out in striking distance in any three-way poll against Trump and a fill-in-the-blank
Democratic flavor-of-the day candidate. The media and political class will predetermine
irrelevance otherwise.
• A Democrat-leaning candidate would have to top the ideal third-party ticket. We need someone
with a shot at snaking a plurality of the vote in the blue states Hillary Clinton won (227 electoral
votes), but moderate enough to win a plurality in some combination of Trump states like Florida,
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan (another 119 votes). The right candidate may even to put
North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana in play for a centrist bi-partisan ticket as well (totaling an electoral
sweep of 464 elector votes). A right leaning candidate would meet the same fate as a primary
challenger to Trump — for all intents and purposes we need to assume that 36% of voters won't be
cleaved from Trump under any circumstances and run to win around them. The deep red states
would be off the table entirely.
• With the Trump reality show airing daily, voters are now expecting to take their politics with a side
of entertainment. Heretofore, ratings will matter no matter how dry the policy topic. Surely
Stephen Colbert would gladly sacrifice his executive producer Chris Licht to produce a daily
comedic segment of this dream candidate interviewing Americans in truck stops and McDonald's
across the country. A few of the "Saturday Night Live" script writers could certainly be enticed to
disguise serious debates as informative amusement. Any candidate must be committed to a near
daily cadence of high quality, compelling video production. It will be especially crucial to keep
the voters' attention during what will be a raucous Democratic primary season. Rules governing
access to the general election debate stage dictate that a candidate enjoy support of at least 15% of
voters in the months leading up to the general election.
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 026300
• This dream candidate would pledge to serve only four years and address all of the U.S.'s ticking
time bombs like Social Security, Medicare, health care reform, climate change, money in politics,
gerrymandering, and infrastructure investment in a single term. This one-and-done term decouples
our candidate from the usual politics and gives them the power of promise and deliver decisive
action. A four-year term pledge ensures governance independent of campaign finance concerns and
narrow special interests inherent to winning re-election. This "fix-it" ticket would promise to force
decisions on all the underlying structural policy matters damaging America's long-term prospects
and distorting our democracy. No more kicking the can down the road.
• This candidate should also pledge to push for laws passed that reflect the will of simple majorities
in Congress. Congress now only allows bills to move forward when a "majority of a majority"
supports the policy and on many levels seems fundamentally broken. This third-party president
could force votes based on a transparent reading of where the votes lie via coalition building. The
Senate filibuster power will present a high hurdle, but a third-party candidate would be a de facto
disruptor of the two-party system. Party discipline could well break down, and moderates in both
parties could form a powerful, decisive block willing to work with the new President. The policies
passed into law may not be ideal for either Democrats or Republicans, but for the major agenda
items that must be addressed for America's long-term health, an imperfect fix that corrects course
is better than those that now have us hurtling toward national bankruptcy.
And if no candidate secures 270 electoral votes in 2020? The House of Representatives would choose the
next president. In 2016, reports suggested Michael Bloomberg declined to run on a third-party ticket for
fear of splitting support from Hillary Clinton and throwing the election to a GOP-controlled House of
Representatives who would then vote to select the president. The fear was the GOP controlled House
would have just elected Trump.
Would Democratic control of the House mean that the House would pick an alternative to Trump as
president? Each state delegation has a single vote in selecting a president and it is the incoming Congress
- the class elected in 2020 that would decide the election. But no matter which party has the speaker's
chair, the GOP would almost certainly have the upper hand in the majority of state delegations controlled.
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 026301
Would the state delegations pick a president based on party majority control of the delegation, the
winner of the popular vote in each state or their own calculations as to who is best for America?
Precedent suggests that delegations use secret ballots, which means individual lawmakers may vote their
consciences.
If we recruit this ideal candidate; threading the needle of name ID, a center-left bent, a TV- savvy
campaign team and a pledge to serve only four years with an apartisan agenda, money and campaign
expertise would certainly follow. And 50 state ballot access is a function of time (starting in the fall of
2019 would be prudential) and hard work as we have discussed and many of you have exhaustively war-
gamed.
Part and parcel of this effort would be motivating the often politically lackadaisical middle to vote. The
raft of new technologies in data targeting and biometric mobile voting technology could transform the
electorate in the next few, amping voter participation and injecting the voices of moderates (both in
political views and level of political interest) into the process. And any third-party effort must
incorporate advocacy for accelerated adaption of these all but inevitable voter verification tools. I believe
Silicon Valley could be game-changing allies in this effort.
I am sure none of us doubt that chaos could potentially be unleashed by jamming three viable candidates
into a two-party system. An election that ends up in the House of Representatives is an uncontrollable,
murky and ancient process. But might that be a less scary prospect than relying on the Democrats to
nominate a candidate who can beat Trump in 2020?
I look forward to talking more about all of our ideas on this hopeful project in coming weeks. Please feel
free to call me to discuss. Thank you for taking time to review this note.
Sincerely,
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 026302
Juleanna Glover
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 026303