2020 is a Golden Opportunity for Election Reform without any Legislation

[Luvapottamus]

If one popular democrat's campaign does this:

1)Recruit a cabinet "in waiting."
2)Recruit potential SCOTUS nominees, and major executive branch department secretaries, like FCC chair, SEC chair, FED chair,
3)Strategy meetings, develop cohesive four year program.
4)Announce them all, offer them up for debates.
5)Reshuffle the deck after the primary(I'll explain why later, it's performance based)

The main point of doing this is to end the post primary and "January (post-inaugural) surprises."

Dan Quayle as VP, Scott Pruitt @ EPA are two glaring examples that come to mind.

Under forum TOS I won't list examples from this party...

Here's a hypothetical version:

"I'm _____.______ and I'm running for president."

Should there be a vacancy at the supreme court, Jonathan Turley has agreed to serve.
Ralph Nader has agreed to serve as my AG if I'm elected.
_____._____ secretary of transportation
_____._______Federal Reserve....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States

At least pick a cabinet and offer them up for debate.

They want to debate the cabinet and other potential appointees of my opponents.

Then everybody who hasn't done it has to scramble to do it or appear woefully unprepared to preside.

Which they usually are.

Benefits:
1) No legislation needed. All it takes is one candidate to do it and it forces all future candidates to do it in any party.

2) Gives the press, the people, and the congress ample opportunity to vet and object to any problematic potential appointees. Should speed up confirmation after inauguration.

3) The winner of the primary ends up with a large pool of talent they can poach from those defeated in the primary if those folks perform better in discussions and debates than their original picks or the original picks should become unavailable for service by inauguration.

4) The candidate chooses instead of choosing based on political favor repayment.

5) Public and the press exert much more pressure against January surprises. Anybody who dares switch from Ralph Nader as AG to Rudy Giuliani would get thrashed for it by the press and public and congress.

After the primary, the campaign needs to reconcile platform with grass roots priorities from the party membership, but starting campaigns this way would widen the possibilities and make a more intelligent and thoughtful process.

What say you DU?

(feel free to pass this idea on to any campaign of your choosing. I've sent it to one but didn't get a reply from their webmaster, don't know of better ways to send this to one.)

I'll add some 2020 platform and policy priorities later on.

Feel free to post your "fantasy football" dream team cabinet...

[Hortensis]

1. Welcome to DU. :) I thought this'd be about the census.

THAT is the revolutionary power that either will serve representative democracy OR the Republicans will harness to overset it further.

We got a good start on influencing it for good in the midterms, but 2020 will either open the gates to a new era of greatness and widespread prosperity of a progressive liberal republic OR build on and consolidate the power cemented in with the 2010 census of the increasingly authoritarian white male Christian supremacist party.

As for your idea, interesting, but I'm afraid offering a cabinet before being elected president, much less before the primary election, doesn't strike me as even remotely possible. Or desirable. The best qualified and in-demand people simply would not commit to being used by one candidate to try to get elected, becoming identified with policies and processes that may not actually represent their beliefs, and in the process slamming the door on serving whoever was elected (along with a prechosen cabinet). People of top stature don't have to and most wouldn't. This would lead to most or all candidates having to name a bunch of opportunistic, (at best) second-stringers.

As for the future of that first candidate who'd presumably "force" the others to follow suit, I'm guessing it could be very ugly. The other candidates might instead choose to just watch as swiftboaters working for opponents smeared dozens of virtual unknowns to attack the candidates themselves and obscure their agendas. And what about when the cabinet appointees become future declinations 2 years later, as would happen?

The opportunities for partisan ugliness and voter manipulation seem endless to me. Because the majority of people don't bother to properly (thoroughly and honestly to themselves!) vet any presidential candidates, even the one they end up voting for. They're going to do their homework on dozens of faceless people for each?

But, that's just my reaction. Is there any nation that does this, and how has it worked out?

[Luvapottamus]

2. I don't know if other countries have tried this.

But there's no reason a potential nominee has to anchor themselves to a candidate.

"______.______ has asked me to serve, and I'll be happy to serve WHOEVER wins in 2020."

I want to debate the other potential nominees on how to run the Veteran's Affairs department.

It's funny how we've run this like Student Council President elections.

My perspective is it's not usually the person who wins that disappoints me.

By the time somebody is elected president, you already know their virtues and flaws and not much they do disappoints or impresses me.

It's the people they bring with them in January that screw it all up.

The virtue of doing it this way, picking a cabinet, having strategy and platform meetings, it if proves the chief executive can assemble the talent they need to preside, and deliver a cohesive managerial program.

And it would weed out candidates who can't.

But pick away at it, I see a few problems that could result from this also.

One of them is "when do you extend secret service protection?"

[Hortensis]

3. But they could all ask the same people to serve.

Btw, it's clear that your imaginings of the evils this would avoid are inspired by what the anti-government/anti-regulation Republicans do and the corrupt people they bring in.

This simply doesn't happen with Democratic presidents. They may vary in competence and somewhat in ideology, but they all believe in good government that serves the people well and choose solid people to help them do that.

Forget looking for a nation that elects cabinets with presidents.

Instead, go look for even one Devon Nunes, Betsy DeVos, Cap Weinberger, Scooter Libby, or Alex Acosta among Democrats, much less venal crooks like Wilbur Ross, Scott Pruit, Elaine Chao, Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft, Spiro Agnew, and on and on.

This virtually never happens among Democrats on anything remoting approaching the scale among Republicans. And when a serious ethics violation is uncovered on the Democratic side it's investigated, and if found guilty the person is required to resign.

Where we do fail is in what too many of our legislators (not presidents) have to do to get reelected. Not all are independently wealthy or from affluent districts full of good donors, and these people do like their jobs way too much. We have get money out of politics, and the Democratic Party is seriously working on that right now.

[Luvapottamus]

4. I could list poorly selected democrat cabinet members

and executive appointees....

On another forum.

It'd violate TOS here.

So I'll let your imagination run wild.

cough...turbotax....cough....



The main problem is we view the presidency as a PRIZE instead of a responsibility.

First order of business is to WIN the PRIZE.

Then the first order of business in January after inauguration is to SHARE the PRIZE.

It shouldn't be done that way.

That's how you get Roger Wheeler at FCC and other revolving door captured agencies.

It should be done more like a film production.

POTUS candidate is the producer.

They pick the Director of Photography, Production Designer, hire the Gaffer and Key Grip(usually at the recommendation of the DP....

Have a schedule and budget which they adhere to, then
Return the equipment in good working order.

It's not EXACTLY like a film production, but producer skills are what a president needs.

Helps if they have acting credits as well.

Tom Hanks/ Ron Howard 2020....

LOL

[MrsCoffee]

5. You mean Democratic cabinet members.

Do they call us the Democrat Party on the other site where you wouldn’t be violating the TOS?

Just curious.

[Luvapottamus]

6. Oops

I don't know. Simple error, my apologies.

I'm not a stealth republican if that's what you're thinking.

I sent this idea to Warren using the webform at her site, and not surprisingly did not get a reply.

Tried to send it to Beto, but there's no contact method there yet.

I intend to send it to all democratic candidates, but this is one of the reasons I posted it here...if anybody connected to the democrat candidates likes the idea, send it up.

And please pick it apart.

One problem potentially is incumbents.

Do we want the sitting Attorney General debating prospective ones?

Should the Secretary of Defense be debating during an armed conflict?

That's a potential issue, but my thought on that is we already are familiar with sitting cabinet members, this is for primaries and contested elections where the sitting president is term limited or fails to secure nomination.

[Hortensis]

7. Please DO and post here. Truth is allowable under the TOS

as long as it's not part of condemning or smearing Democrats as a party or our ideology. So just point out cabinet secretaries and high officials with misdeeds that are in any way even remotely comparable to their counterparts appointed by Republicans -- and why. Be sure to cover yourself by confining yourself to proven corrupt and highly unethical actions.

Of course, unsupported...cough...insinuations and allegations are already not acceptable. Nor would claiming that controversial decisions supported by many Democrats but condemned by others were just as bad as the high crimes committed under the last 3 Republican presidents for instance. You must be honest to be safe.

And let's keep it within the last 40 years because our electorate, our people in government, and what our party supports and will accept have changed somewhat in that time, though on the whole we've affirmed our liberal ideals and principles, while the Republican Party has abandoned its.

[Luvapottamus]

8. Revolving Door

I wasn't intending to do this on this thread.

But I'll do one as an example. Admittedly, The Turbotax Tim(Geithner) example doesn't compare to Scott Pruitt traveling to Morocco on taxpayer dime to schlep Liquified Natural Gas as EPA administrator:

A little humor^^^^


But Tom Wheeler as FCC chair is a flagrant example.

(I erred earlier wrote Roger Wheeler I think)

His 5G speech where he states the FCC won't regulate 5G.^^^^


Thomas Edgar Wheeler (born April 5, 1946)[1][2] is an American businessman and politician. He was the 31st Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission and a member of the Democratic Party.[3][4]

He was appointed by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in November 2013.[1] Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, whom the FCC is now responsible for regulating, and holding positions including President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA). Following custom for an FCC chairman, Wheeler resigned his seat when the new administration of Donald Trump began on January 20, 2017.[5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler

Not regulating RF radiation is criminal dereliction of duty IMO.

Sometimes insiders are appropriate nominees, but we should get a chance to vet and object to problematic ones.

[Hortensis]

9. These both result from ideological and goal positions

that many disagree with but are also a reflection of the environment and realities they took place in. Any harm was expected to be outweighed by the ultimate advantages. These are not comparable to the intense corruption and harm committed on the Republican side.

Further, both were competent officials who mostly did their jobs as President Obama intended they do them, not just these actions.

You're new, so perhaps I accidentally mislead you into thinking it'd be okay to claim that someone working as a lobbyist before appointment was proof that he was corrupt in office. At least that's what I assume your bolding was supposed to imply. Many lobbyists are big experts in their field, and presidents would be hard put to fill top government appointments with what they felt were the best people without any who had lobbied at some point.

Imo, to carry your point of corruption, "imo" should have been followed by citing positive results of criminal investigation into your "imo, criminal dereliction of duty." Notably, President Obama did not think so or he would have asked for his resignation.

I'm afraid comparing policies sanctioned by the Democratic president they serve, and that had positive payoffs as well as negative, to what the Republicans are doing does not pass the "okay with me" test, so please don't think I'm encouraging you to continue this particular path. As you say yourself, they're NOT comparable.

Stay safe.

[Luvapottamus]

10. You're moving the goalpost.

I said bad nominees and you turned it into results of criminal investigations.

What better way to demonstrate commitment to ending revolving door than to announce your appointees?

[mcar]

11. Hortensis didn't move the goal posts

She said:

So just point out cabinet secretaries and high officials with misdeeds that are in any way even remotely comparable to their counterparts appointed by Republicans -- and why. Be sure to cover yourself by confining yourself to proven corrupt and highly unethical actions.

[Luvapottamus]

12. And:

[quote]Imo, to carry your point of corruption, "imo" should have been followed by citing positive results of criminal investigation into your "imo, criminal dereliction of duty." Notably, President Obama did not think so or he would have asked for his resignation. [/quote]

But again I didn't want to get into democrats vs republicans.

They both do it.

But this type of campaign can force republicans to quit doing it.(Quit "surprising" us with Scott Pruitt at EPA)

Do you think Bush Vs Gore would have ever made it to court if Bush had declared Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and the Patriot Actors in that primary season?

Never would have landed the nomination.

If democrats run their campaigns this way republicans will have to do it too.

It's a bonus effect.

If Trump gets the nomination again, he's stuck with the cabinet he has(and doesn't even have yet). And a democrat "cabinet in waiting" can make hay criticizing it.

In the next open election due to term limits, if one candidate in either party does it, it forces the rest to do it.

My prospective nominees want to debate yours.

You don't have any yet?

Why not?

Why are you so woefully unprepared?

[ehrnst]

26. Again....

If this is SO obviously a foolproof way to win by a landslide, why has no one done it?

[brooklynite]

22. Parliamentary systems usually have an opposition "Shadow Cabinet" of policy experts...

...who are assumed to take the relevant office if their Party wins.

[Luvapottamus]

13. Why this is a Golden Opportunity

1)Trump should be easy to defeat. And easier to defeat with a cabinet in waiting because you can compare and contrast our candidates'(and nominee's) recruits for appointments to the ones he picked, and the ones HE STILL HASN'T PICKED.
2)If Romney or somebody else wins a primary challenge, and he hasn't done this and WE HAVE, he's cornered as an empty suit

3)No legislation needed. It can bolster anti-revolving door legislation later, but it's not needed now. All it takes is ONE Solid democrat to do it, and everybody who hasn't is playing catch up.

This is why I'm undecided. I'm likely to support the first one who does this. And I intend to contact all democrats but I'm not sure the best way to get this idea conveyed.

4)Plenty of space for variability. This doesn't have to be done precisely the way I conceived it. There's plenty of space for creative gamesmanship.

But ultimately it's a Golden Opportunity because voters are sick of the traditional campaign.

[ehrnst]

15. What "traditional campaign" are voters "sick of?"

And which voters are those? All? Republicans? Democrats?

And what if someone wants to choose someone for their cabinet from the field of other Democratic candidates, like Obama did? Those would likely be among those you would want in leadership.

[Luvapottamus]

16. Reinhold Richard "Reince" Priebus

You think anybody wanted him in the Whitehouse?

All voters should be sick of this.

Traditionally, presidents often choose defeated primary opponents as vice president running mate. That dates back to convention deal making, but that's really part of the problem.

There is talk now about eliminating the electoral college, but the real problem isn't the electoral college, it's the democratic party running candidates that are unpopular, and who refuse to articulate substantial policy intentions.

We can win in landslides if we simply change the status quo, have candidates who articulate actual policy programs, and declare whom they intend to appoint to carry out these actions. So they can in unison blast the media with a cohesive, competent articulation of what exactly they intend to do for FOUR YEARS.

This doesn't have to be done EXACTLY the way I prefer it be done, but if one candidate does it, the other 20 LOL of them will have to do it their way, and as it is right now, we may have thirty test runs on this before this primary season is over.

That's plenty of variety to see which way works best.

If you like, Biden can declare a few tentative appointments, and declare I'm going to fill in the rest of these jobs with the people you didn't want.

[ehrnst]

18. No idea what Priebus has to do with your answer concerning elections.

it's the democratic party running candidates that are unpopular, and who refuse to articulate substantial policy intentions.

What candidates are those? We won the vote in 2016 and 2018...with record numbers for a POTUS election.

We can win in landslides if we simply change the status quo, have candidates who articulate actual policy programs, and declare whom they intend to appoint to carry out these actions.

Democrats do articulate actual policy programs. Please tell me which Democratic candidates you think have "refused."

[Luvapottamus]

20. Per forum rules

I'm not going to blast any particular candidate.

I'm going to answer your question with a question instead:

How come we can't beat George W. Bush or Donald Trump in a LANDSLIDE?

What Reince Priebus has to do with this is similar to what Dan Quayle has to do with it.

Nobody wanted either of them in the Whitehouse. The problem this recommendation is trying to solve is Scott Pruitt at EPA.

If Trump's opponents had declared who they wanted to head EPA, he would have had to declare his too, and democrats could have pounced on that, gained a landslide margin in the electoral college.

Trump picks "Mr.Propane and Propane accessories", we pick Ralph Nader, who do you think would have won in a landslide?

[ehrnst]

21. "How come we can't beat George W. Bush or Donald Trump in a LANDSLIDE? "

I guess when someone shows you're wrong, you move the goalpost. You can't say that we lost the popular vote, so you complain that there wasn't "a landslide."

And you can't even tell people why you're convinced you're right about Dem candidates - other than to type "Reince Priebus."

If Trump's opponents had declared who they wanted to head EPA, he would have had to declare his too, and democrats could have pounced on that, gained a landslide margin in the electoral college.

So the reaon DT is in the WH, wasn't Russia, gerrymandering, misogyny and voter suppression... it was that Trump didn't declare who he wanted to head up the EPA?



And not nominating Nader was the reason that GWB got the WH, and not because of election tampering in FL, and SCOTUS?

[Luvapottamus]

24. We lost those elections.

Electoral college has always been the goalpost.

If you want landslides try doing it this way.

That's what I'm saying.

Should be easy to defeat somebody like Dubya or Trump, in a landslide but people don't BELIEVE our candidates are SINCERE.

This is how you prove sincerity, by selecting the TALENT needed to carry out the priorities you proclaim to promote.

What do we have to lose?

Afraid to tell people you want a reasonable person in the SCOTUS? Why be afraid to name a few?

I sent this to the Yang Campaign today.

If somebody sends this to Romney, our nominee might get chumped in the GE if they aren't ready.

[ehrnst]

25. So if that's such a simple way to win by a landslide, why has no one done that?

[rzemanfl]

27. I am reminded of the Lone Ranger joke that ends-

"What's with this WE business...?"

[brooklynite]

23. No, they DON'T traditionally choose a defeated Primary opponent.

H. Clinton didn't
Gore didn't
B Clinton didn't
Dukakis didn't
Mondale didn't
Carter didn't
McGovern didn't

[Luvapottamus]

14. Warren, Beto, Bernie

I sent Warren campaign this idea weeks ago, no reply.(So you could label me a tentative Warren supporter, because she's the first I thought of. I'm still uncommitted.)

Beto and Bernie don't have a contact listed on their campaign website.

Just contacted the Harris campaign.

Haven't checked the rest yet, but if you are a Bernie or Beto supporter please send it to them, and request a contact us feature on the campaign website.

I probably need to go to a local party meeting to push this....but if anybody has a better idea or better contacts, I'd like to send it up to all democrat campaigns.

I really doubt they read their email off the website, but it's all I have.

LOL

[Luvapottamus]

17. Pete Buttigieg

No contact info.

https://www.peteforamerica.com/meet-pete/

[Luvapottamus]

19. Cory Booker

No contact info.

https://corybooker.com/

I tried his senate website, but failed to complete the webform because elections isn't a topic.

I think two a day is enough.

Feel free to forward this idea to your favorite campaign if you know how to contact them.

I'm still trying to send it to all of them.

If everybody does it at the same time, nobody is caught looking unprepared.