The electorate isn't biased. Rather, party elites and donors stack the deck against women and people of color running for office.

And appointments? Lonely Dr. Joshua ...

I'm shocked ... just shocked.

The “Biased Electorate” Myth Has Been Debunked Again, by Carl Beijer (Jacobin)

The deck is stacked against women and people of color seeking political office. But it's not because of a reactionary electorate — it's because of party elites and donors.

Conventional wisdom on the liberal left holds that bias among voters is so prevalent that it creates a disadvantage at the polls for women and people of color running for office. The numbers, however, beg to differ. In “The Electability Myth,” a new study of the 2018 US election, the Reflective Democracy Campaign (RDC) has found that other groups have a slight advantage over white men among the voters — and systematic disadvantages that have historically kept them off the ballot ...

Two horses with the same owner: Taibbi asks, "Is the Two-Party System Doomed?"

The sooner, the better. Let's follow the money, shall we?

Is the Two-Party System Doomed?, by Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stone)

A new study shows us what observation should already have made clear: a messy restructuring of America's political parties is coming

Thomas Piketty, the French economist whose 2013 bestseller Capital in the 21st Century awoke upscale Americans to the shocking news that their economic system was not working for everyone, has written a new paper exposing more uncomfortable truths.

Piketty's new essay, called Brahmin Left vs. Merchant Right, studied electoral trends in three Western countries – France, Britain and the U.S. – dating back to the 1940s.

SNIP

America, like pretty much everyplace else in the neoliberal world, is becoming a society split up into unequal camps. We have an extremely small group of very rich people, and a much larger group of everyone else, who may or may not be educated, but increasingly have either zero net worth, or close to it.

The numbers are getting harder to ignore.

American politicians for decades have done an outstanding job of keeping low-income voters from seeing their shared economic dilemmas. The Republicans dating back to Goldwater and Nixon have kept voters transfixed with race hatred and fears about things like gun control, while Democrats have emphasized the Republican threat on social issues like reproductive rights and Social Security.

But having two parties sponsored by the same donors simply can't work in the long-term. The situation ends up being what a Colombian politician once deemed "two horses with the same owner."

From Mitt Romney's idiotic tirade against "the 47%" to Hillary Clinton's recent remarks about how she won all the "dynamic" parts of America, our political leaders have consistently showed that they don't see or understand the levels of resentment out there.

Papers like Piketty's are a warning that if the intellectuals in both parties don't come up with a real plan for dealing with the income disparity problem before someone smarter than Donald Trump takes it on, they're screwed. Forget nativists vs. globalists. Think poor vs. rich. Think 99 to 1. While Washington waits with bated breath for the results of the Mueller probe, it's the other mystery – how do we fix this seemingly unfixable economic system – that is keeping the rest of the country awake at night.

Watery tarts and swords: "Win or lose on Tuesday, a Democratic battle looms."

King Arthur: Please, please, good people, I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?

Peasant Woman: No one lives there.

King Arthur: Then who is your lord?

Peasant Woman: We don't have a lord.

Dennis: I told you, we're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week...

King Arthur: Yes...

Dennis: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...

King Arthur: Yes I see...

Dennis: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs...

King Arthur: Be quiet!

Dennis: ...but by a two thirds majority in the case of...

King Arthur: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!

Peasant Woman: Order, eh? Who does he think he is?

King Arthur: I am your king.

Peasant Woman: Well, I didn't vote for you.

King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.

Peasant Woman: Well, how'd you become king, then?

[Angelic music plays... ]

King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.

Dennis: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Arthur: Be quiet!

Dennis: You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

Arthur: Shut up

Dennis: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

Arthur: [grabs Dennis] Shut up! Will you shut up?!

Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!

Arthur: [shakes Dennis] Shut up!

Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!

Arthur: Bloody Peasant!

Dennis: Ooh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, didn't you?

Almost forgot ... here's the article.

Analysis: Win or lose on Tuesday, a Democratic battle looms, by Cathleen Decker (LA Times)

The roaring crowds and displays of Democratic unity around Hillary Clinton as the campaign ends have obscured a bumpier reality: Whatever happens Tuesday, Democrats face a struggle to define themselves.

The divisions in the party may be less dramatic than the parallel fight among Republicans, but Democrats have schisms both ideological and generational.

That suggests a dour potential for Clinton even as she moves closer toward victory in Tuesday’s election: Her presidency could be caught between Republicans who will have less reason than ever to cooperate and a corps of Democrats reluctant to compromise, both sides playing to opposite bases.

To win the party’s nomination, Clinton had to move to the left to placate Democrats attracted to her challenger, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Their differences have been papered over in the general election, and most of his supporters have fallen in line, but Clinton’s intentions remain suspect to many on the party’s left.

Two entrenched political parties are the problem, not the solution.

Photo capriciously cribbed from the interwebz.

It's a long read, and worth it.

We've already had lengthy discussions on social media about the points herein, and as the days pass, my determination is solidified. I've spent too many years voting "against" one side even when the other sickened me. It won't happen again.

If I can't be "for" one of the two major political parties, both of which are rotten and monetized to the core, then there are alternatives. The sooner we reject the two-party duopoly, the better. I don't need national examples to assist this conclusion. The local ones work just fine to inspire revulsion.

This article is an epiphany for me, but as the author notes, it's an expression of personal conscience. Vote as you will, according to your conscience.

To Leave the Future Open: On the False "Choices" of Election 2016, by Kay Whitlock (Truthout)

Something's hidden behind the curtain of the looming 2016 presidential election that the national leaders of both entrenched political parties don't want us to see.

It's the future.

Not just the near future, but the one that will ripple on into history, the one that will do so much to define the age in which we're living. It's the ideas and vision that will frame and shape and animate that future, which has two possible trajectories. One future undermines possibilities for starting to dismantle structural forms of racial, gender, economic, and disability-related violence and for realizing a much truer exercise of democracy while the other strengthens them.

That's why I'm #notwithher when I cast my vote in November 2016.

I've already said publicly I will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee of the Democratic Party. This is not a decision made lightly.

But it is the only right decision for me ...

The Baylor for Mayor meme, October 14: Ideas, not political party machines.

From August 14, 2015:

ON THE AVENUES: It’s time to purge two-party politics and tie the community together.

Must read: Drew Curtis explains exactly how an independent (like me) can win the New Albany mayoral race.

Kentucky gubernatorial independent candidate Drew Curtis actually was at the Public House just a few weeks ago when my old friend Mark Kocher came into town to represent at a Stone Brewing Company tap takeover.

AND I MISSED IT, AND DREW.

And Mark, for that matter.

Damn.

I'm sure Drew and I would have been discussing the points he makes in this amazing essay. Ostensibly, it's about his race in Kentucky, but the gist is applicable here in New Albany.

Op-Ed: Taking Parties Out of Politics

In the 1800s, political parties were candidates' social networks. Drew Curtis, founder of social networking news site Fark.com and Kentucky gubernatorial candidate, now asks if we still need parties in 2015.

 ... I believe a disruption is coming to electoral politics. If I don’t manage to pull off a disruption this November, it’s clear to me that someone else will manage it very soon. We’re seeing cracks appearing already within the parties themselves—nontraditional candidates are faring far better than traditional ones even within the parties on both sides of the aisle, with Donald Trump wreaking havoc among Republicans and Bernie Sanders steadily disrupting what seemed like a preordained win for Hillary.

"Turn off the mainstream news and talk shows and search for alternative media. Read!"

The author is a tad excitable, though largely spot on. The problem locally is a paucity of independent candidates. On Sunday during Boomtown, two ranking Republicans asked me if I'd had any luck finding an independent candidate to run against Dan Coffey.

No, I said, but what about the GOP?

"A Republican can't beat him."

Perhaps the 1st can be dissolved, and the 2nd annex it.

Wait -- strike that ...

An English Lesson: ‘Never Give a Sucker …’, by Philip Farruggio (Nation of Change)

... This writer has made a determination to never support any candidate who runs as a Democrat. Of course, I never have or ever will support the wolves from the other side of the aisle. If it means leaving many blanks in my ballot, so be it. No, the time has come to vote for independent candidates who share our core values on key issues, not for the proverbial ‘ lesser of two evils ‘.

"The Dummies' Guide to Spain's Podemos Party."

On a day when we remember Lloyd Wimp, here is a political party in far-off Spain that strikes me as precisely the sort of entity designed to please his grassroots instincts. Transparency and participation? Imagine that.

Thanks to Jeff G. for the link.

The Dummies' Guide to Spain's Podemos Party (The Local)

Seven months ago almost nobody had heard of them. Now Podemos is the hottest political property in Spain. But just who are they, what do they want, and could they win the country's next elections? The Local takes a look behind the curtains.

One small excerpt:

What do they want?

Podemos wants to renegotiate Spain’s debt-paying commitments so that it can mitigate the impact of austerity policies on the population. Other eye-catching proposals are the idea of a fixed living allowance for all citizens in a bid to end dire poverty and reducing the retirement age to 60. A Podemos government would halt evictions of mortgage defaulters and recognize a Palestinian state. Underlining the entire platform is a proposed change in political culture, bringing transparency and participative democracy to all institutions.

"To most Scots, living under a Tory-led government seems absurd, like being forced to live under a hostile foreign occupying force."

I know the feeling. After all, the governor of Indiana is an unreconstructed Falangist named Mike Pence.

Whatever Scotland decides, the old order is dead and buried; The union will likely be gone within a decade. It’s not just the Tories in our bankrupt establishment that are to blame, by Owen Jones (The Guardian)

If Scotland votes for independence next week, it is the British establishment – and the establishment alone – that is to blame. The yes surge is not being driven by blood-and-soil nationalism, by dewy-eyed Celtic nostalgia or the resurrection of a Braveheart spirit. It is a defiant protest at a bankrupt order built by Margaret Thatcher and then preserved and entrenched by New Labour. David Cameron’s Conservatives will bear most responsibility for the break-up of the country, but the last government and a hollowed-out Scottish Labour party cannot escape the blame.

LOL.

Cold day or hot, it's so simple that even a little person can grasp it, Erika.

You're neither democratic (lower case), nor a Democrat (upper case).

Accept these truths, and all your dissonance will disappear.

Opening tip: "Do all City Council races need a Third Party Candidate?"

Former 3rd district councilman Maury Goldberg, who was narrowly defeated by the incumbent (and fellow Democrat) Steve Price in the recent primary election (another Democratic candidate, Charlie Harshfield, was close behind in third place), ruminated on a hot topic last Friday at his New Albany Today blog.

Maury's original posting follows. After it are my comments, Maury's responses and a parting thought by Bluegill, my colleague here at NA Confidential.

Readers, what's your take?

---

Friday, May 18, 2007: Third Party Candidate(s)? Updated, posted by Maury K. Goldberg at 5/18/2007 10:44:00 PM.

Let’s talk about the Third District City Council race to illustrate a point I want to make. The Democrat Party's nominee for the Third District City Council District is Mr. Steve Price. As of this date of May 18, 2007, the Floyd County Republican Party has not chosen a candidate, but will do so at a later date. An Independent Party Candidate files for the Third District City Council seat. On November 6, 2007, the Third District voters have 3 candidates to vote for.

When one looks at the Third District Democrat Primary in 2003 Mr. Price won his race in a three man field as he did in 2007. The General Election was a Democrat sweep plus Mr. Price was a political unknown at the time does not factor in to the political equation. Of the 3 election contest with Mr. Price, two have been with two opponents and one with one opponent. Mr. Price has been able to hold his own.

Enter a Third Party Candidate and Mr. Price faces the same challenges he has encountered in 2003 and 2007 Primary Election contests. Names I have heard for such a candidacy are too litigious. Further, why would the Republican Party choose a Democrat or anyone not affiliated with the Republican Party? Local political history has shown the Republican office holders are more cohesive in supporting Republican Mayor's than the Democrats towards their own Mayor's.

Mr. Price would hope for a Third Party candidate, which helps him with the job of retaining the Third District City Council seat for the Democrats. This bring up the question of what is the goal of a Third Party candidate? To defeat a political party nominee? Is it a personal hatred for a political party's candidate? To further your own political agenda? Such questions have to be confronted in laying the basis for such a candidacy. The point being made is "Do all City Council races need a Third Party Candidate."

Let ask the question about the possibility of one or several Independent Candidates could win. The voters could be confronted with the possibility of a 4-4 split City Council with a Independent party candidate holding the balance of power. What about possibility of a majority of Independents on the City Council? How would such a majority of Independents work with whoever is elected Mayor this coming November, 2007? How would policy be decided? Will we have political grid lock as we have now?

One has a right to run and offer themselves as a Third Party candidate. The aforementioned list question need to be answered before the voting public is to vote for you. So if a Third Party candidate runs in the Third City Council District or any other City Council District or as an At large City Council Candidate one has to explain their candidacy. For hatred of a Political Party's nominee is not justification for running.

---


On 5/19/2007 at 9:07 AM, The New Albanian said...

When there's time, I'll be elevating this discussion to the marquee at NA Confidential so that a broader audience can participate. Until then …

Names I have heard for such a candidacy are too litigious.

Really? I'm aware of one lawsuit pending, but it isn't clear how this applies to independent candidates in the 3rd district -- unless, of course, you refer to the aspect of the word that implies “argumentative." Which do you mean to be used in this case?

Further, why would the Republican Party choose a Democrat or anyone not affiliated with the Republican Party?

Indeed, but I wasn't aware that the GOP was considering such a strategy. Do you know somthing the rest of us don't?

Mr. Price would hope for a Third Party candidate, which helps him with the job of retaining the Third District City Council seat for the Democrats.

Just like he hoped for two Democrats to run against him in May. That one turned out nicely, didn't it?

This bring up the question of what is the goal of a Third Party candidate?

Many possible answers to this one, but the most obvious would be in a situation where, as is so often the case, both major parties in the American duopoly fail to offer viable policy alternatives. Are you suggesting that with 63% of the 3rd's voters choosing one of two progressive platforms in the primary, that these voters are undeserving of the chance to advance the platform again?

How would such a majority of Independents work with whoever is elected Mayor this coming November, 2007? How would policy be decided? Will we have political grid lock as we have now?

Your point here is growing ever more elusive. My counter: Can a council that includes independents be any more gridlocked than the present one with eight Democrats (come of them profoundly non-Democratic?)

And, given the non-Democratic voting patterns therein and the failure of the local party structure to enforce discipline or even to advocate a coherent platform, are you suggesting that independent voices would be more untrustworthy when it comes to voters of a progressive mindset?

So if a Third Party candidate runs in the Third City Council District or any other City Council District or as an At large City Council Candidate one has to explain their candidacy.

Precisely, and in the same manner as major party council candidates ... and surely if certain of them had been more forthcoming last winter when the time was opportune and stepped forward to discuss platforms and ideas when we were fairly begging for such a public exchange to occur, we might not have labored through the politics-as-usual split that resulted in Steve Price being re-nominated in May.

For hatred of a Political Party's nominee is not justification for running.

That's a faulty conclusion, and one based on a handful of faulty premises.

It needn't be hatred of a nominee, and so far as I can tell, it isn't. I've not heard the "h" word used until now. Rather, it is disgruntlement with the nominee's platform planks and ideas, and a desire to offer an alternative. Specifically, in the context of the 3rd district, this notion of offering alternatives is better pursued in a unified fashion than fragmented.

In fact, I'm entirely unaware of any better rationale for an independent candidate than offering powerful ideas, educating people about them, and doing so in a manner designed to achieve unity rather than guarantee fragmentation.

I concede that nesting comfortably in the bosom of the two-party system is a veritable New Albany birthright, but if we are to speak of "local political history," then we must be willing to speak truthfully as to the rate of success of such a strategy.

Which is my question to you: Are any of the points you've raised here really persuasive when it comes to the argument against an independent candidate in the 3rd?

---


On 5/19/2007 at 4:32 PM), maury k goldberg said...

Dear Roger,

I will answer your questions.

1) Yes,I mean argumentative.
2) No, I only was mentioning what the GOP would do.
3) We learn from the past.
4) No, Whoever is the Third
5) Party Candidate has to state their platform. I cannot make an assumption that the Third Party candidate will be a "Progressive."
6) Again, until we know the "Independent Candidate(s) are, one is making an assumption such a candidate will be progressive. The questions will have to be answered once the Third Party candidate is known.
7) Roger, you do not understand the point I was making. The Third District City Council race was used to make the point "Do all City Council races need a Third Party Candidate?" I do not make any arguments against Third Party Candidate(s) nor do I assume that they will be a "progressive" in any City Council race.


---

On 5/20/2007 at 12:29 AM) bluegill said...

This argument would be much more interesting if any of the current or former candidates could explain how they came to recognize themselves as members of either side of the presiding duopoly in the absence of any substantive platforms with which to identify.

When and if the various designations begin to have meaning born of shared policy goals rather than the choosing of one electoral machine over the other, discriminating voters will have legitimate decisions to make where party affiliation is concerned.

Until then, all the candidates are ultimately running as independents.