Each week I curate a set of “Top Notes” of media coverage on the 2020 presidential elections. Read it to keep up to date on latest developments.
– Sarah Lyons, Director of Communications, Independent Voting

May 18– 24, 2019

Question:
Who will emerge in course of 2020 as leader of progressive movement?

Sanders and Warren are the two most progressive major candidates in the Democratic field. Both have consistently polled their best among those Democrats who call themselves “very liberal” and their worst among Democrats who call themselves either moderate or conservative. By merely looking at ideology, however, you miss what I believe are key differences between the types of voters each is attracting. It could prove difficult for Warren to make further gains among Sanders’ supporters, unless she starts appealing to a different type of voter. (CNN, 5/18/19)

 AOC Factor – Democratic presidential candidates are vying to be seen as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ally — even if they don’t ultimately win her endorsement. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren showcased her alliance with the freshman lawmaker from the Bronx on Thursday. The two penned a five-page letter — and released a three-minute video explaining it — pressing Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin over his work on Sears’ board while his roommate from Yale gutted the department-store giant on its way to bankruptcy. Still six years short of the Constitution’s minimum age requirement to be president herself, Ocasio-Cortez’s massive social media following and ability to generate news headlines has made her a key player in the race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

With progressives looking to stand out in the crowded field of more than 20 candidates, some Democrats believe that no endorsement — other than the Obamas — would be more potent in than one from Ocasio-Cortez.

Her closest links are to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, for whom she and many of her aides and the activists in her orbit worked in 2016, and to Warren, who had lunch with Ocasio-Cortez and wrote the Time essay when the magazine included her on its list of 2019’s most influential people. The two also recorded a short video criticizing the ending of HBO’s “Game of Thrones” this week.

“What I would like to see in a presidential candidate is one that has a coherent world view and logic from which all these policy proposals are coming forward. I think Sen. Sanders has that. I also think Sen. Warren has that,” Ocasio-Cortez said earlier this month.

Ocasio-Cortez has also proven to have an important voice as a validator of progressive policy proposals — demonstrating an ability to elevate lesser-known candidates and cause headaches for those at the front of the field.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has built his candidacy around the argument that he has the strongest record, and is the most focused, on combating climate change.

When Inslee released a lengthy climate proposal last week, Ocasio-Cortez turned her progressive following toward it, tweeting that Inslee’s plan was “the most serious + comprehensive one to address our crisis in the 2020 field.”

Inslee spokesman Jared Leopold said his campaign saw a clear spike in Google searches around the time of Ocasio-Cortez’s tweet, and attributes part of a boost to its number of donors around the time of the policy rollout to her highlighting the policy.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, meanwhile, drew Ocasio-Cortez’s ire earlier this month when one of Biden’s advisers touted the need to find “middle ground” in an interview with Reuters.

Biden’s campaign has since said the interview does not reflect its views on climate policy. But the political damage was done.

“I will be damned if the same politicians who refused to act then are going to try to come back today and say we need a ‘middle of the road’ approach to save our lives,” Ocasio-Cortez said in a clear shot at Biden at a Washington, DC, event hosted by the Sunrise Movement, an activist group that backs the Green New Deal, where Sanders was also in attendance.

The comment led to news coverage of progressives’ problems with Biden before he’s had a chance to roll out his own climate policy proposal, which his campaign has said is coming soon. (CNN, 5/23/19)

Buttigieg – “Being left of Obama doesn’t make you extremely progressive,” Pete Buttigieg told me last week, when we met in Chicago to record a conversation for the new episode of “The Argument” podcast. My question to Buttigieg — the mayor of South Bend, Ind., and a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate — had been about tax policy. Specifically, I wanted to know whether he supported an annual wealth tax and how high he thought the top marginal income tax rate should be.

He said he did support a wealth tax, arguing that it was not so different from a property tax. On income taxes, he said something I hadn’t heard him, or anyone else, say before: He is intrigued by a top rate of 49.9999 percent. “There’s something about paying the majority of a dollar that comes your way to Uncle Sam that I think people have more trouble with,” he explained. He also said he would favor a financial transaction tax.

All of that adds up to a highly progressive agenda, I responded. President Obama, by comparison, raised the top rate to 39.6 percent and didn’t pass either a wealth tax or a financial transaction tax.  That’s when Buttigieg said that merely being to Obama’s left doesn’t make somebody extremely left-wing.

“Remember that he was the last Democratic president of the Reagan era,” Buttigieg said. Obama was constrained by congressional Republicans and by a misunderstanding among many politicians, in both parties, about how progressive the American public really was on economic policy. “What I’m proposing might be considered conservative by the standards of the 50s, 60s or 70s.” Buttigieg said. “And so where I think we are today is the beginning of a totally new chapter.” (New York Times, 5/23/19)

Inslee – The rising tide of 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls calling for environmental reform now includes Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, a politician who has made climate change the crux of his campaign. Inslee unveiled his initiative, dubbed the “100% Clean Energy for America Plan,” on Friday morning. The proposal’s scope is sweeping — laying out 100% clean energy standards across three sectors: electricity, new vehicles and the construction of new buildings. His aggressive proposals on climate change come as the party’s progressive wing, bolstered by young voters, has continued to call for candidates to take a more aggressive approach. Democrats continue to debate the best way to combat climate change, an issue that is poised to take on a greater level of importance this cycle than any the party has held in years past. (ABC News, 5/23/19)

Williamson – her candidacy offers an unusual blend of constitutional fundamentalism and political progressivism. At a time when many of her fellow Democrats are dismissing the Constitution as a fundamentally flawed document or calling for major changes in it like eliminating the Electoral College or repealing the Second Amendment, Williamson says its principles are needed to bind together a diverse nation. (Inside Sources, “Marianne Williamson: Tea Party Progressive?” 5/24/19)

De Blasio – The mayor endorsed Secretary Clinton over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in 2016 but he has governed like a Sanders progressive. The theme of his mayoral campaign was the tale of two cities. There was the city of wealthy New Yorkers who live on Park Avenue and another city like the South Bronx which is full of people struggling to stay afloat. As mayor, he has done a full Bernie and successfully pushed for a $15 an hour minimum wage, paid sick leave and universal pre- school education.  His record as mayor could be attractive to liberal Democratic primary voters but there are already two strong progressives, Sanders who was born in New York City and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts in the race. De Blasio is running for president because he feels that he deserves credit for implementing the programs that Sanders and Warren can only talk about. (The Hill, 5/19/19)

Biden – Biden’s most obvious weakness in the crowded contest is that his centrist instincts and policy record, particularly during his 36-year-long Senate career, are likely to regularly spark conflict with younger progressives such as Ocasio-Cortez who are growing far more assertive in the party. His greatest strength is his appeal to older Democratic voters, both white and African American, who are typically more ideologically moderate and more politically pragmatic. For the 76-year-old Biden, that’s an acceptable trade-off because voters older than 45 cast fully 60 percent of all votes in the 2016 Democratic primary, according to a cumulative CNN analysis of all the exit polls conducted that year. (The Atlantic, 5/17/19)

• Democratic presidential frontrunnerJoe Biden officially kicked off his 2020 campaign with a Saturday rally in Pennsylvania, birthplace of both himself and the Declaration of Independence, and home to his campaign headquarters. The former vice president used the speech to push his “unity” theme, hitting directly back at those who criticize his desire to reach across the aisle, as well as highlighting his links to Barack Obama.  Many have argued that Biden’s desire to return to consensus politics is naive, including Lee Drutman here at Vox, who explained why Biden’s “epiphany” theory — that Republicans will have an epiphany about the power of bipartisanship once Trump is gone and start working with Democrats again — is misguided. As Drutman argued:  The problem with Biden’s theory is that Republicans’ hostility to Democrats did not begin with Donald Trump (see, the Obama administration). Today, as in 2012, the partisan hostility is highly transferable. It is based neither in opposition to one president nor loyalty to another. It is based in the underlying zero-sum electoral logic that defines the American two-party system and the winner-take-all elections that make the two-party system possible. Others on the left oppose the idea of consensus politics on ideological grounds, arguing that there is no “middle ground” when it comes to existential threats like climate change. (Vox, 5/18/19)

Candidate Activity Summary for May 17-23, 2019  (Source: FiveThirtyEight, 5/24/19)

Michael Bennet (D) – The Colorado senator released his plan to combat climate change Monday. It sets a 2050 goal for the U.S. to reach net-zero emissions, calls for the expansion of zero-emission energy options for American households and businesses, and — among other initiatives — includes a pledge to host a global climate summit in the first 100 days of a Bennet presidency.Next Thursday, Bennet will take part in a CNN town hall in Atlanta.

Joe Biden (D) -At a campaign rally in Philadelphia last weekend, Biden defended his bipartisan outlook on governance, pitching his experience of working across the aisle and arguing that it isn’t too late to unite Americans across the political spectrum. Biden brought in over $2 million through a pair of fundraising events in Miami and Orlando this week, showing a willingness to engage with big-money donors from which much of the Democratic field has shied away.

The former vice president’s campaign took part in a back and forth with North Korea after an opinion piece that was posted on the website of KCNA — the North Korean news agency — said Biden was “misbehaving” and criticized him as someone “who likes to stick his nose into other people’s business and is a poor excuse for a politician.” Biden’s campaign responded, saying that “it’s no surprise North Korea would prefer that Donald Trump remain in the White House.”

Cory Booker (D) – The New Jersey senator issued a plan to “protect reproductive rights”Wednesday in which he pledged to create a “White House Office of Reproductive Freedom” if he is elected. It would coordinate the advancement of “abortion rights and access to reproductive health care” across his administration. Booker was scheduled to take part in an MSNBC town hall in Iowa on Thursday, but it was rescheduled so that he could remain in Washington for Senate votes. He’ll still travel throughout the Hawkeye State this weekend.

Steve Bullock (D) – Bullock’s first week as a presidential candidate included an NPR interview in which he played up his ability to win over voters in his red home state of Montana. “I’m probably the only one in the race that actually won in a Trump state,” he said. “I mean, I got reelected in 2016. Donald Trump took Montana by 20 points. I won by 4. Twenty-five to 30 percent of my voters voted for Donald Trump.” After spending three days in Iowa last week, the Montana governor returns to the state next Tuesday for four events.

Pete Buttigieg (D) – Buttigieg garnered headlines for his performance in a Fox News town hall last weekend, renewing the debate over whether it is beneficial for Democratic candidates to appear on the news network that is often criticized for its conservative bent. During his appearance, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, took aim at a pair of the network’s right-wing commentators, arguing that Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham were “not always there in good faith,” pointing specifically to their views on the ongoing immigration policy debate.

After stops in Florida, New York and Washington, D.C., this week, Buttigieg will campaign over the weekend in New Hampshire, with events in Londonderry, Exeter and Keene on Friday and Saturday.

Julian Castro (D) – As the Democratic field railed against abortion restrictions passed by legislatures in several states, Castro promised to appoint “an entirely pro-choice cabinet,” saying that the issue transcends any one executive branch department. Castro appeared on “Late Night with Seth Meyers” and responded to criticism that either he or Beto O’Rourke could make a greater political impact by challenging Republican Texas Sen. John Cornyn next year. “I think Beto would be a great Senate candidate,” he joked.

Bill de Blasio (D) – A Quinnipiac University poll had some bad news for the New York City mayor. It showed de Blasio with a net favorability rating (favorable rating minus unfavorable rating) of -37 percentage points among voters overall. Last Friday, de Blasio made his first campaign stop in Iowa, where he toured an ethanol plant with former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack. During the visit, he lashed out at Trump, saying: “Time and again, when there’s an opportunity to help the biofuels industry grow and to create jobs in places like rural Iowa, the Trump administration has favored big petroleum companies, and that has to end.”

John Delaney (D) – The former Maryland congressman rolled out a climate action plan with a $4 trillion proposal on Thursday. The central aspect of his plan is a fee on carbon emissions that he says will reduce them by 90 percent by 2050. “We have to act on climate, and we have to act now,” Delaney said in a statement. “We need a real plan to hit our goals, and we have to listen to actual scientists. This is a real plan that all Americans can support. It is full of new ideas and massive investments in innovation that will both deal with climate change and create jobs in the heartland and all across our country.” Delaney, however, is not among the slate of Democratic contenders backing the Green New Deal.

Tulsi Gabbard (D) – Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, continued to push her campaign’s focus on foreign policy. In an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week,” Gabbard said Trump is “leading us down this dangerous path towards a war in Iran.” She further cautioned that a war in Iran “would actually undermine our national security, cost us countless American lives, cost civilian lives across the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis in Europe and it would actually make us less safe by strengthening terrorist groups” like ISIS and al-Qaida. “As president, I will end these counterproductive and wasteful regime-change wars, work to end this new cold war and nuclear arms race, recognizing how wasteful and costly these are,” she said.

Kirsten Gillibrand (D) – Gillibrand unveiled a plan on Wednesday termed the “Family Bill of Rights” to invest heavily in maternal and child health, paid family leave and universal prekindergarten. This proposal is part of Gillibrand’s focus on women, children and families. She is also working to position herself as the most outspoken proponent of abortion rights within the Democratic field. On Tuesday, she spoke at a rally with other Democrats to protest the new abortion restrictions that states such as Alabama and Georgia have passed. Later in an interview with NPR, she said, “I think President Trump and these very extreme Republican legislators around the country, they are taking this country in a direction that it does not want to go.” She added, “I believe that if President Trump wants a war with America’s women, it’s a war he will have and it is one he will lose.”

Kamala Harris (D) – The California senator rolled out a bill to address racial discrepancies in maternal health care, calling for investment in training to reduce bias among health professionals and the early identification of high-risk pregnancies. On “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” on Wednesday, Harris accusedTrump of holding the nation’s infrastructure “hostage.” Earlier in the day, the president abruptly ended a White House meeting on the issue with Democratic leaders in response to the party’s efforts to continue investigating him.

John Hickenlooper (D)– The former Colorado governor pushed back against calls for candidates like him to run for the Senate instead of the presidency, telling Stephanopoulos on “This Week” that he’d be a “difficult candidate as a senator.” “I’ve spent my whole life putting teams together both as an entrepreneur in the private sector, but also as a mayor and as a governor,” Hickenlooper said. “And by building those teams, we’ve been able to bring people together and do the big progressive things that people said couldn’t be done.” “That’s the only way we’re going to … be able to bring some common sense to Washington,” he added.

Jay Inslee (D) – The Washington governor’s push for a 2020 debate focused on climate change picked up steam this week, with Elizabeth Warren adding her support. “Yes! We need to do everything we can to save our planet,” Warren tweeted. in April, Inslee wrote: “We have barely a decade to defeat climate change. And whether we shrink to this challenge, or rise to it, is the central question of our time — and it deserves a full DNC debate.”

Amy Klobuchar (D) – Klobuchar, who’s attempted to position herself as a moderating voice in the Democratic field, joined demonstrators on the steps of the Supreme Court this week to protest anti-abortion bills that have passed in states like Alabama. The Minnesota senator said: “I think one of the things I’ve seen in my state is that there are people that hold their own individual beliefs. … But they don’t believe that that means you put those beliefs on other people. And that is exactly what this president has done.”

Seth Moulton (D)– Moulton, an Iraq War veteran, announced a plan this week to encourage young Americans to serve their country. Speaking on ABC’s “This Week,” the Massachusetts representative called the proposal “the kind of forward-looking policy that I think we need to meet the challenges of a changing world, to address climate change, to bring broadband to rural communities and to say to America we need a common mission.” 

Beto O’Rourke (D)– O’Rourke continued his campaign reboot. He appeared on CNN for a town hall, in which he called for impeachment proceedings against Trump. “We should begin impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump — not something that I take lightly,” he said.

Tim Ryan (D)– Ryan, who was once against abortion but flipped his stance a few years ago, called for bipartisan solutions to address women’s reproductive rights this week. “I met women for the first time in my life that had an abortion,” Ryan said at a protest on the Supreme Court steps on Tuesday. “I met women who had to deal with very difficult, complicated circumstances in their pregnancies. And over time, because of the courage of the women who came into my office and who wanted to help craft legislation, I changed my position.”

Bernie Sanders (D) – The Vermont senator rolled out a comprehensive education plan that would halt federal funding for charter school expansion, set a teacher pay floor at $60,000, and provide universal free lunches, among other investments. At a South Carolina event announcing the plan, Sanders drew a connection between education reform and social injustice, noting that changes to public education in recent decades have disproportionately affected African Americans and increased school segregation. In a CNN interview on Wednesday, Sanders expressed his strongest support yet for an impeachment inquiry, saying that if Trump “continues to not understand the Constitution of the United States” and blocks further subpoenas of staffers and former aides, “it may well be time for an impeachment inquiry to begin.”

• “Sanders’ call is out of touch – as usual – with what African Americans want,” said Amy Wilkins, the senior vice president of advocacy for the National Alliance of Public Charter Schools. “More disturbing, the senator – for personal political gain – would literally lock African American students into schools that have failed them for generations.” During his time in the White House, President Obama was supportive of merit pay and charter schools, both issues generally opposed by teachers unions. The Obama administration’s education reform effort, dubbed “Race to the Top”, gave states a chance to compete for federal grant money if they adopted a series of reforms, including link student performance to teacher evaluations. Biden’s brother, Frank Biden, is also a former executive in a company that developed charter schools. Other Democratic contenders also have backed school choice in the past. Before winning a U.S. senate seat, Cory Booker was a fierce advocate of charters during his time as mayor in Newark. A third of Newark’s students now attend charter schools. The New Jersey city’s charters are among the highest-performing the in the country, according to Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes.  (USA Today, 5/17/19)

Eric Swalwell (D)– On the steps of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, the California representative joined seven other 2020 Democratic hopefuls and protesters to speak out against abortion bills that have recently passed at the state level. Swalwell also appeared on the liberal podcast “Pod Save America” and argued that Democrats shouldn’t dismiss Trump voters, speaking about his parents’ support for the president.

Elizabeth Warren (D) – Warren continued to introduce policy proposals. This time, she offered up a platform aimed at protecting women’s reproductive rights. Warren’s plan would “block states from interfering in the ability of a health care provider to provide medical care, including abortion services,” according to her policy rollout. The senator had a viral moment when she responded to a Twitter user who asked her for relationship advice. “DM me and let’s figure this out,” Warren replied. The senator apparently went on to call a number of Twitter users asking for advice. “

Bill Weld (R) – Still the sole Republican challenging Trump in the Republican primary, Weld revved up his attacks on the president. “I celebrate that America has always been a melting pot,” Weld said at a speaking event. “It seems he would prefer an Aryan nation.” Speaking to ABC News after the event, Weld said: “It’s not just that I’m feeling more like going on the attack; it’s also that the president is moving to a deeper level of irresponsibility.” Vermont Gov. Phil Scott signaled support for former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld over President Donald Trump in the 2020 Republican primary. Scott, during his weekly news conference Thursday, was asked whether he would prefer Weld, the only declared Republican primary challenger to Trump, over the incumbent president. “Oh sure,” Scott said. But the Vermont governor said he wasn’t ready to formally endorse any Republican and that he hoped Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan or Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker would consider jumping into the primary. “I like Larry Hogan … Charlie Baker, maybe he’ll run,” Scott said. (Politico, 5/17/19)

Marianne Williamson (D) – The spiritual adviser and author made her case for the presidency on ABC News’s “The Briefing Room,” arguing that she’s not running just to “elevate a conversation.” “It’s important that I absolutely be prepared to win and that I make the effort to win,” Williamson told ABC News Senior Washington Reporter Devin Dwyer. “I’m not here just to elevate a conversation. We need to elevate this country”

Andrew Yang (D)– Yang was the subject of a Politico Magazine profile that examined his candidacy and ability — thus far — to gain a relatively substantial following through non-traditional media interviews while pushing his universal basic income plan and cautioning about the economic dangers of automation. (FiveThirtyEight, 5/24/19)

 

Each week I curate a set of “Top Notes” of media coverage on the 2020 presidential elections. Read it to keep up to date on latest developments.
– Sarah Lyons, Director of Communications, Independent Voting

May 11 – May 17, 2019

Shultz – “His decision will be based on how the Democratic field shakes out and seeing how Biden fares,” said one of the people familiar with Schultz’s decision making. “If Joe Biden remains strong, and remains a moderate, there clearly is a much narrower path.” At least for the near term, Schultz has decided to stop doing televised town halls and traveling to early primary states. His Twitter feed, which remained active for months, has become relatively dormant starting in mid-April. Erin McPike, a spokeswoman for Schultz, confirmed FOX Business’ reporting on the matter. “If Joe Biden were to emerge as the nominee and not a bloodied nominee, still more of a moderate Democrat, I think Howard would probably think twice about (running)” she told Neil Cavuto during a FOX Business appearance Wednesday.  (Fox News, 5/15/19)

China

• Sanders:“It is in the interests of the United States to work to strengthen institutions like the WTO and the UN rather than trying to go it alone. American concerns about China’s technology practices are shared in Europe and across the Asia-Pacific. We can place far more pressure on China to change its policies if we work together with the broader international community and the other developed economies. International institutions also offer China a template for reforming its own internal intellectual property and industrial practices.”
• Booker – Speaking in Berlin (NH), a city in the north of the state that has lost much of its industry, Mr Booker described China as a “totalitarian regime” that had to be faced down. “The Chinese have been taking advantage of this country and other nations on Planet Earth,” Mr Booker told voters in a county that backed Barack Obama in 2012 but voted for Mr Trump in 2016. “They do not fight fair. They steal our intellectual property. They force the transfer of technology . . . We need to take them on. We need to fight them.” Mr Booker accused Mr Trump of creating rifts with allies instead of working with Japan, Canada and the EU to counter China over its trade practices. “Trump is . . . using bluster and not strategy. He’s using threats and toxic tweets, and not unity and strength.” (Financial Times, 5/15/19)
• Buttigieg – “If you’re going to deal with an actor like China, one of the largest and one of the most strategic countries ever to come on the world stage, you’d better really know what you’re doing,” Buttigieg said in an interview with theSkimm, responding to Trump’s trade policies. Buttigieg noted China worked with 20-year plans for their political and economic strategies.  I’m not sure this president thinks beyond his next tweet and it shows in our policies,” Buttigieg said. Buttigieg acknowledged though that there was unfair trade happening with China and said that the country was manipulating their currency and stealing intellectual property. He said that Trump’s tariffs, however, were not a good way to negotiate. “There has to be some sense that we’re going to come to the table and negotiate something better, not just lobbing tariffs over the fence, sometimes, from what I can tell, without much of a game plan, and hoping that that’ll do anything than make them mad and inviting them to hit back,” he said. (Breibart, 5/13/19)
• Biden – Soft on China? Former Vice President Joe Biden suggested on Monday that China’s economy or influence could not exceed that of the U.S., yet another turn for the 2020 candidate after he walked back similar comments due to backlash. “What are we doing? We’re walking around with our heads down, ‘Woe is me,'” the Democratic presidential front-runner said at a campaign stop. “No other nation can catch us, including China. I got criticized for saying that. I’ve spent as much time with [Chinese President] Xi Jinping as any world leader has.” At a campaign stop in Iowa a few weeks ago, Biden said that China was not competition for the U.S. “China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man,” Biden said May 1. “They’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They’re not competition for us.” Among those who criticized Biden, Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said his comments would “not age well,” and presidential primary rival Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said in a tweet that “it’s wrong to pretend that China isn’t one of our major economic competitors.” Biden said in his Manchester speech that on one occasion, Xi asked Biden to define America. “I looked at him and I said, yes, I can define America in one word. Possibilities,” Biden said. “We’re the only nation in the world where we’re raised to believe and our ethic is anything is possible.” (Washington Examiner, 5/13/19)
• Hunter Biden was able to secure a billion-dollar contract with the Bank of China back in 2013, just weeks after his father, the U.S. vice president, took him to China while on official business, according to reporter Peter Schweizer’s latest book, “Secret Empires.” The book was released last March, but Schweizer recently took to the pagesof the New York Post to explain how Hunter’s dealings with China could be a problem for his father’s 2020 presidential campaign.
• Hickenlooper – ‘History is filled with examples of tariff wars that did nothing except hurt both sides. Trump’s China deal is causing jobs in advance manufacturing to be forced abroad – the very thing he promised to protect against. (MSNBC, 5/10/19)
• Kamala D. Harris said it was “irresponsible” for Mr. Trump to essentially conduct foreign policy on a whim via Twitter, without working together with allies to counteract China. “The president and his administration have failed to realize we’re stronger when we work with our allies on every issue — Chinaincluded,” she said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” (MSNBC, 5/12/19)
• Seth Moulton, who entered the presidential race last month, said the U.S. “absolutely” needs to be tougher on Chinain regards to trade and national security. “They are stealing American ideas and American military secrets through the internet every single day,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I don’t think this administration has a strategy. They don’t have any sense of urgency. And they clearly don’t know what this means to American families.” While he noted that tariffs should be on the table as part of a “comprehensive strategy,” like Ms. Harris, Mr. Moulton argued the U.S. needs to coordinate with allies to contain China’s growth. (MSNBC, 5/12/19)
• O’Rourke: An aide to Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke wrote in a statement: “Holding China accountable should not come at the expense of American workers. That is why we must not settle for any deal that does not respect intellectual property, level the playing field in the Chinese market, nor end unfair trade practices. We must advance progress based on shared interests and core democratic values.” (CNBC, 5/14/19)

China Cont.

What do you think is the best approach to addressing China’s practices with regard to intellectual property theft, technology transfer, industrial subsidies and other matters in which the two countries are at odds? Is it through multinational organizations like the World Trade Organization and the United Nations? Will you take any action unilaterally? If so, what action? (CNBC, 5/14/19)

Sanders: It is in the interests of the United States to work to strengthen institutions like the WTO and the UN rather than trying to go it alone. American concerns about China’s technology practices are shared in Europe and across the Asia-Pacific. We can place far more pressure on China to change its policies if we work together with the broader international community and the other developed economies. International institutions also offer China a template for reforming its own internal intellectual property and industrial practices.

Swalwell: I’m a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, so I’ve seen first-hand the economic espionage that China commits and the adverse impact it has on American businesses. China has not been forthright in even admitting that intellectual property theft and technology transfer occurs. Nor is China transparent on its industrial subsidies. Curbing China’s dishonest practices must be a part of any negotiation; as president, I would hold China accountable.

On the intellectual property theft, we know that much of the IP theft is state-backed. In order to combat this we must take a multi-pronged approach — both defensive and offensive. We must have a strong enforcement mechanism with which to hold China accountable for their actions and continue to impose penalties when theft occurs. China has made promises to institute reforms of their policies governing IP rights, technology transfers and cyber-theft of trade secrets in the past but we know these are not being imposed.

The legal and diplomatic approaches have not been completely effective, it is critical that we implement other actions such as developing early warning systems, particularly when it comes to the stealing of defense technology. This can be done through private-public partnerships. We must also be ready to take counter action when a theft is detected.

It is vital that we continue to have a multinational approach to addressing these issues. We can’t go it alone; we must involve allies — and other victims of China’s practices — such as Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

While the U.S. does not have to go through the World Trade Organization and can invoke Section 301 if they are to impose tariffs against China (even though it still has to file a simultaneous complaint with the WTO), the WTO can still be a useful partner. In fact, the WTO has an obligation to enforce the rules they have set up, otherwise it is left to the United States to impose punishment. We should hold the WTO to its obligation.

It is also important that U.S. companies acknowledge when theft is occurring by China. In the past, companies have not wanted to impinge on their business with China so they’ve turned a blind eye. I would ensure that reporting this theft it is a win-win for American companies through fair trade practices.

Lastly, government departments must coordinate with each other and with U.S. companies. The departments of Commerce and the Treasury, the U.S. Trade Representative and the U.S. State Department must all be aligned to tackle the problem of IP property theft in coordination with the private sector.

I would continue to make sure the Justice Department brings criminal cases against the companies that violate trade agreements and steal our trade secrets and intellectual property. I would boost our Trade Representative’s investigation of China’s activities by adding more staff and funding.

Ryan: When it comes to China stealing intellectual property from the United States, there is no doubt that multinational organizations need to play a part in holding them accountable. These actions are a serious national security and economic risk for the United States. At the same time, I think our government must take further action when it comes to creating safeguards against China’s actions. That is why I have cosponsored legislation the Fair Trade with China Enforcement Act, which would hold China accountable and create necessary regulations when it comes to trade with China, including prohibiting the sale of national security sensitive technology and intellectual property to China.

Delaney: China has acted like pirates, stealing intellectual property, building illegal islands, and not playing by the rules. I will build a broad coalition of U.S. allies and have a unified front against China (this will involve working with multinational organizations but also doing a lot more), I will unify our business community against these practices by preventing them from depositing intellectual property funded by taxpayers into joint ventures with China, and I will re-enter the TPP to compete with China. We can hold China accountable and have a productive relationship with them.

Moulton: These options aren’t mutually exclusive. We should address cybersecurity and intellectual property theft issues directly with China and use the WTO to negotiate trade disputes and establish clear enforcement mechanisms.

Protecting our international property is a national security issue, and we need to build a cyberwall to protect against Chinese and Russian attacks. We should start by strengthening the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center created under President Obama and improve the information-sharing between the private sector and government on cyber threats.

As we press China on trade and intellectual property theft, we need to demonstrate our resolve in ways that actually help American workers. Donald Trump has shown he knows nothing about trade. An initial analysis of the net effect of the tariffs is that they are costing the United States economy $1.4 billion a month, and the cost of the tariffs is being passed on to U.S. farmers, companies, and consumers.

The United States led the 15 years of negotiations that enabled China to join the WTO and we should reap the benefits of that successful diplomatic effort. Our negotiators secured unprecedented changes to China’s economic and trade policies as conditions for membership, including requiring a dramatic opening of China’s telecom, banking, and insurance sectors, along with the lowering of tariffs on key agricultural products to almost zero. The point is: WTO leverage works. China’s membership in the WTO has been a huge boon to the United States, with U.S. exports to China increasing by 500 percent and agricultural exports increasing by 1000 percent since China joined the organization. Going forward, the WTO should absolutely be involved in establishing trust in trade negotiations and in providing the mechanisms for the enforcement of trade agreements.

Bennet: Instead of slapping tariffs on our allies and perpetrating a trade war, Michael believes we need to do the hard work of building coalitions to counter Chinese predatory economic practices, like intellectual property theft and economic espionage, that harm American workers, businesses, farmers, and ranchers.

In order to compete with and counter an increasingly authoritarian China, Michael believes we must reinvest in our alliances, champion democratic values like the rule of law and human rights, and sharpen our efforts to combat technology threats that undermine U.S. economic and national security.

Messam: The strained trade relations between the U.S. and China is a complex issue that should be confronted with a measured and sober disposition. The combined approach of multinational organizations and unilateral action should be leveraged to protect intellectual property, technology assets, and trade secrets. Before engaging trade wars that could have detrimental impacts to American businesses and our economy, we must seek to solve our trade differences diplomatically. Where multinational organization negotiations don’t work, I would seek specific and direct trade remedies not limited to:

• tariffs
  • blockade on imports of stolen intellectual property

Williamson: The United States Intellectual Property is some of the most valued in the world. According to the USTR, by stealing our intellectual property, China costs American businesses between $225 billion and $600 billion annually. We must use all tools at our disposal to ensure China respects intellectual property law. This will include working with and leveraging the power of the international community to make certain that China engages in fair trade. The U.S. government must also enlist the help and cooperation from American businesses to help solve this problem. Increased internal controls, more robust screening and standardized best practices will make it more difficult for Chinese agents to operate. Many opportunities are a matter of simple theft. More diligence will help curb crimes of opportunity. Lastly, a firm no nonsense stance against China on every front will be necessary to send a clear message that these practices won’t be tolerated.

Should a trade deal with China address human rights issues? If not, will your administration address human rights in China and, if so, how?

Sanders: Yes. Labor protections are very weak in China, and the rights of workers are an essential component of human rights. The Trump administration has proven itself indifferent to labor rights, and apparently would prefer that American workers are reduced to the position of Chinese workers, rather than that labor everywhere enjoy basic protections and strong standard of living. The Trump administration has also done nothing to pressure China over its abhorrent treatment of the Uighur and Tibetan peoples. Future trade negotiations should, for example, target American corporations that contribute surveillance technologies that enable China’s authoritarian practices.

Swalwell: Yes, a trade deal must have a component to address human rights activity. We must be a model for the world and call out countries such as China that violate human rights.

Ryan: Yes. As the United States negotiates any future trade deal with China, we must address the human rights violations. The actions we have seen from the Chinese government when it comes to the inhumane treatment of the ethnic minorities is inexcusable. And no future trade agreement can ignore these violations.

Delaney: Human rights are a priority to the Delaney Administration.

Moulton: Yes. Labor protections and human rights issues have long been part of U.S. trade agreements. These protections are critical. Enforceable labor protections and human rights standards not only improve the lives of people overseas, they protect jobs at home by leveling the playing field with American workers. During negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Obama administration compelled Vietnam to reform its labor rights to meet international standards on freedom of association and collective bargaining.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump seems dedicated to undermining our traditional leadership role on human rights by withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council. America needs to lead on human rights again.

Messam: YES

Williamson: The United States, just a few years ago, stood for human rights, even if we fell short, we worked to do better as a people. That commitment has been eroded, as we place short term profits over our rights and leadership to create a more perfect union. The United States should retain the mantle of the top human rights defender in the world. This means cleaning up its own house but also demanding that other countries adhere to the value of basic human dignity and human rights protection. The U.S. should use all tools at its disposal, whether it’s trade deals or diplomatic envoys, to promote and protect human rights in the world.

It is essential that we work with all of our foreign trade partners to ensure that all guarantee human rights for people across the globe. In the case of China, we should leverage our own trade power working alongside all of our allies to promote human rights when discussing trade.

What do you see in America’s current policy approach to China that is working? What is the single most important thing you will change? Who will benefit from your plan and how?

Sanders: While China has adopted some better practices, it still has a long way to go. The Trump administration is correct to put pressure on China to reform its practices, and I hope that some good comes from current trade negotiations. The economic relationship between the United States and China has been the engine of global growth for the past 25 years, and we should acknowledge that in China it has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. In both China and the United States, however, the benefits of this growth have not been shared equally, and have accrued in a very disproportionate way to the very wealthiest. The problem is that the Trump administration is mainly interested in addressing some of the imbalances between America and China overall, when it also needs to address basic drivers of economic inequality. The future of this relationship requires both a degree of pressure on China, and reform of the economy inside the United States itself.

Swalwell: I don’t think an all-out trade war with China is to our benefit. However, imposing targeted tariffs against China is a tactic that works to ensure fair trade. America wins when we have fair trade deals. Trump’s negotiating tactics have and continue to undermine any long-term deal that could be reach with China.

Again, in striking a deal we must work with our allies who share our concerns including Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. It is important that our allies hold up their end of any bargain and stand up to China when it comes to unfair trade practices.

I will negotiate a trade deal with China that’s globally beneficial for both countries but includes accountability. While the carrot and the stick approach might work in the short term, we must strike a long-term deal with China to reduce our trade deficit and provide a level playing for the future, including getting China to gradually open up their markets.

Ryan: The ad hoc approach to trade with China by the Trump administration has created an economic policy that has hurt many American industries while creating an unlevel playing field for our American workers. For too long China has succeeded in hurting America’s manufacturing industry by engaging in illegal steel and aluminum dumping. That is why I support targeted tariffs against China’s steel and aluminum.

However, the lack of strategy has created a reactionary trade policy that helps no one, and we cannot negotiate trade through tweets. I have been a long time supporter of taking action against currency manipulation, and leading legislation that would impose countervailing duties to offset the impact of manipulation. As president, I will prioritize America’s workers and industry – manufacturing, agriculture, and artificial intelligence.

Delaney: Our current policy is overly focused on the trade deficit, which is important, but not as significant as intellectual property issues. It also favors a “go it alone approach” – which is wrong. We should work with our allies. Our current policy is hurting our farmers; I will help farmers by entering TPP.

Moulton: First, we need to recognize that China poses an economic and security threat to the United States right now based on their cyberattacks and intellectual property theft. China will also be the largest near-peer competitor to the United States for the foreseeable future, so it is critical that we are willing and able to confront China and win. It is obvious that Donald Trump’s trade war with China isn’t the answer. It is hurting American farmers while China continues to steal American jobs every day through the internet with their cyberattacks designed to take America’s innovative ideas and military secrets. To confront China, we need to build a cyberwall to ensure that we can protect our intellectual property; negotiate a trade deal with our allies and partners in the region with strong labor and environmental protections that will deepen and strengthen our economic foothold across the Pacific; effectively use all of our diplomatic and economic levers to force China’s compliance with their trade and legal commitments; and finally we need to make significant government investments in next-generation technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and green technology. Winning the competition with China means the next generation of technology will be designed and built in America, then sold to China and the rest of the world.

That said, China has shown that they are capable of acting responsibly on the world stage, especially when the United States demonstrates real leadership. China is a party to the Iran nuclear deal that provides clear incentives to block Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon. China also agreed to strict steps to address climate change as part of the Paris Agreement. China has also taken on a leadership role in addressing environmental issues at the UN, filling the leadership void left by the Trump Administration on addressing climate change. A constructive dialogue with China on security and environmental issues, while competing and winning on innovation and cybersecurity would have huge benefits for American workers, the entire U.S. economy, and on Asia-Pacific security.

Williamson: The current administration’s purported desire to rein in terrible trade deals is a good goal. Standing up for the United States over trading partners who are acting in less than honorable ways is, on the surface, what a president should do. However, the combination of attempted bullying, erratic behavior and especially tariffs is highly counter-productive. We need to end the trade war which was started by an administration which was creating enemies to blame for our problems. This trade war has been hurting U.S. consumers with excess costs for goods and hurting U.S. farmers by making our agricultural exports less competitive and eliminating the Chinese market.

What will you do about China’s efforts to tighten its military grip on the South China Sea, where more than $3 trillion of trade passes annually?

Sanders: The U.S. has a role to play in supporting bilateral and multilateral diplomacy between China and others in the region to deescalate and handle disputes. The best policy in both the near and long term is to strengthen international institutions, in this case the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The United States should press China to abide by internationally agreed guidelines for managing maritime issues, in no small part by ratifying UNCLOS itself.

Swalwell: China has been slowly widening its military buildup and constructing island for military use. It is time that the U.S. lead in a more direct way. While we have been urging other allies to increase their presence in the area to help keep the waterways open, we have not yet formed a formal coalition with other countries including Australia, France, Japan, and England and the Philippines and Vietnam. My administration can lead these countries in joint exercises and other coalition-building activities, sending a clear signal to China that these countries will defend their rights to navigate the South China Sea.

Further, China must be held accountable in the eyes of the world. I would put the South China Sea at the top of an international agenda, so that the world becomes aware of China’s ruthless policies in this area. We should stand up for our friends in Southeast Asia. The more countries that are aware, the more heat China will feel both diplomatically and economically.

Ryan: The actions of China in the South China Sea is extremely concerning, and the militarization of the area is a national and economic threat to the United States. The actions by China combined with a lack of a comprehensive defense strategy by the United States continues to put the global trade that utilizes the waterway in jeopardy. We should make every effort to bolster our allies and other strategic partners in the region and strengthen their efforts to oppose China’s militarization of the South China Sea.

Delaney: We need to maintain our significant military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, invest heavily in the technology-based offensive and defensive weapons of the future, and work with our allies on initiatives like TPP.

Moulton: The most important thing that we can do is support our allies in the region. By failing to stand with our allies, Donald Trump is inviting countries like Russia and China to test our resolve. When I was in the Marines, we had a motto for our division: “No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy.” When China understands that we are committed to the region and the free navigation of the South China Sea, then we can work together to resolve disputes and ensure that trade is not disrupted. China has a huge economic stake in maintaining freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, but we need to have a president capable and willing to defend the United States and our interests in the region. I believe that we should be building a “Pacific NATO” to contain China and North Korea by formalizing and strengthening our security relationships with our allies in the region. In other words, exactly the opposite of what Donald Trump has done by cancelling our military exercises with South Korea and cutting our allies out of the negotiations with North Korea over its nuclear weapons program.

Williamson: Cooperation is key. When a country acts aggressively and in a manner that is not in our interest or the interest of peace in a region, the first place to start and hopefully end is working with allies to create a climate of peace. In the South China Sea, the best way to curb China’s expansion is to continue to strongly support our strategic and trade partners in the area and to engage the international community to assist in our efforts to prevent this expansion.

Media

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts on Tuesday broke from her Democratic rivals by declining to participate in a Fox News town hall, denouncing the cable news channel as “a hate-for-profit racket” that seeks to turns Americans against one another. In the harshest criticism to date from a presidential contender against Fox News, Ms. Warren used a series of Twitter messages to accuse the network of giving “a megaphone to racists and conspiracists” and providing cover for corruption.  (NYT, 5/14/19)

Announced

De Blasio – Mr. de Blasio, a Democrat, announced on Thursday that he was running for president, seeking to show that his brand of urban progressive leadership can be a model for the country, and that his familiarity with President Trump, a fellow New Yorker, made him best suited to defeat the president. It will be a steep challenge: He becomes the 23rd Democrat to enter the presidential race, and he does so against the counsel of many of his trusted advisers, and in the face of two centuries of history. (NYT, 5/16/19)

# # #

Click here to take the SNAP POLL FOR INDEPENDENTS mentioned by Jackie Salit on her May 13th, 2019 National Conference Call for independents.

 

 

Each week I curate a set of “Top Notes” of media coverage on the 2020 presidential elections. Read it to keep up to date on latest developments.
– Sarah Lyons, Director of Communications, Independent Voting

May 3 – May 10, 2019

Summary

What 2020 DP presidential candidates are doing and saying (Summary compiled by FiveThirtyEight, 5/10/19)

Independent Voter Rights

Pennsylvania – Pressure Grows for PA to do Away with Closed Primaries Pennsylvania: Land of Disenfranchisement? It’s not the state slogan, but Pennsylvania is in the minority of states with closed primary elections as the number of independent voters grows, sparking debate in the Legislature about opening up party primaries…Jen Bullock, a Montgomery County psychotherapist and registered independent, said this is the most traction she’s seen 15 years after founding the group Independent Pennsylvanians. An open primary system can erode the outsized influence of political parties over a system of elected government that doesn’t address issues of concern to ordinary citizens anymore, Bullock said. “I don’t think the parties should be gatekeepers to our voting rights,” Bullock said. Party officials are keeping a low-profile on the issue. Democratic Party chairwoman Nan (AP, 5/4/19)

Maine

• Letter to Editor. D. 211, “An Act to Open Maine’s Primaries,” is a common-sense proposal that would improve our electoral process by boosting civic engagement and increasing voter turnout, especially among young voters and veterans, many of whom have not enrolled in any political party. I encourage all voters to support this reform. I strongly believe that democracy works best when more people are encouraged to participate. Maine’s closed primary law expressly prohibits 35 percentof registered voters from participating in primary elections because they have not chosen to become part of a political party. This is particularly discouraging for young voters. Fifty percent of millennials “describe themselves as political independents,” according to Pew Research, and, as such, are disenfranchised by our closed-primary law. Maine is one of only 11 states with “member-only” elections that limit participation in primary elections to voters who register with a political party. Voters who have lived in other states are even more likely to be stymied by our “closed primaries” system. This inconsistency disproportionately impacts those voters, such as veterans, who move states frequently. Similar to millennials, 49 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans aren’t enrolled in either major party and so are disenfranchised by Maine’s current closed primary law. I urge you to contact your elected officials and ask for their support of L.D. 211. Open primaries would encourage greater participation in our electoral process by allowing unenrolled voters to have their voices heard in all elections. Betts J. Gorsky.  (PressHerald, 5/6/19)
• Letter to Editor – I am a lifelong Republican, and I agree with Dutson that open primaries would strengthen the Maine GOP. Unenrolled voters comprise the largest voting blockin Maine. If the Republican party wants to earn the support of these voters, they should allow them to participate in primary elections…I urge you to contact your representatives and ask them to support open primaries as well. Clifton Eames (Bangor Daily News, 5/6/19)
• Letter to Editor – I have been enrolled as a Republican in Maine for 40 years. I served for 12 years as an elected official in Holden and ran as a Republican in a contested primary for the Legislature. I am deeply committed to citizen participation in the election process. I do not believe it is enough to talk about politics, but rather we must go to the polls and vote. For the most part, Maine encourages participation by reducing barriers to voting. But when it comes to primaries, we close the door on a third of our voters because they are not enrolled in a party. I believe that we should encourage all voters to participate in the primary process regardless of party affiliation. Fortunately, the Legislature is considering a bill that opens our primaries to unenrolled voters. A healthy political process requires citizens who exercise their right to vote, and LD 211can help. In my own bid for the Legislature, I would have welcomed the opportunity to have all my friends and neighbors vote for me in June. I urge you to contact your legislators and ask for their support of LD 211. Clare Hudson Payne Holden (Bangor Daily News, 5/7/19)
• Opinion Guest Contributor – I haven’t always supported open primaries, but times have changed. Over the past decade, when campaigning for election to the Maine Senate, I came across an increasing number of voters who felt that their voices were not being heard. Today, nearly four in 10 Maine votershave unenrolled from the political parties or were never enrolled to begin with. Maine’s closed primary law prohibits these voters from participating in the June elections that serve to narrow down the field of candidates in some elections, and that effectively decide the outcome of elections in districts with strong partisan leanings. It is understandable that these voters, as well as many Democrats and Republicans, would feel like the political system is broken and express their frustration over laws that deny unincarcerated, of-age citizens access to the ballot box. I strongly support LD 211, An Act to Open Maine’s Primaries and Permit Unenrolled Voters to Cast Ballots in Primary Elections, and urge lawmakers to vote in favor of this important legislation. Opening Maine’s primaries to unenrolled voters would give greater legitimacy to the political parties as institutions and could help to aid their cause. Those of us within the parties would have the opportunity to welcome unenrolled voters into the process earlier on, educate them about our platform and priorities, and engage them in a widening coalition to win elections and govern more collaboratively. Over time, some of these voters might even come to register with the party. Whether they do or not, those who participate in primaries will be more likely to support the nominees who they helped to select. That’s good both for voters and parties. (Bangor Daily News, 5/7/19)

Missouri – Letter to Editor: “HB 26 is not right for Missouri. Missouri currently has an open primary. Voters decide which party ballot they want each election. We are not locked in and independent voters like me have the same rights as anyone else. HB 26 restricts voter freedom and choice by requiring everyone to join a party when registering and being locked in to that parties primary. Independent voters, like me, would not be able to vote in primaries at all. And if anyone wants to switch, they are required to do so six months before the primary. Sponsors of HB 26 claim the primaries are “private” elections. They are not. But if enacted, it means that independents would not be eligible to vote in elections they pay for. 40 percent of Missouri elections are decided in the primaries. Shutting people out means many voters would have zero say in who represents them. Please join me in contacting our legislators to let them know this is not the will of the people of Missouri. Thank you, Mary Butt”

Voting Rights – 2020 Presidential Primary Process

The Massachusetts Republican Party is aiming to protect President Donald Trump from primary challengers such as former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld by approving a new winner-takes-all delegate plan. The Mass GOP approved the 2020 plan last week and will now award all of the party’s delegates to the Republican candidate who clears more than 50 percent of the vote in the state presidential primary. The strategy is a departure from the 2016 primary, when the state party used a proportional method to award delegates to the 17 Republicans running for president…  if the rule change is replicated in state parties across the country, it could prevent Weld from making any sort of dent at the Republican National Convention next summer. Weld campaign adviser Stuart Stevens said the rule change looks like a sign of weakness on Trump’s part. “Parties can change these rules when they want to change them. All you can do is just go forward and offer an alternative.”

Other:

“Michigan is emblematic of the debate within the (Democratic) party: Should presidential candidates devote most of their time, resources and campaign pitch to working-class white voters who sided with Trump or the diverse, urban-dwelling Democrats who sat out the last contest altogether? The debate has sharpened with former Vice President Joe Biden entering the fray, as he overtly premises his bid on his appeal to blue-collar union workers. Sen. Kamala Harris, seeking to differentiate herself from Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders, two white, 70-something men leading the Democratic polls, emphatically laid out a competing vision of how to win back Michigan. Harris, visiting the state this week for the first time as a White House hopeful, challenged the stereotype of a Midwestern voter as a working-class white male who’d prefer a candidate with a similar profile. Too often their definition of the Midwest leaves people out,” Harris said on Sunday. “It leaves out people in this room who helped build cities like Detroit. It leaves out working women who are on their feet all day — many of them working without equal pay. “And the conversation too often suggests certain voters will only vote for certain candidates regardless of whether their ideas will lift up all our families,” she said, adding a warning against being “dragged into simplistic narratives or yesterday’s politics.” (Los Angeles Times, 5/7/19)

Schultz – in the past two weeks, Schultz has largely disappeared, leaving the impression that the presidential campaign he was flirting with won’t actually come to fruition.Erin McPike, a spokesperson for Schultz, said there was a simple reason for these canceled events: he was “taking a break while he is recovering from back surgery.” But Schultz has also dialed down the elements of his campaign prep that don’t actually require public appearances… There has been one major development that happened in the 2020 election since Schultz’s trip to Arizona: the formal entrance of former Vice President Joe Bideninto the Democratic primary. Biden is an establishment figure with a lengthy record that places him a fair distance away from his party’s ideological left. In short, he’s the very type of candidate that Schultz has said would convince him to ultimately not enter the presidential race. But Burton stressed that the former VP’s presence was not a factor—at least yet—in Schultz’s thinking. (Daily Beast, 5/9/19)

Buttigieg – The 37-year-old Indiana mayor has pushed back against the notion that conservatives and the Republican party own issues like freedom and faith in America, saying Tuesday he felt it was “important that we stop seeing religion used as a kind of cudgel, as if God belonged to a political party.” (The Independent, 5/6/19)

Warren – (Call for impeachment) “Our Constitution is built on the separation of powers, precisely to prevent a dictator from taking control… If any other human had done what’s documented in Mueller report, they’d be arrested. [Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell] doesn’t want to consider the mountain of evidence. That’s wrong…We are a govt that works by separation of powers. We are not a government that circles the wagon around a leader… the Mueller report clearly constitutes adequate information to begin impeachment proceedings in the House…no matters how many times Republicans wish that away…I’m here to say one more time in public. This is not a fight I wanted to take on, but this is the fight in front of us now. This is not about politics. This is about the Constitution of the United States of America. We took an oath — not to try to protect Donald Trump. We took an oath to protect and serve the Constitution of the United States of America. And the way we do that is we begin impeachment proceedings now against this President.”

# # #

Each week I curate a set of “Top Notes” of media coverage on the 2020 presidential elections. Read it to keep up to date on latest developments.
– Sarah Lyons, Director of Communications, Independent Voting

April 26 – May 2, 2019

Independent Voter Rights

• FL – “Will This Critical Battleground State Open Its Presidential Primaries in 2020?” Eyes on 2020 is a national campaign mobilizing independents to call for full access to every stage of the presidential election process in every state. In phase one, independents are pressuring the Democratic and Republican parties to commit to opening all 2020 presidential primaries and caucuses to independent voters. They have the power to do so! We are excited that one of our supporters, Dr. Jeffrey Solomon, shepherded a resolution to open Florida’s Democratic primaries to independent voters through the Miami-Dade Democratic Executive Committee. His success was replicated the following week in Brevard County. The Hillsborough County Democratic Executive Committee is scheduled to take it up on May 16. (Steve Hough for IVN, 4/30/19)
• PA – These two party bosses used to oppose open primaries. Now, they’re all in – lawmakers considered a suite of election reform measures, including a bill that would open Pennsylvania’s closed primaries to independent voters. Rooney and Novak both told senators they probably would have opposed the proposal when they were party bosses. But now that they’re not in charge of collecting votes, they support it. Both men said Tuesday that open primaries would encourage more Pennsylvanians to vote and lead to more competitive elections… Gruber told the Senate committeethat half of all millennials in the U.S., including more than a third of black and Hispanic millennials, consider themselves independents. Half of the veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are also independent voters, he said.If independent voter registration continues to keep pace with past trends, barring such voters from state primary elections is “simply unsustainable,” Gruber said. (Pennsylvania Capital Star, 5/1/19)
• NE / NY – One of us (Kleeb) believes that the Democratic Party benefits by the inclusion of independent voters — now 21% of the Nebraska electorate — and recognizes that independents have personal reasons why they do not affiliate with a party and also understands that by embracing independents some may change their view of the Democratic Party. The other (Stewart) believes that no American should be forced to join a political party in order to be able to vote and recognizes that independent voters, now the fastest growing community of voters in the country, are a new force for revitalizing our democracy. Based on these beliefs, we have found a common cause. (Omaha World Tribune, 4/24/19)
• ME – Several efforts are underway to bring more voters into the process, and one that I am enthusiastically supporting is legislation that would open Maine’s primary elections to unenrolled voters, through D. 211, “An Act to Open Maine’s Primaries and Permit Unenrolled Voters to Cast Ballots in Primary Elections.” Momentum for this important reform is moving in the right direction, and there is significant statewide support from Democrats, Republicans and independents. (OpEd by Portland City Council Member, Press Herald, 4/29/19)
• CO – Colorado state Sen. Stephen Fenberg, D-Boulder, and Rep. Susan Lontine, D-Denver, introduced legislative bill House Bill 1278, “Modifications to Uniform Election Code,” in late March. One section of the bill requires double or triple the signatures for independent candidates to run for office in Colorado. These legislators are rigging the election system. These Democrats and maybe a few others have already forgotten that thousands of independent voters elected Democrats to the legislature as well as Congress. There would not have been a “Blue Wave” in the 2018 election without independent voters. (Randy Fricke LTE, Denver Post,  4/30/19 )

Voting Rights

• Cory Booker on Monday called out Sen. Bernie Sanders over his support for restoring voting rights to convicted felons still serving prison time, drawing a rare explicit contrast with one of his 2020 rivals.  In an interview with PBS Newshour, Booker called the debate over voting rights for incarcerated felons “frustrating” and suggested it distracts from the larger, more urgent question of mass incarceration, which has been a policy focus of Booker’s campaign. (CNN, 4/30/19)
• Bernard Sandershas doubled down on his call for prison inmates to cast ballots in elections, an idea that got a cool reception from Democratic Party leaders, voters and his rivals in the presidential race.  But the idea has caught fire with dozens of liberal groups that signed on to a letter pressuring 2020 presidential candidates to endorse in-prison voting. So far there have been no takers among the more than 20 other Democrats in the race.  In response to criticism about letting terrorists and killers vote, Mr. Sanders issued a series of tweets this week and wrote an op-ed in USA Today saying he would even want felons such as President Trump’s former colleagues Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen to vote while behind bars. “Even if Trump’s former campaign manager and personal lawyer end up in jail, they should still be able to vote — regardless of who they cast their vote for,” he wrote in the op-ed. “This should not devolve into a debate about whether certain people are ‘good enough’ to have the right to vote. Voting is not a privilege. It is a right.” (Washington Times, 5/1/19)
  • More than 70 civil rights and advocacy groups are urging candidates seeking the presidency to allow people to vote while they are incarcerated, signing an open letter on Tuesday to push an issue already dividing the Democratic field. (Huffington Post, 4/30/19)
• The Obamas’ production company will be backing a nonfiction series based on a Michael Lewis book, “The Fifth Risk: Undoing Democracy,” as part of a programming slate for Netflix Inc. After announcing their partnership with Netflix a year ago, the former president and first lady unveiled a lineup of films and shows on Tuesday. Their firm, called Higher Ground, is being run by filmmakers Priya Swaminathan and Tonia Davis. Netflix’s deal with Barack and Michelle Obama drew controversy when it was announced in May, with some conservatives threatening to boycott the streaming platform. But the service has continued to grow. Netflix signed up 9.6 million subscribers in the first quarter, a record number. “Touching on issues of race and class, democracy and civil rights, and much more, we believe each of these productions won’t just entertain, but will educate, connect and inspire us all,” Barack Obama said in a statement. The series from Lewis, the author of “The Big Short” and “Moneyball,” will depict “the unheralded work done by everyday heroes guiding our government and safeguarding our nation,” according to the statement.

Independent voters / candidates

• CA – City Councilman Mark Kersey Shifts From Republican to Independent.  “Make no mistake: both parties have plenty of good and decent members. But today’s political climate rewards ideologues, not problem-solvers. I ran for office to rebuild San Diego, not localize the debate over federal and state partisan malice. For these reasons I have decided to disconnect from the polarized prism of partisan politics and become an independent. My decision is based not on a single issue or vote but something I have been wrestling with for some time. 4/5  (IVN, 4/30/19)
• Hispanic voters now make up well over a quarter of all registered voters in California, after a surge of interest in the 2018 election, new data released Tuesday by Univision and political data company L2 shows. Their research, unveiled at an event in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, reveals that nearly 1.2 million Hispanic citizens registered to vote in the state between 2014 and 2018, an increase of 29 percent. That’s more than double the rate of increase among non-Hispanics in California, which was 13 percent for the same time period. Another way of putting it: 2 in 5 new registered voters in California were Hispanic. Along with Texas, that represents the largest proportion of new voters of any of the six states the research covered. The spike in both registration and turnout in 2018 was particularly pronounced among Hispanic millennials —those between the ages of 18 and 34 — and those Hispanics who registered as “no party preference.” With one election under their belts, these new, young, independent voters are now positioned to be kingmakers in California’s high-stakes 2020 elections. (McClathcy, 5/1/19)
• Independent swing voters who could decide the 2020 presidential election are losing patience with Democrats’ push to impeach President Trump, according to a new poll released Thursday. The Quinnipiac University National Poll found that 70% of independents oppose impeachment. That’s up from 60% of independents opposing impeachment in the same survey on March 5, before the release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report that found no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. (Washington Times, 5/2/19)

Redistricting

• Former Attorney General Eric Holder says a shock loss in Wisconsin earlier this month should be “a wake-up call” for Democrats that the Midwest hasn’t abandoned President Donald Trump’s GOP despite the midterm election results — and that the party needs to refocus on redistricting or risk crippling the next Democratic administration. Holder is considering launching a pledge for Democratic presidential candidates to sign, promising to focus on redistricting and building the party up and down the ballot. The pledge is still in its early stages: The NDRC is still conducting research and surveying voters to gauge their feelings about redistricting and its role in the next campaign cycle. (Politico, 5/1/19)

Weld – Republican senators who have been vocal supporters of former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld won’t say if they are open to backing his insurgent run for the Republican presidential nomination against President Donald Trump. The silence by Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah is an indication of the political tight rope GOP critics of the President must walk as he runs for re-election next year. They must decide to back his campaign and satisfy Trump supporters in their states or oppose the President and potentially draw his anger and their electoral wrath.  For now, Collins and Romney are exercising a third option: Staying mum. (CNN, 4/30/19)

Newly Announced – Colorado Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet officially announced he’s running for president in 2020 on Thursday morning. The 54-year-old Democrat was diagnosed with prostate cancer last month and underwent successful surgery. He has represented Colorado in the Senate since 2009. Bennet has long-hinted at running for president in 2020 before making it official Thursday morning. He is the 21st democratic candidate to enter the primary race.

# # #

 

 

 

​Jane and I met earlier this spring when I reached out to talk with her about her party’s decision to open the presidential primaries to independents and to make the primary binding (ending their caucus system).

Each week I curate a set of “Top Notes” of media coverage on the 2020 presidential elections. Read it to keep up to date on latest developments.
– Sarah Lyons, Director of Communications, Independent Voting

April 14 – 25, 2019

Voting Rights

Asked at a CNN town hall Monday night if he thought felons should be allowed to vote — even while they’re incarcerated — Sanders said the country needs more people to vote. “This is a democracy and we have got to expand that democracy, and I believe every single person does have the right to vote”. Sanders started his answer by pointing out the low rate of voter turnout in the United States when compared to other major democracies around the world. He said one of the primary priorities of his campaign is to make the US a “vibrant” democracy with a much higher voter turnout. When asked by a student if sex offenders, the Boston Marathon bomber, terrorists and murderers should have voting rights he responded, “Yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away and you say, ‘Well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote. Well, that person did that. Not going to let that person vote,’ you’re running down a slippery slope.” Sanders added: “So I believe people commit crimes and they paid the price and they have the right to vote. I believe even if they’re in jail they’re paying their price to society but that should not take away their inherent American right to participate in our democracy.”  (CNN, 4/22/19)

• Sanders reiterated his support for the voting rights of prisoners on Wednesday, tweeting: “More than 30 countries around the world today such as Canada, South Africa and Finland allow prisoners to vote. This is not a radical idea.” Chiraag Bains, a Justice Department official in the Obama administration who now works at the liberal think tank Demos, said restoring prisoners’ right to vote is the logical next step in a movement that is trying to reverse laws enacted shortly after slaves won the right to vote. Within 15 years of the end of the Civil War, nearly one-third of the states passed laws barring felons and prisoners from voting. “I think the public is a lot smarter about criminal justice reform and voting rights” than they’re given credit for. The Sentencing Project estimates about 1.3 million citizens cannot vote because they are in prison or jail. (AP, 4/25/19)

O’Rourke – said Wednesday he supports granting voting rights to people currently behind bars for nonviolent offenses, saying doing so would help mend racial disparities in voter turnout. “When you look at the population in prisons today, it is disproportionately comprised of people of color; far too many there for nonviolent drug crimes. I want to make sure that time spent behind bars does not entail a stripping of your civic and constitutional rights. I would think especially for nonviolent offenders that we rethink removing the right to vote, and allow everyone, or as many as possible, to participate in our democracy,” the former Texas congressman said in Houston. O’Rourke stopped short of endorsing restoring voting rights for all felons.  “For violent criminals, it’s much harder for me to reach that conclusion. I feel that, at that point, you have broken a bond and a compact with your fellow Americans, and there has to be a consequence in civil life to that as well,” he said.

Harris – “I agree that the right to vote is one of the very important components of citizenship. And it is something that people should not be stripped of needlessly, which is why I have been a long been an advocate of making sure people formally incarcerated are not denied the right to vote,” Harris said. “In some states they’re permanently deprived of the right to vote.”

Buttigieg – unequivocally said felons should not be allowed to vote while serving their sentences. “No,” he said during his CNN town hall Monday. “I do believe that when you are, when you have served your sentence, then part of being restored to society is that you are part of the political life of this nation again and one of the things that needs to be restored is your right to vote.” He went on to say losing the right to vote is part of the punishment when someone is convicted of a crime. “You lose your freedom and I think during that freedom it does not make sense to have an exception for it the right to vote,” Buttigieg said.

Schultz – At a town-hall style discussion in Scottsdale, Schultz detailed what he characterized as a bipartisan approach to immigration reform. Schultz said he agrees with Republicans and Trump that the border needs to be secured, Immigration and Customs Enforcement needs to be fully funded and illegal immigrants need to be kept out. But he agrees with Democrats that the issue must be resolved in a humane way and that immigration, when done legally, is a big factor in the nation’s economic growth. A 2020 battleground state such as Arizona could be crucial to a Schultz campaign, and Schultz said many of his priorities are in line with Arizona’s. Schultz called Arizona State University President Michael Crow “a force of nature” and said he was a key player in one of the three things Starbucks did that no company had ever done before. The two worked together to figure out a way to offer a free education from ASU to Starbucks employees. “People said, ‘That’s crazy, it can never be done,'” Schultz said Monday. “And yet two people came together and said, ‘Let’s not look at the barriers, let’s look at the opportunities and let’s figure this thing out.’ And we did it.” Crow appeared with Schultz during a January event at ASU. Schultz is expected to meet Tuesday with more Arizona voters in Tucson and Nogales and take a tour of the U.S.-Mexico border.  The Commission on Presidential Debates requires third-party candidates to demonstrate at least 15% support in five selected national public opinion polls to qualify and “if I can get on the debate stage, it’s a 3-person race,” Schultz said.(AZ Central, 4/15/19)

• Campaign Ad – The former Starbucks CEO who is considering an independent bid for the presidency in 2020, made a bold claim in a new ad. “The majority of Americans aren’t Democrats or Republicans,” the ad, which is circulating on Facebook and cited by NBC News, said. “The majority of Americans are Americans.”  That had Schultz’s critics wondering: Who were the Americans who weren’t Americans?
• Sanders Comparison – Likening Bernie Sanders to Howard Schultz might seem like a cheeky provocation. And it is. But it is also genuinely the case that Sanders, like Schultz, is campaigning as an aspiring unifier of a disaffected, bipartisan majority that (supposedly) shares his policy preferences.  (“Sanders is the Schultz of the Left” (NY Magazine, 4/16/19)

Schultz Naysayers

• Gov Jay Inslee – a 2020 presidential candidate, took a jab at potential rival Howard Schultz, saying the Starbucks CEO has been “almost totally” absent from policy in Washington state. “He has never really engaged in public policy in my state,” Inslee told New York Magazine in an interview published Tuesday.”AWOL — almost totally — from almost anything having to do with democracy or policy in our state. Doesn’t even vote over half the time … Here’s a guy who wants to be president of the United States who didn’t even deign to vote, what, five weeks ago?” “In Howard’s life, voting is just for the little people,” Inslee added. “I don’t think his candidacy is going to soar.”

Weld – announced Monday he is officially entering the race for president, becoming the first Republican to challenge President Donald Trump in the 2020 race. “Ours is a nation built on courage, resilience, and independence. In these times of great political strife, when both major parties are entrenched in their ‘win at all cost’ battles, the voices of the American people are being ignored and our nation is suffering,” Weld, who had previously formed an exploratory committee, said in a statement. In 2016, Weld was the vice presidential nominee on the Libertarian Party ticket with former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson. He previously served two terms as the governor of Massachusetts in the early 1990s. Weld ran for Senate in Massachusetts in 1996 and lost against John Kerry. He later moved to New York and in 2005 unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for governor. Weld said he will not run as an Independent if he does not win the Republican nomination. (CNN, 4/19/19)

• In addition to hiring Stuart Stevens, the lead strategist on Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, and Horn, Weld said two other New Hampshire staffers have accepted offers to join his campaign in May. He also plans to open an office in Boston’s financial district next month. In an interview inside a Nashua diner, Weld said his first goal for his nascent presidential campaign was to win the New Hampshire primary, but he also plans to raise more than $12 million and run a national campaign. He’ll focus on all six states in New England, the mid-Atlantic region, and the Pacific Northwest, he said, and he plans to make his first trip to California later in the month. But when asked whether his goal was to prevent Trump from winning reelection, he replied, “my goal now is to win the New Hampshire primary.” Weld said his model is former senator John McCain of Arizona, who won the New Hampshire primary twice, including in 2000, when the state party favored his opponent, George W. Bush. “There is no substitute for going over the party apparatus to win over voters,” said Weld, who followed a similar strategy when he won the GOP nomination for Massachusetts governor in 1990. But the party has changed over the last four decades. The ranks of the New Hampshire Republican Party are decidedly supportive of the president. The new chairman, Steve Stepanek, has disparaged Weld for running as the Libertarian Party’s vice presidential nominee in 2016. (Boston Globe, 4/16/19)
• While he told ABC that he was “horrified” by the Mueller report, he also said he didn’t think impeachment was a politically savvy move. Weld was part of the House Judiciary Committee’s legal team during Watergate, and said that while the House has “more than enough evidence, more than there was against President Nixon” to impeach Trump, it’s unlikely that Trump would be convicted by the Republican-controlled Senate.
  • Hogan on Weld – On when he’ll decide to run or not, @GovLarryHogan says there’s “no real timeline” but says he is “not going to launch a suicide mission,” he has to see a path to victory. Also notes that @GovBillWeld “is a wonderful guy” and says they talked before Weld launched his campaign

Buttigieg – the 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, officially announced his presidential bid Sunday afternoon, hoping to make history as the youngest-ever, and the first-ever openly gay, commander in chief. (Transcript of announcement) Speaking to a standing-room-only crowd inside a downtown tech hub that had once been the home of a long-ago-shuttered Studebaker car factory.

• 43% of Pete Buttigieg’s support comes from Independent voters, not registered Democrats. This is the highest percentage of Independent (non-Democrat) supporters for any candidate in the current field. Only 57% of Buttigieg’s supporters are registered as Democrats. In contrast, 80% of Bernie’ supporters and 84% of Biden’s supporters are registered Democrats. For those who believe in Mayor Pete’s growth potential and potential to beat President Trump, this relatively high percentage of support from Independent voters is a good sign for the 37-year-old Mayor from the Midwest. (Forbes, 4/17/19)
• The mayor of South Bend, Ind., made headlines when he compared President Trump’s supporters to those who back Bernie Sanders, stating both groups feel marginalized and want to tear down the system. “I think the sense of anger and disaffection that comes from seeing that the numbers are fine, like unemployment’s low, like all that, like you said GDP is growing and yet a lot of neighborhoods and families are living like this recovery never even happened,” the 37-year-old told high school students in Nashua, N.H. “It just kind of turns you against the system in general and then you’re more likely to want to vote to blow up the system, which could lead you to somebody like Bernie and it could lead you to somebody like Trump. I think that’s how we got where we are.”
  • “Come on @PeteButtigieg It is intellectually dishonest to compare Bernie to Trump,” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., tweeted, before listing some policy differences between Sanders and the president.
  • Nina Turner, a vocal supporter of Sanders, tweeted: “Bernie Sanders’ supporters are not the same as Trump fans — Sen. @BernieSanders supporters are Democratic & Independent voters, many of whom are people of color.”
  • Citizen Uprising, a far-left Twitter account, sent out a post reading: “Pete Buttigieg is officially over. He just blamed Trump AND Bernie voters for the problems we currently face.”
    • “This is an extremely weird Narrative coming from some Sanders surrogates. Buttigieg’s comments were extremely boilerplate, basically that Trump and Sanders voters both suffer economic anxiety and are disaffected with the system,” FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver tweeted.
• Buttigieg – Fox News announced Tuesday that they will host a presidential town hall with Democratic candidate and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg on Sunday, May 19. The town hall, which will take place in Claremont, New Hampshire, will be moderated by Fox News host Chris Wallace.

Mueller Report

Warren announced her support for impeachment on Twitter Friday. She wrote that the misconduct outlined in the Mueller report was so severe that it “demands that elected officials in both parties set aside political considerations and do their constitutional duty. That means the House should initiate impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States.”

Castro – Obama HUD Secretary and San Antonio mayor Castro was the first 2020 presidential candidate to speak out in favor of impeaching Trump, telling Anderson Cooper after the release of the redacted Mueller report that he finds the idea “perfectly reasonable.”

Swalwell – who’s running for the Democratic nomination on a gun control platform, didn’t support the idea of attempting to remove Trump from office outright when asked by MSNBC Friday. Impeachment is a “conversation we have to have as far as holding this president accountable,” said Swalwell, before saying he supported subpoenaing Mueller to “see what the evidence is.”

Yang: “I am glad that the Mueller Report has been made public. It’s important to the American people,” he wrote. “My focus is on beating Donald Trump at the ballot box and solving the problems that got him elected in the first place.”

Gabbard: “On issue of impeachment, I am doing my homework,” she said at a local town hall Wednesday. “I am studying more about the impeachment process. I will just say I understand the calls for impeachment, but what I am being cautious about and what I give you food for thought about is that if President Trump is impeached, the problems don’t go away, because then you have a Vice President Pence who becomes President Pence.”

Harris: California Senator Harris held back from coming out as either being for or against impeachment, telling MSNBC’s Chris Hayes Thursday that while “there’s definitely a conversation to be had” on the subject of impeachment, “she wants to hear from Bob Mueller and really understand [the evidence]” before coming to a conclusion.

Gilibrand:  The New York Senator hasn’t come out for or against impeaching Trump, but she did call for the President to resign over the multiple allegations of sexual misconduct that women have brought against him. “If he’s unwilling to do that, which is what I assume, then Congress should hold him accountable,” she told CBS last year. “We’re obligated to have hearings.”

Buttigieg:  “I think that Congress needs to make that decision,” he said during an event in Boston. “I think he may well deserve it, but my focus, since I’m not a part of Congress but I am part of 2020, is to give him a decisive defeat at the ballot box, if he is the Republican nominee in 2020.”

Booker:  Senator Booker, who, like Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar, is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told a crowd in Nevada Friday that he feels it’s “too soon” to consider impeachment as Congress still has not been given the full, un-redacted report or interviewed Robert Mueller. “There’s a lot more investigation that should go on before Congress comes to any conclusions like that,” he said,according to the Associated Press.

Klobuchar:  Pointed out on MSNBC that as a member of the Senate, her “job is to be the jury, so I’ve been really careful talking about if an impeachment is brought before us.”

Sanders: “While we have more detail from today’s report than before,” the Vermont senator tweeted, “Congress must continue its investigation into Trump’s conduct and any foreign attempts to influence our election.”

Inslee:  “It is clear that the president tried and tried and tried to stop the Mueller investigation,” the governor tweeted Friday. “Congress needs to get to the bottom of what’s going on here. Impeachment should not be off the table.”

O’Rourke:   “I think the American people are going to have a chance to decide this at the ballot box in November 2020,” he told CBS’s Gayle King in March, “and perhaps that’s the best way for us to resolve these outstanding questions.” Whether or not Congress pursues impeachment proceedings however, O’Rourke says he still feels certain “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that Trump is guilty of offenses that merit impeachment.

Youth vote

• ​​More young people, particularly those who identify as Democrats, say they plan to vote in the 2020 presidential caucuses and primaries than did four years ago, according to a Harvard University Institute of Politics poll published Monday.
• Forty-three percent of young voters, ages 18 to 29, surveyed said they are likely to participate in the nominating contests, compared to 36% of young voters who indicated that they’d vote in the nominating contests at the same point four years ago.
• The new polling data suggests a continuation of a surge in engagement by young voters from November’s midterm election. Youth turnout was31% for the midterms, a 25-year-high that Democrats said helped pave the way for the party’s largest gain of House seats since the post-Watergate 1974 elections.

Black Vote

• Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders announced endorsements from seven black lawmakers in the critical early voting state of South Carolina, a show of force in the first place where African American voters feature prominently in next year’s primary elections. Sanders’ 2020 campaign made the announcement just ahead of a Spartanburg town hall meeting with members of the state’s Legislative Black Caucus. The backing represents the biggest number of black lawmakers to back a 2020 hopeful to date in this state, which holds the first primary in the South. (AP, 4/18/19)
• Event / She The People – Texas’ biggest city was at the center of the 2020 presidential race Wednesday as a group of Democratic candidates descended here to appeal to a key voting bloc in the primary. Appearing at Texas Southern University, a historically black college, eight candidates made their pitches at a forum hosted by She the People, a national network of women of color. The three-hour event was one of the biggest gatherings of the Democratic primary candidates yet, let alone in Texas. On the sidelines of the forum, candidates confronted an issue that has flared up in the primary in recent days: whether the incarcerated should be able to vote. Sanders recently said they should, prompting a debate in the party about how far voting rights should be extended to those in prison. After he spoke at the forum, U.S. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey told reporters he was frustrated that the issue had become another “political box-checking exercise” in the primary and wants to instead focus on halting a system of mass incarceration so that people don’t needlessly end up behind bars in the first place. Both Castro and O’Rourke fielded the question from reporters, similarly responding by expressing support for restoring the right to vote for nonviolent offenders. (Texas Tribune, 4/24/19)

Newly Announced: 

• Biden – After months of oscillating speculation, followed by a long ramp up that drew out uncomfortable reassessments of his long public career, former Vice President Joe Biden has announced that he will run for president in 2020. Biden made the announcement in a video released on Thursday. He’s expected to head to Pittsburgh for a kickoff event next week, highlighting the focus the latest Democratic candidate places on winning back key states President Trump flipped in 2016. Former President Barack Obama held off on endorsing his vice president, instead releasing a glowing statement from his office: “President Obama has long said that selecting Joe Biden as his running mate in 2008 was one of the best decisions he ever made. He relied on the Vice President’s knowledge, insight, and judgement throughout both campaigns and the entire presidency. The two forged a special bond over the last 10 years and remain close today.” Biden immediately picked up endorsements from some Democratic senators, including both senators from his home state of Delaware, Chris Coons and Tom Carper. Biden is also being backed by moderate Democratic Sens. Doug Jones of Alabama and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. Progressive pushback was also swift. The group Justice Democrats, aligned with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., released a statement saying, “The old guard of the Democratic Party failed to stop Trump, and they can’t be counted on to lead the fight against his divide-and-conquer politics today.” This will be Biden’s third run for president. His first try came in 1988, ending amid plagiarism revelations. (NPR, 2/25/19)
• Seth Moulton of Massachusettsannounced he’s mounting a bid for president in 2020, expanding the Democratic field to 19 candidates. On Monday, he sought to set himself apart from the ever-growing pack of Democratic candidates, many of whom have more Washington experience and star power, saying on “GMA,” “I’m not a socialist. I’m a Democrat. And I want to make that clear. Maybe that’s a differentiator in this race.” He used health care as an example. “I think I’m the only candidate who actually gets single payer health care,” he said, adding that he’s on a single payer plan himself through the Department of Veterans Affairs. “And I’ll tell you, it’s not perfect. So if I’m elected, I’m not going to force you off your private health care plan.” (ABC, 4/22/19)

# # #

Newly announced presidential candidate Governor Jay Inslee was about to receive a bill from the state legislature moving Washington State’s presidential primary up in the calendar year to March. There was just one problem: independent voters would have to declare a party affiliation to participate. Would Inslee, whose presidential campaign is focused on fighting climate change, be as forward thinking on democracy issues as environmental ones?

Seven members of the Independent Voting network, along with Independent Voting’s Vice President for National Development Cathy Stewart, signed onto a letter to Governor Inslee urging that he veto the bill, and a reporter from a local newspaper called for comment. One of the signers, Janice Lyle, told the newspaper: “I want to continue to do my civic duties and one of those is to vote,” she said. “But I can’t, unless I lie, and that puts me in a bad place. There are so many of us who are not claiming either party these days and not letting us vote because we will not make the declaration is disenfranchising.”

Mark your calendar: State is moving its presidential primary
A new law advances election to early March. Voters must pick a party to participate.
By Jerry Cornfield

Thursday, March 14, 2019 9:04pm

OLYMPIA — The state’s presidential primary is moving up to early March starting in 2020, which should give Washington voters greater prominence in choosing the Democratic and Republican nominees.

Gov. Jay Inslee signed legislation Thursday to conduct the quadrennial electoral event on the second Tuesday in March rather than late May. For next year, it means an election on March 10, putting it a few weeks after the Iowa caucuses and a few days after Super Tuesday, when there are primaries in nine states.

But there’s a catch.

To have their ballot counted, voters will have to say they are a member of the political party of the candidate they are backing.

That’s why Janice Lyle of Marysville said she will be sitting it out.

She considers herself a political independent and is unwilling to pledge allegiance to the Democratic or Republican party, even for just this election.

“I want to continue to do my civic duties and one of those is to vote,” she said. “But I can’t, unless I lie, and that puts me in a bad place. There are so many of us who are not claiming either party these days and not letting us vote because we will not make the declaration is disenfranchising.”

Lyle is one of six Washington residents who asked Inslee to veto Senate Bill 5273 because it did not provide an opportunity for unaffiliated voters to participate. They are part of a national group of independent voters.

In a letter, they said it is “unacceptable” to make independent voters align with a political party.

“Since the presidential primaries are taxpayer-funded elections, all voters, regardless of affiliation, should be allowed to participate,” they wrote.

Inslee said of the bill and their concerns, “It’s the only way that I could see really moving forward to have their votes count in presidential primaries and be consistent with the rules of the road that the parties have put up.”

As the legislation made its way through the process, most Republican lawmakers endorsed the earlier date but wanted a means for independents to participate.

“Today will be remembered as a big win for the political parties in Washington but a lost opportunity on behalf of our many voters who value independence and privacy,” Senate Minority Leader Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville said in a statement.

The state has allowed voters to cast ballots in a presidential primary without picking a party and then tallied those results separately.

It happened in 2000. Unaffiliated voters accounted for roughly 40 percent of the ballots cast.

In raw numbers, 521,218 voted as independents, while 491,148 cast Republican ballots and 297,001 cast Democratic ballots.

Breaking down the results, George W. Bush beat John McCain among ballots cast by Republicans while McCain beat Bush on ballots cast by unaffiliated voters. Overall, Bush wound up with roughly 2,300 more votes.

“A general principle in a Democratic republic is that anything that isolates or alienates a big block of voters runs counter to the foundations of the republic,” said Brian Baird of Edmonds, a Democrat and former United States congressman who co-founded a group to recruit and elect independent candidates.

“More and more people are expressing dissatisfaction with the two parties,” he said. “To leave them out means we will have more alienated voters.”

Andrew Villeneuve, executive director of the Northwest Progressive Institute, said that, because the primary is a nominating event, “true independents” should not worry about participating.

“Failure to cast a ballot in the presidential primary doesn’t mean anything other than a lack of desire to participate in party politics,” he said.

Chris Vance, a former chairman of the state Republican Party and co-founder of Washington Independents with Baird, also iterated that the purpose of the primary is for members of those political parties to choose their nominee.

“People in Washington state have been very frustrated for a very long time over this,” he said. “Like it or not, you have to accept the fact that the two parties control this process.”

He’s excited at the prospect that an earlier primary will make Washington a destination for candidates.

That presumes both parties use the results to allot their delegates to the national conventions. Republicans are committed to doing so; Democrats haven’t decided. Party leaders are in the midst of surveying members.

“If Democrats choose to use this primary, the circus is going to come to town and we’re going to be involved,” Vance said. “I think it’s great.”

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Jerry Cornfield: 360-352-8623; jcornfield@herald net.com. Twitter: @dospueblos

Tiani X. Coleman of New Hampshire Independent Voters got a question on the floor of a recent Town Hall meeting with presidential candidate Andrew Yang.

• Larry Lessing (moderator) – “In NH, as you know, you can register as undeclared and then on the day of the primary you can pick which party you want to vote in. In the last election maybe 25 million people were shut out of primaries because there wasn’t something similar to that or at least an open primary process. Do you think it’s a good idea for parties to open their primaries or do you think it makes sense for parties to figure out what their party cares about?”

Mayor Pete Buttigieg
www.PeteforAmerica.com

VIA EMAIL & HAND DELIVERY

Dear Mayor Buttigieg,

I write on behalf of the country’s largest association of independent voters. I have been following your campaign closely and have appreciated your comments about independents, how ideology and centrism are not fruitful ways to reach us, and how the tension between democracy and capitalism may be the greatest challenge of our time.

We have been organizing independents for 35 years – not as a base for a party – but as “first responders” to the crisis in American democracy and as change agents for much needed political reforms.

Our understanding, experience and belief is that a guiding impulse of independents is that they don’t want to be categorized or restricted by ideological guideposts. They are pragmatic, believe in the fundamentality of democracy and feel it’s time to address the democracy crisis openly and straightforwardly.  Our broken process makes elections difficult tools by which voters can make course corrections.

Independents are a restless engine looking for transformational leadership, and your ability and willingness to address what’s actually going on in the country is meaningful.

We would like to have the opportunity to meet with you, in South Bend or in NYC, and talk with you about how to move America forward.

Sarah Lyons
Director of Communications
Independent Voting
417 Fifth Ave, Ste 811
New York, NY 10016
212-962-1824

Dr. Jessie Fields
Board Member
Independent Voting
417 Fifth Ave, Ste 811
New York, NY 10016
646-591-4794

Note: As a recent guest on Fox News, I spoke as an independent, and a physician, on the issue of democracy, healthcare and capitalism. Please see my segment here (at 2:30:00).