Free advice for the Illinois Green Party

Elections in Illinois could get a little more interesting next year now that the Green Party has a guaranteed line on the general election ballot. I'm one of those odd people who daydreams about political strategies so I asked myself what I would advise the Illinois Green Party to do in the upcoming election.

First let me be clear that I'm a Democrat and no one in the Green Party has asked my opinion. I decided the Green Party was a disorganized waste of time when I watched a portion of their 2002 National Congress held in Carbondale Illinois. They were supposed to have a panel discussion on the Greens' role in the 2004 Presidential election that I thought might be interesting. The panel discussion never happened because their two-day long session of bickering about combining the two national Green Parties ran overtime. That's correct. There are two Green Parties, and in the tradition of the various American socialist and communist parties of the last century, they can't put their differences aside to make a united front.

Consequently, I'm not convinced that the Greens will become organized enough to win any elections even if they do take my advice. But for the sake of argument, I'll post what I would suggest they do if they want to accomplish more than spinning wheels and arguing amongst themselves.

Setting aside the 2000 election and the arguments over whether Nader threw the election to Bush, there are two scenarios that most alienate the Green Party from the progressive voting block it seeks to attract. The first is the Pennsylvania example where Green Party candidates take support from Republicans in close races. People aren't going to take the Green Party seriously if progressives see them as tools of Republicans looking to use them as spoilers.

The other point I hear liberals make against the Green Party most often is that they ran a candidate against Paul Wellstone. Wellstone was probably the most liberal member of the US Senate and beloved by progressives across the nation. The fact that Greens ran someone against him is still an embarrassing indictment against the Green Party's supposed dedication to the progressive cause. Are they really about electing progressives when the Democratic Party moves too far to the right, or are they just as bitterly partisan as the conservative Democrats who tell liberals they must vote for any conservative Democrat on the ballot?

The Green Party would be making the same mistake in Illinois if they ran someone against Dick Durbin, who was the only Senate Democrat other than Wellstone to vote against the war in Iraq while he was up for re-election. Running a candidate against Durbin would ruin any chance they might have of convincing liberal Democrats to vote for a Green in any office.

How then, can the Illinois Greens compete while avoiding these strategically disastrous pitfalls? There are two jasmin live scenarios I can see that would allow them to win new supporters and have a chance at winning an election or two.

First, identify State House and Senate districts where Democrats have given up. Every year there are Republicans who run unopposed. Those are uphill battles but it provides an opportunity for the Greens to get votes from Democrats who won't support them in a three-way race.

That's how Rich Whitney earned his highest totals running for State Representative against Mike Bost. Even when they lose, it becomes a party building activity that doesn't leave liberal Democrats angry about a close election being thrown to a Republican. This should be their primary strategy in downstate.

Second, look for heavily Democratic districts in the Chicagoland area represented by moderate or conservative Democrats. There are districts that won't vote more than 33% Republican even in a three-way race. That's an opportunity for the Greens to win with someone who more accurately reflects the views of a liberal district.

At the state level, we could end up with more legislators who aren't dependent on party leaders. As long as Green candidates pledge to vote for a Democratic Speaker or Senate President then there's no danger of throwing control of the General Assembly to the Republicans.

The same strategy can be used in Congressional races. There are two incumbents that quickly come to mind.

One is Dan Lipinski in the 3rd Congressional District. I don't particularly have anything against Lipinski (in fact I briefly met him once while I lived in Knoxville and he was teaching at UT) but I know there are many people who feel his views are too conservative for the heavily Democratic district he represents. He had a strong primary challenge last time and already has a Democratic Primary challenger this year.

A progressive candidate might have better luck in the general election during a Presidential race than in the primary when fewer people vote. A Republican won't get more than 25% in a three way race in that district, so a Green could easily win with 40% of the vote.

Alternately, if there's no Republican candidate, a Green could win with support of liberal Democrats, anti-machine independents, and partisan Republicans who want to vote for anyone that doesn't have a "D" next to their name. The 3rd district looks like the most realistic chance for the Greens to win a Congressional seat in Illinois and they'll be able to compete without completely alienating all of the liberal Democrats in the district.

The other possibility is Rahm Emanuel. Rahm isn't as conservative as Lipinski but he has become the leading Congressional poster for "Third Way" moderate Democrats. He lives in a heavily Democratic district that would vote for Eugene Debs if he ran as a Democrat. Its fine for conservative Democrats to argue that we must elect moderates in more moderate to conservative areas, but Rahm is a moderate in a very liberal district.

A Green Party challenge against the House's leading DLC Democrat could become a national race in the same vein as the Lieberman/Lamont primary. The Greens could raise money nationally by making it a referendum on vacillating Democratic leaders whose play-it-safe strategy on Iraq and other issues is angering liberal voters. Emanuel already butted heads with Cindy Sheehan and pushed Congressional approval ratings below 25% by not taking the kind of strong stand war opponents expect from Democratic leaders.

An exciting Green candidate with some money of his own would attract volunteers and donations from people across the country who want to make a statement about the compromising, ineffective, "third way" approach of Democratic Party leaders. The district is liberal enough that it might actually work.

That's my advice for the Greens if they want to at least be relevant, gain support, and build their party structure during the next election. These are ways the Illinois Greens can build support rather than further alienating their likely progressive voters as they have in other states.

Again, being a Democrat, I'm not saying I necessarily want all of these things to happen, but its makes for an interesting hypothetical question. I'll be interested to see what the Greens decide to do. I'd love to hear what other people think about Chaturbaterooms.com.

Republican Presidential Primary Predictions

A post about Presidential election predictions over at BFS inspired me to write the promised Republican side of my predictions about the Democratic Presidential primary.

The early Republican race is interesting because the three front runners (McCain, Romney, and Giuliani) all have reputations for being relatively moderate. That's not surprising because the main qualification for a winning Republican candidate in the general election is to be associated as little as possible with George Bush and the decision to invade Iraq. The last thing Republicans want is for their party to be held responsible for Bush's mistakes and unpopularity. That's why you don't see Condi Rice or any other administration figures in the race.

That's why its so puzzling that John McCain ruined his reputation by veering toward the right, clinging to George Bush, and becoming one of the most ardent supporters of the Iraq War. Independent voters no longer see him as a moderate maverick and conservatives still haven't accepted him as one of their own. I don't see how McCain can remake himself again without further eroding his reputation as a straight shooter.

Mitt Romney is an excellent candidate in many ways. He can raise money, he's a blue-state Governor that hasn't been in Washington participating in the messes of the last six years, and he's good on TV. As Massachusetts governor he has been getting news coverage in the New Hampshire media market for years. A large Mormon population in Nevada might give him an edge in that early primary state as well.

The problem with Mitt is that he will never win a single Southern primary state. I think a lot of political pundits don't understand the extent to which people in some denominations, the Southern Baptists in particular, have been taught for decades that Mormonism is a bizarre, non-Christian cult. It wasn't that long ago that the Southern Baptists held their national convention in Salt Lake City for the explicit purpose of telling Mormons that they belong to a cult and are going to hell.

This election might be what finally wakes up Mormons in heavily Republican Utah and Idaho to the fact that while the Christian Coalition movement will accept their votes, it still doesn't accept Mormons as peers. Unfortunately for Romney, you can't win the Republican nomination without carrying any Southern states, where the Southern Baptist Church is the most powerful political institution.

The irony for Romney is that the prejudices he exploits against those with "non-traditional" values when he attacks gays, are the same prejudices that will stop him from winning the nomination because of his own "non-traditional" religious beliefs. The politics of division cuts both ways.

Rudy Giuliani will have trouble winning over the conservative evangelical vote for different reasons. I'm skeptical that he'll win the nomination but I give him a better chance than McCain or Romney.

When I think about Giuliani I think of all the power that Bush has concentrated into the Executive Branch. Then I imagine that extra-constitutional power in the hands of someone like Giuliani who showed strong tendencies toward abuse of power and nanny-state control as Mayor of New York, along with his willingness to exploit a national tragedy for his own personal political benefit. That's a recipe for Italy circa 1924.

That leaves conservatives looking for a candidate. Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter will never gain traction because they won't have support from the biggest Republican donors. The most important Republican donors care about economic issues like corporate deregulation and special tax breaks. They'll support one of their own like George Bush who gives lip service to conservative religious voters, but they don't want a true believer like Brownback.

Thus we have the rise of Fred Thompson who I believe would give Republicans the best chance at victory. Thompson was still a Senator when I lived in Tennessee and I had the chance to meet with him and his staff a few times. A few observations about Thompson:

1) He's primarily a Chamber of Commerce conservative that doesn't scare people away like Brownback does. He can act and sound like a reasonable moderate when he wants to, which is what someone needs to do if they're going to be conservative enough to win the nomination yet appeal to independents in the general election.

2) He understands the appeal of populism. That's why he rented a red pickup truck for his Senate campaign to drive around Tennessee. Sure, it was contrived, but it worked. Reagan playing cowboy on his ranch was contrived too but people bought it.

3) Obviously, he's a polished speaker and performer. I wonder if Bill O'Reilly will keep complaining about "Hollywood elites" if Republicans become the party of Rondald Reagan, Fred Thompson, and Arnold Schwarzenegger? Probably.

4) He has a few issues where he's more moderate, including environmental issues. Bashing tree-huggers works on talk radio but most voters want a President who protects the environment. Thompson, like all Republicans from Tennessee, was compelled to support environmental initiatives that benefit the Smoky Mountains National Park. That kept him from compiling an extremist record against the environment like so many in his party.

5) He meets the essential criteria of having been out of Washington for the last five years so he has nothing to do with George Bush and the War in Iraq. Again, this will be an election where the Republican nominee will try to wipe the slate clean and accept no responsibility for Bush's mistakes.

I don't know if Republicans will nominate Thompson but he's the candidate Democrats will have the most trouble defeating.

Mike Huckabee might have half a chance of attracting conservative voters if Fred Thompson doesn't enter the race. I'm tempted to say that there's no chance someone as goofy as Huckabee can win the nomination but then I remember who's in the White House.

Finally, there's Ron Paul. He'll attract a lot of support from outside the traditional Republican base. He has a lot of internet support but I'm not so sure he can translate that into a good organization in the early primary states and get his supporters to actually vote in the Republican primary.

Sometime next year if the Republican nominee is looking very weak, and the Democratic nominee is someone major corporate donors don't think they can work with, then look for a push to get a third party candidate like Michael Bloomberg or Chuck Hagel to enter the race. Corporate special interests have been doing very well for the last 7 years and they won't give that up too easily.

Ok, that's my take on it. If you think I'm completely wrong then tell me why!

Local clean energy news

The State Journal Register has a good article today on the PURPA standards I wrote about before and that Greg blogged about extensively at CES Blog. I have to admit this is a complicated story that can get pretty boring so the SJ-R deserves credit for covering it in a long front page article.

The review of these standards is a good opportunity for the public from Jasminelive.online to talk about what direction we want CWLP to take with clean energy and let Alderman know that it should be a priority. My impression is that CWLP leaders are open to public suggestions and we have a group of new Alderman who are probably willing to look at new ways of doing things.

One thing I like about the article (other than being surprised at seeing my name mentioned) is its acknowledgement that the clean energy agreement reached with the Sierra Club already put CWLP on the right path with several of these issues such as fuel diversification and conservation measures. I was glad to see a line about how the agreement called for conservation and a resulting reduction of emissions in the existing Dallman power plant units. That point was missed in some of the debate over the agreement, in which a few opponents falsely claimed that it did nothing to reduce pollution in Springfield.

The standards came up at CWLP's energy meeting last Thursday. It had the best attendance yet of any of the meetings and new Alderman Steve Dove was there. Its nice to see an Alderman taking active interest in learning more about the issues he'll be voting on.

While you're reading the SJ-R be sure to check out the article about Dick Durbin's comments on the Senate Energy Bill that I wrote about yesterday.

This morning I was watching "This Week" on ABC and I wondered why the Immigration Bill gets so much more coverage than the Energy Bill since the Energy Bill has at least as much, if not greater impact on our lives. Just then, the commercial break started with "This Week is brought to you by BP." That pretty well answered my question.

Of course, I can't expect NBC and the many other new outlets owned by General Electric to give the issue fair coverage either. So, we're left with the talk radio crowd setting the national agenda. That's the "liberal media" for you! If we're supposed to believe that campaign contributions affect how politicians vote, then why shouldn't I believe that the ownership and advertising revenue sources of the major media outlets affects how they cover the news?

Federal clean car legislation

There are a few news items about fuel economy that I've been meaning to write about. The Star Tribune has a good editorial about legislation that passed the Senate to improve fuel efficiency. Also, if you missed coverage of the Senate energy bill, check out this New York Times article. The Senate's support for better fuel standards is encouraging but pro-pollution Republicans managed to block legislation that would have encouraged a responsible course on clean energy generation.

The above Star Tribune editorial mentions this interview with Dick Durbin and Missouri Senator Kit Bond about fuel standards. Kit Bond, who receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the oil and auto industries, chooses to ignore the interests of the people he represents by repeating the bogus scare tactics of the auto industry. Durbin had a great line about the auto manufacturers and their doomsday predictions:

I think America can meet this challenge. I'm optimistic. And I think, if some of the Detroit manufacturers spend a little more time with their engineering department rather than their legal department, that they could meet this challenge.

Barack Obama is talking a lot about this issue. His statement about the Senate bill calls it a "modest first step" and mentions his Low Carbon Fuel Initiative. He also introduced a bill with Republican Orrin Hatch and Maria Cantwell to promote plug-in hybrids, which I think is the most promising technology for the near future.

Clean Cars is an issue I've been focusing on lately and all of this news reminds me of why I think Illinois has the best representation in the US Senate of any state in the nation.

Democratic Presidential Primary Predictions

Once in a while when I'm talking with people about the latest poll numbers or news about the Presidential primary I'll find myself saying, "that's exactly what I said was going to happen several months ago, remember?" So today, for the admittedly petty reason to have evidence that I was correct down the road, I'm going to make my predictions about the primary election.

After watching the weekly Sunday morning political shows I feel validated in my opinions because most of the national television political pundits are obviously morons. They don't know how to look at anything other than the latest poll numbers and fundraising totals. At least Obama's excellent fundraising totals in the last quarter forced the national media to temper its cult-like obession with Hillary by introducing a little more talk about Barack. But I still saw every pundit on Meet the Press declare that they believe Clinton will win the nomination. Fools!

I never thought Hillary Clinton had a chance because people are desperate for a leader who shows conviction, not someone who always takes the "popular" strategic stance based on what swing voters supposedly want. Democratic Primary voters are burned out on Clinton-esque straddling. That's why the approval ratings for Congress have dropped even lower recently. The Rahm Emanuel strategy of playing it safe and moderate on the Iraq War issue managed to alienate most of the Democratic Party base without winning over independents either.

The frustration anti-war Democrats feel that the party is spinelessly failing to fulfil the mandate of the voters will further damage Clinton's campaign because she is the least credible in her opposition to the war. What Bush/Rove showed in '04 is that people want to vote for someone who they believe will stand by their convictions, even if they disagree with the candidate's convictions or don't know what they are.

Polling data shows Hillary's lead slowing fading over time. Polls will fluctuate back and forth, but that general trend will continue. Of course, national polls are almost meaningless since we don't have a national primary, which makes the other trend I've noticed important. Hillary's early lead shrunk much faster in the first few primary states where people are paying more attention and the campaigns are spending more time.

What all of that means is that as voters learn more about the candidates (rather than basing their preference on the first like-able name they recognize) Hillary loses support. It also means Hillary has more ground to lose in February and March primary states where the campaigns haven't heated up yet.

The first four primary states this year are Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. I think Obama and Edwards have the advantage over Clinton in Iowa and South Carolina. Polls differ but most of them show Obama, Clinton and Edwards very close in both states. John Edwards will build on his 2004 good showing in Iowa and victory in South Carolina. Barack Obama will continue to win more black voters over from Hillary in South Carolina, and will benefit from Illinois volunteers helping in Iowa. Hillary will finish third in both states.

As an Obama supporter, I hope Hillary is still running first in the national polls right up until the Iowa Caucus. A third place finish in Iowa will be absolutely devastating to a "frontrunner" campaign, as it was for Dean in '04, and the media pundits will have to once again admit that they are wrong to misguidedly declare anyone a frontrunner a year before a single vote is cast.

Clinton has a better shot at winning New Hampshire, but she won't be able to recover from failing to meet expectations as a front runner after third place finishes in Iowa and South Carolina. She'll have the money to stay in the race into March, dragging along, before finally admitting defeat. The final nail in the coffin could be Clinton only narrowly defeating Obama in Arkansas. In fact, Clinton will have a real fight for Arkansas if Obama gets ACORN's endorsement.

Currently, this is a two-way race between Obama and Edwards.

All of that will change in the unlikely event that Al Gore enters the race. I believe a Gore candidacy is Clinton's best chance at winning the nomination. Much of Gore's support will come from liberals who would otherwise vote for Obama or Edwards. By splitting the progressive vote three ways, Gore would allow Hillary to win with the 20-30% of Democrats who are strongly dedicated to her. Gore can't win unless Edwards, Clinton or Obama were to drop out before the Iowa Caucus and I can't imagine a scenario where that happens.

Regarding the others, Bill Richardson will continue to get more and better press coverage than the other second-tier candidates. If he ever becomes a top-tier candidate his negatives will quickly tank his campaign when faced with tougher media scrutiny. He'll have to drop out if he doesn't perform in Nevada.

Chris Dodd will drop out before Iowa. He's taken much more seriously in the Senate (as he should be) than he is on the campaign trail. It isn't fun for someone with his stature to be an also-ran.

Dennis Kucinich will continue to have a major impact on the national debate but will also continue to receive no recognition for that in the national media regardless of what happens with his poll numbers or fundraising. Kucinich supporters are right to complain that the corporate media doesn't want to seriously address many of the issues he raises, but the biggest obstacles to his success will be self-inflicted wounds, just like last time.

Joe Biden will make another idiotic, offensive comment or two and the few people taking him seriously will remember why the rest of us don't.

Those are my predictions. In the months ahead I'll either say "I knew it!" when something comes true or those of you reading can remind me how wrong I was. Sometime soon I'll write about the Republican primary.