Some Americans Elect epitaphs

Dave Weigel:

Don’t confuse the good intentions of Tom Friedman with an idea that makes sense.

Ed Kilgore:

Assuming AE is unlikely to just call the whole thing off, I’d suggest they cut to the chase and nominate their most prominent backer, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, as the nominee. Under AE’s elaborate rules, he’d presumably have to disclose a party affiliation and then choose a running-mate from a different party. But he could certainly self-identify as a member of the Friedman Party, and then choose a running-mate from the Party of Richard Cohen or the Party of Robert Samuelson or the Party of David Brooks. It would be a Very Serious Ticket.

 Ross Douthat:

[D]isaffected Americans have very good reasons to be suspicious when their elites promotes bipartisanship as an end unto itself. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was approved with significant bipartisan support, after all. The policies that inflated the housing bubble were bipartisan as well – and so was the hated Wall Street bailout that the bubble’s consequences required. Even America’s deficits are a monument to bipartisanship: to the many Republicans who have defended and expanded entitlements created by Democrats and to the many Democrats who have gone along with Republicans and ruled middle-class tax increases out of bounds.

Why, then, would Americans fed up with the two party system entrust their loyalties to a nascent movement that promises that this time, this time, a high-minded, bipartisan elite will get things right?

I wouldn't completely count out Americans Elect. Any party on the ballot in 26 states has the potential for some kind of mischief, intentional or otherwise. But yes, this was an easily predicted failure.

Americans Elect: Voters, schmoters

Remember Americans Elect, the mysteriously-bankrolled third party group seeking ballot access in all fifty states? Remember how they're going to have a big on-line convention this June so that you get to choose the ticket? Well, it turns out they're doing most of the choosing for you. They're trying (so far unsuccessfully) to recruit some established political figure with weak parties ties to run. They've already called Bob Kerrey, Lamar(!) Alexander, Joe Lieberman, and Chuck Hegel to no avail, although I assume they still have plenty of other retirement-aged white guys in their Rolodex. (Is Lowell Weicker still available?)

Now, I have no problem with party leaders narrowing the field of candidates -- that's what parties do! But Americans Elect has been going out of its way to argue that it's not a party. It's supposed to be something different. They invite you to nominate candidates and have a vibrant debate. CEO Kahlil Byrd claims that the group "has no candidate and has no issue."

And now it turns out they're just like the other parties, with insiders doing the selecting for you. The only difference is that they don't stand for anything.

CSM gets rolled by Americans Elect

There are a number of problems with Andrew Mach's profile of Americans Elect in a recent edition of the Christian Science Monitor. The line I found most egregious was this one:

The drive, if successful, would mark the first time a presidential candidate nominated directly by the American people achieved ballot access.

The only way this statement is true is if you regard Democrats and Republicans as somehow not the American people. Otherwise, the American people have been nominating presidential candidates for some time now.

I was kind of confused by this point:

So far, 1.9 million people in 24 states have signed the petitions. [...] In California, organizers submitted 1.6 million signatures in early October, more than for any single initiative in state history.

Is this right? In this allegedly grassroots, nationwide movement, Californians have provided at least 84% of the signatures? Either these numbers are wrong, or this is just evidence that Americans Elect's deep pockets are buying ballot placement with the help of California's vast petition signature collection industry. (And incidentally, the petition to recall Gray Davis in 2003 received 1.7 million signatures, although only 1.4 million were able to be validated. Not sure whether the Americans Elect signatures have been validated yet, but I'm guessing not.)

Oh, and speaking of deep pockets, Mach seems to accept the following story without bothering to check whether it's, you know, legal:

Financial backing for the endeavor is a mystery. Americans Elect is funded exclusively by some $20 million in contributions from unnamed individuals, says Mr. Byrd. The group's website says it intends to repay the initial financiers so that no single individual will have contributed more than $10,000.

Could an unnamed donor provide millions to the Democratic Party, maintaining anonymity as long as the party later paid him or her back? Is that legal? If not, how does Americans Elect qualify for an exemption? Or do they?

Third party chutzpah

Remember Americans Elect? That group that plans to run as a third-party ticket and is currently seeking placement on all fifty state ballots? According to Dan Froomkin, they are now refusing to disclose the identity of their donors. That, of course, is illegal for a political party. But now they're claiming that they're not really a party:

Kahlil Byrd, the group's CEO, said it is operating "completely within the bounds" of the law. He noted that unlike a traditional political group,"Americans Elect has no candidate and has no issue."

Um, yeah, but according to their own website, they're planning a nominating convention for next June to, you know, pick a candidate and a platform:

Americans Elect is creating the first nonpartisan presidential nomination in U.S. history.

• YOU DECIDE THE ISSUES.
• YOU CHOOSE THE CANDIDATES.
• YOU NOMINATE THE PRESIDENT.

 So why would they want to hide the identity of their donors? Froomkin continues:

As for the donors, [Byrd] said, the reason they want to remain secret is to avoid political payback. "This is a very tough political environment," he said. "Retribution is real."

Huh? Personally, I think donating to the organization is a waste of one's money, but I wasn't planning to kneecap anyone for doing it. Just who is planning some sort of "retribution"?

(h/t Kevin Collins)