Will there be a "blue wave" in 2018 that seizes back control of either one or both houses of Congress for the Democratic Party for the first time since 2014? That is yet to be determined. There are so many questions left unanswered ahead of November, as very few states have actually held primaries (Illinois did in March), and many of them are not due to hold them until September (New York and four other state).
Midterm elections tend to include national narratives as well as ones that are more focused on the state and local levels. The 1994 midterms were seen as doomsday for the traditional Democratic Party that had been used to holding on to at least one house of Congress since 1952 as the "Republican Revolution" brought Newt Gingrich to the national level and with the Contract for America created a blueprint for shrinking the federal government that eventually even President Bill Clinton cooperated on. In 2006, the exact opposite occurred as the electorate rejected the neo-conservative interventionism of President Bush and brought in Nancy Pelosi as the face of the new liberal Democratic Party where she remains to this day.
The painful truth is that neither of these party changes of guard led to actual institutional change in the USA. Just like in both 1994 and 2006, Social Security and Medicaid, the role of federal government agencies like the ATF and EPA, and wedge issues like abortion rights and illegal immigration have not been resolved because in many ways it benefits party leaders like Pelosi and Paul Ryan to keep them in the forefront of the news in order to drive up donations. The opaque and unaccountable nature of the US wars in Yemen and Afghanistan as well as the surveillance powers of the CIA, NSA, FBI and other US intelligence bodies have been sustained by the bipartisan compliance of both the House and Senate.
Does gridlock work?
Add to this the feelings of the average voters towards the most polarizing president in recent memory, Donald Trump, and it's impossible to know if there is a common direction emerging in 2018 that will actually manifest itself as a "wave" of any specific colour. None of the gridlocked congressional sessions under presidents Clinton (1994-2000), Bush (2006-08) and Obama (2010-2016) actually led to a more accountable executive branch. On the contrary, due to the toothless behaviour of so-called congressional leaders like Gingrich, Pelosi, and later John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan congressional approval ratings have been under 40% since 2005, and since Obama took office through Trump's first two years they have hovered around 20%.
So with this in mind, I will attempt to discuss the most intriguing candidates in my mind running in 2018 as opposed to talking about broader party politics. Rather than talking about changing who holds the Speaker's gavel, it's probably more crucial to discuss who could change the landscape of either party or of an entire state. These are not likely winners, and in a couple cases they may not even be primary winners. In fact it is arguable whether all of the are even good candidates, but they present several alternatives to the status quo.
1. Randy "IronStache" Bryce
Position: Wisconsin 1st District, US House of Representatives.
Party: Democratic (Justice Democrats)
Bryce is a staunch progressive and union iron worker who has worked in the construction trades for 20 years and was in 2016 an active participant in Senator Bernie Sanders' (I-Vermont) successful dark horse effort in Wisconsin during the presidential primaries against Hillary Clinton. Among his top policy proposals are passage of the Butch Lewis Act, a piece of legislation that would prohibit cutbacks to pensions for private-sector union workers as well as a national $15 minimum wage, further empowerment of OSHA, and various other worker-oriented federal legislation. Bryce's website has several detailed pages dedicated to his policy agenda.
Opponent: Bryce is going bold by challenging Speaker of the House Paul Ryan who has steamrolled several of his previous opponents and has the power and heft of several establishment GOP Super PACs behind him. He may be able to channel the nationwide hatred of Ryan by conservative voters towards the Speaker as a way to pry many locals away from him, but he may have an uphill battle given the unpopular national gun control agenda pushed by the Democrats. Ryan's own primary opponent Paul Nehlen has gone off the rails by openly embracing an ethno-nationalist agenda and getting banned from Twitter and even its free speech rival Gab.ai for doxing.
Outlook: Bryce is one of the most prepared and capable challengers and is currently outperforming his establishment Democrat opponent Cathy Myers in both fundraising and organization. He also has a very concrete and specific agenda for a variety of progressive issues from workers rights to education to the environment. Ryan will likely have to campaign harder than in the past, and should be worried about this challenger.
2. Omar Navarro
Position: California 43rd District, US House of Representatives.
Party: Republican Party.
Unlike Bryce's campaign, Navarro's is more dependent on local anxieties about illegal immigration than about a more developed policy platform. In fact to look at his web page there are a lot of platitudes about "protecting veterans" and "defending the 2nd Amendment" but few about actual proposed policies. The main reason Navarro's candidacy is so intriguing is because he is the anti-Maxine Waters.
Opponent: While she has only recently gained national attention, the incumbent Rep. Maxine Waters has been representing this Los Angeles area constituency since 1991, and prior to that was an assemblywoman in California's state legislature. Waters has been a lifelong member of the Congressional Black Caucus and chaired it in the late 1990s. Waters has never lost than 71% in an election, and it is unlikely that she will be defeated.
Outlook: However, it has been her publicity-seeking rhetoric about impeaching Donald Trump since 2016 that has rallied around Navarro numerous locals that believe that Waters has grown rich while metro Los Angeles has grown poorer. A youthful Mexican-Cuban with a pro-business anti-illegal immigration platform, Navarro has proudly accepted the support of Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Herman Cain, and members of the conservative alternative media. What Navarro may be depending on more than his own competence is the over-the-top, corrupt and geriatric image of Maxine Waters. While Waters continues to be a darling of the banking industry, Los Angeles makes headlines nationwide and locally for its exploding homeless population.
Regardless of Waters' flaws, unlike in Bryce's challenge against Paul Ryan, this race may only present Navarro with the chance to close the incumbent's margin of victory.
3. Shiva Ayyadurai
Position: Massachusetts US Senate Class 1 seat.
Party: Independent.
Ayyadurai has positioned himself as the bad boy of Massachusetts and taken a take-no-prisoners attitude towards Elizabeth Warren, the state GOP, and the Ivy League academic establishment there. A holder of four degrees from MIT, VA Shiva as he is known in other forums has a controversial history as a tech entrepreneur, email invention claimant, and critic of GMO foods. Shiva has also had a combative legal past including both civil and criminal litigation (he has never been convicted).
It is precisely because of his politically incorrect speech (calling Warren a "fake Indian" and directly sending her DNA test kits) and his unwavering attacks on the academic establishment in Massachusetts that Shiva is attracting support from grassroots conservatives and libertarians. In the staid climate of Massachusetts where Democrats are uber liberal and Republicans are corporate puppets Shiva has attempted to bring his campaign to the poorer districts of South Boston and various other working class towns of Massachusetts such as Lowell, and appeared at the August 2017 Boston Free Speech Rally that was disrupted by Antifa.
Shiva has also taken risky but committed positions opposing the Paris Climate Accords and calling for lower taxes in the deep blues state of Massachusetts.
Opponent: Sen. Elizabeth Warren is running for her second term, and as a member of the Democratic Party's public face will likely be well-funded and benefit from a poor Republican field and low public interest. She has been dogged however by the mocking public response to her unwillingness to substantiate her American Indian heritage. Even the liberal Berkshire Eagle has called on the Senator to resolve the issue. Warren's advantages include her past legal academic career at Harvard and UPenn as well as the adoration among liberals nationwide for lobbying Pres. Barack Obama to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Outlook: Shiva's chances of defeating Warren are heavily dependent like Navarro's on exposure from alternative media. If by the September primaries he is able to raise more money than the GOP opponents and he is polling consistently above 15%, he will become the real opponent to Warren. A Tamil Indian immigrant, Shiva is attempting to position himself as the free speech, free market underdog alternative but Massachusetts has rarely embraced anti-establishment candidates.
4. Dennis Kucinich
Position: Governor of Ohio.
Party: Democratic.
Throughout his long political career, the 71 year-old Kucinich has been a plucky representative of both the working class and the weird left. Kucinich's insurgent 2004 and 2008 presidential campaigns attracted support from the left wing of the Democratic Party due to his uncompromising opposition to the Iraq War (unlike eventual nominees John Kerry and Hillary Clinton) as well as the distraction that the media made of his claims to have seen a UFO while visiting actress Shirley MacLaine in Washington State.
Kucinich first gained prominence in the 1970s during his brief two-year stint as Cleveland mayor that eventually ended with the city defaulting on its debt due to a fight over the fate of its public power company. Whereas it was seen as a fatal setback at the time, Kucinich would serve successively on City Council, the Ohio Senate, and finally the US House of Representatives until 2013.
Throughout his career on the national stage Kucinich has been a theatrical attention seeker or a progressive iconoclast depending on who one asks in the Democratic Party. He is a proponent of repealing the PATRIOT Act, withdrawing from the WTO and NAFTA, universal healthcare, creating more gun control legislation and numerous other progressive causes. Kucinich's new campaign for governor has explicitly called for creating such a system in Ohio. What complicates that position was his role as a deciding vote on the Democratic side in supporting Obamacare, what was seen by both progressive and conservative observers at the time as a betrayal and a flip-flop on his strident campaign for single payer healthcare.
Opponent: Kucinich has a fighting chance in this year's primary against former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, as he has more grassroots support in Ohio's most Democratic-leaning county, Cuyahoga. He has the endorsement of Bernie Sanders' Our Revolution organization, although interestingly enough Sanders himself has not yet endorsed. The governor's mansion is up for grabs as current incumbent John Kasich is term limited.
Obstacles to his victory are many. Cordray has already wracked up the endorsements of virtually every Democrat that is politically influential and is likely to weigh in prior to the primary, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Cleveland-area congresswoman Marcia Fudge, and former Kucinich primary opponent from 2012 Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Toledo. Cordray could also be stronger in rural counties of Ohio where he could attract the support of gun owners based on his pro-gun record, whereas Kucinich is openly in favour of more gun control legislation. Kucinich is also fighting off two other staunch progressive opponents in former state supreme court Judge Bill O'Neill and State Senate minority leader Joe Schiavoni. One issue where both progressive and centrist opponents have criticized Kucinich is his public praise of Donald Trump's protectionist agenda on trade and defense of the president against charges of collusion with Russia.
Assuming Kucinich wins the May 8 primary, it is possible he will face a daunting challenge in GOP Attorney General Mike DeWine, a former US senator and a proven statewide election winner or current Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor. Here he will have to contend with the distrust of rural voters outside of Ohio's three major urban centers, once again due to his gun control stances. Another obstacle is that despite his well-known legislative history and national campaigning record, as an administrator he is remembered for his disastrous incomplete term as mayor of Cleveland.
Outlook: A further challenge for the Democratic nominee whoever that may be in the general election is that Ohio as a whole has drifted steadily to the right in statewide elections since the 1990s. The only statewide official left since 2010 that is not a Republican is US Senator Sherrod Brown. The last Democratic governor, Ted Strickland, presided over an economic meltdown and his defeat in 2010 coincided with the total obliteration of the state party from which it has never recovered. The last Democratic governor to win two terms was Richard Celeste who last served in 1991. In 2016 Donald Trump won the state with the largest margin of victory of any presidential ballot since 1988, and in the same election GOP Sen. Rob Portman defeated former Gov. Strickland by a 21 point margin.
5. Larry Sharpe
Position: Governor of New York.
Party: Libertarian (and other possible "fusion" tickets).
New York State is not typically thought of as fertile ground for libertarianism, but thanks to infighting in the Democratic Party and widespread corruption, debt, and dysfunction at all levels of government this may be the Year of the Porcupine if Larry Sharpe can grab some attention from the mainstream party candidates.
An ex-Marine, entrepreneur and business consultant, Sharpe has been trying to gain traction at a time of major infighting throughout the Libertarian Party as well. On the national level he has run for Vice President losing to former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld in the LP primary. Since then the party has been losing support among conservatives, but Sharpe's campaign is aiming to focus on lowering taxes statewide, repealing Gov. Andrew Cuomo's gun restricting SAFE Act, and paying attention to the needs of Upstate New York residents.
Opposition: Mr. Sharpe has no significant opposition within the LP giving him a great head start in a year when Andrew Cuomo is facing a bitter primary challenge in seeking a third term from Sex and the City star and hard-core progressive Cynthia Nixon. The Republican Party is likely to nominate State Sen. John DeFrancesco who is not likely to be a viable challenger.
What could develop in a nightmare scenario for Cuomo is a situation where he narrowly defeats Nixon in the September Democratic primary and she is nominated by one of the "fusion" parties that typically endorse Democrats such as the Working Families Party and the Women's Equality Party. In such a case he would have to fight Nixon in New York City and other progressive urban areas and universities which would distract him from gaining support in his weaker areas of Upstate New York and Long Island where he struggled in 2014. Another issue is Cuomo's ugly personal rivalry with New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio that has led to a crisis in the maintenance of the New York Metro Transit Authority (MTA) which is in charge of the declining subway infrastructure and an additional infrastructure crisis in public housing (see my article on NYCHA). These could all be weakness points where Sharpe could establish himself as an alternative.
Outlook: No one has won as a Libertarian on a statewide basis in the US, and Sharpe has branded his campaign nationwide as a chance to establish a precedence on this and many levels. He is currently behind only Cuomo in terms of fundraising but that could change now that Cynthia Nixon's campaign has attracted the attention of NYC's large daily papers and local media by promising universal healthcare and sanctuary state status while Sharpe continues to scrape for attention among grassroots voters. Sharpe's hope is that his polling will be strong enough to get him to the debate stage in the general election. If he can appear publicly with Cuomo and other elected officials their failed records are an automatic disadvantage compared to his as a political novice.
6. Tim Canova
Position: Florida's 23 US House of Representative's district.
Party: Independent.
Canova was at one point the leading progressive down-ballot ally of the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign and he was a fiery campaigner on behalf of the Vermont Senator both in his Broward County district and beyond. However, in July 2016 once Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton he turned his back on Canova in his race against incumbent Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz, at the time the chair of the Democratic National Committee and the person most identified by progressives with skewing the presidential primaries in favour of Clinton. At the time of the August 2016 primary the Miami Herald even characterized Canova as Sanders' protege.
A law professor from Nova Southeastern University, a small private college in Davie, Canova ran on a total progressive platform in support of universal healthcare, a $15 minimum wage, and fighting the state's powerful sugar lobby. Immediately after the 2016 election and several scandals concerning Democratic primaries, including his own against Wasserman Schultz, Canova began to plan another primary run for 2018 to unseat the veteran congresswoman. His campaign continues to champion the same progressive ideals of his 2016 run, but this time bypassing the Democratic primary.
Opponent: However on February 23 of this year he left the Democrats to become an independent, claiming that Broward County's Democratic Party has been complicit in vote rigging on behalf of Wasserman Schultz
and other establishment Democrats. Wasserman Schultz has in many respects become the political punching bag of both right-wing and progressive critics given her disastrous four year tenure as head of the DNC that ran the party into financial insolvency and created an unhealthy codependency with Super PACs and the political organizations of Clinton and Pres. Barack Obama. Wasserman Schultz has the distinct advantage of representing a district rich in senior citizen voters for whom past name recognition is often a greater asset than performance or outreach, but without the ability to choke off Canova's candidacy in the closed primary the game could be different now.
Another flaw in Wasserman Schultz's record is her bizarre and likely criminal behaviour in the Awan Brothers' IT scandal. The lack of screening for the family of IT aides, the over-paying of their contract, and the rash of crimes committed by Imran Awan and his accomplices has been hidden from the national media, but fellow Floridian congressman Ron DeSantis (GOP) is now threatening to make this the subject of a House Committee on Government Oversight investigation. If such efforts pick up steam House Democrats could seek to jettison her from the ticket if she becomes too much of a liability. This is unlikely if Wasserman Schultz possesses knowledge of skeletons in the Democratic Party's closet that leaders like Pelosi and Schumer would want to keep invisible by keeping her happy and in Congress.
Another complicating factor, more for Schultz than Canova, is the rise of GOP challenger Carlos Reyes. Given the former DNC Chair's scandalous tenure as a national Democratic figure, the Republicans believe that she could be vulnerable notwithstanding the district's status as a liberal stronghold. Schultz performed unusually weakly in 2016 by winning with only 56% of the vote. Her worst performance up until then had been 60% in 2010 and that was in a race with only one viable candidate from the right, whereas here she would have both a Republican and progressive opponent.
Outlook: What will be more of a challenge this time is that Canova can no longer expect any benefit from being tied to Sanders, who in 2017 once again spurned the chance to support his next run against Wasserman Schultz. Sanders has been reluctant to jeopardize his standing in the US Senate by directly criticizing his Democratic colleagues, and has been continuously raked over the coals by liberal media outlets for such things as his minor criticism of Obama on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
A More Perfect Union?
If voters are dissatisfied with the choices given by the two party system from 2016, why is there not a groundswell of support for alternatives in 2018? (US News and World Report)
This piece is dedicated to individuals that present an alternative to the leadership of both parties in the United States today from the progressive, conservative, and libertarian angles. It is not intended as a voting guide or an endorsement. Surveying the literature available on them shows that most of them (with the exception of Navarro) appear prepared and well-versed on the issues.
Indeed, one of the reasons that I am featuring some of these worthy candidates, from the far-left Bryce, Canova, and Kucinich, to the decidedly right wing Navarro, to the nonconforming Sharpe and VA Shiva is that it is this very system that excludes all of these minority opinions in favour of a corporate-backed franchised party structure of Scottish feudal lords that offers a false choice between two poor contenders, the GOP and the Democrats. Please take the time to read through the links attached to each candidate, and perhaps asked yourself, shouldn't Congress and other bodies have their composition elected at least partially based on a proportional vote?
Link to original article: https://hardnews.network/ufos-ironstache-and-monsanto-the-most-interesting-candidates-for-2018/
#information war
