HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Luvapottamus » Journal
Page: 1

Luvapottamus

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Mar 22, 2019, 09:47 AM
Number of posts: 31

Journal Archives

2020 is a Golden Opportunity for Election Reform without any Legislation

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?

I'd like for candidates to announce their cabinet the SAME DAY they file the candidacy, but it's a little late for that this cycle, but not too late to do it a month from now....or at least before this primary really gets going....

2020 is a Golden Opportunity for Election Reform without any Legislation

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...





Go to Page: 1