SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Beware: 'Radical Centrists' On The March

THE STUMP NOVEMBER 2, 2011

Beware: 'Radical Centrists' On The March

BY ALEC MACGILLIS

Never heard of Americans Elect? You will soon. The group, which I wrote about for the new issue of the magazine, is seeking to get on the ballot in every state for the 2012 election and to nominate a bipartisan ticket for president and vice president in an online convention in June. They held their big introductory press conference at the National Press Club in Washington today; more importantly, perhaps, they announced today that they have secured ballot access in Ohio, after having already secured it in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Kansas, Florida and Michigan. They have collected 1.9 million petition signatures in all, more than halfway to the needed goal of 2.9 million. They are also nearing their $30 million fundraising goal -- the bulk of it in chunks of more than $100,000 from about 50 well-heeled backers -- and have close to 150 paid staff.

There have been previous efforts by "radical centrists" who take a pox-on-both-houses approach to dysfunction in Washington -- last time around, there was Unity '08, which also sought to nominate a bipartisan ticket online, and then there's No Labels, which was created recently by a group of Beltway poo-bahs to encourage bipartisan behavior in Washington. But Americans Elect could cause much more of a stir than either of these. Unity '08 foundered because it could raise money only in $2,500 increments, like any other presidential campaign; but it challenged that limit, and a court ruling last year determined that a ballot-access effort that wasn't actually promoting a specific candidate does not have to abide by the $2,500 cap. So Americans Elect has been able to raise the pile of money needed to fund a serious ballot-access campaign. Most third-party candidates struggle because they have a hard time getting on ballots after they announce, typically fairly late in the process. But Americans Elect will in all likelihood be on every state's ballot, or close to it.

Which party will their bipartisan ticket hurt most? They don't really care. Elliot Ackerman, one of the group's leaders, told me that he was recently challenged by a Democrat who said, “‘Think how much this would hurt President Obama if Hillary Clinton ran with Jon Huntsman.’” Ackerman’s boyish face broke into a grin in recalling the moment. “Our reply was, ‘I don’t think that would hurt President Obama. I think that ticket will win.’” Read all about it here. And read Ezra Klein's detailed debate with one of the group's chief champions here.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 12 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

12 comments

I would totally vote Hillary/Hunstman, if Obama wasn't running. I wouldn't mind an Obama/Hunstman ticket in 2012, as long as Obama doesn't go back to being a namby pamby conciliator.

- GSpinks

November 2, 2011 at 2:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Meh. It's not that hard to get a political party on a Presidential ticket -- the hard part is to get someone to look below the "D" and "R" lines and pull the lever. In modern times, the only way to get any meaningful amount of voters to do that is (A) to have good name recognition with key demographic groups (such as Ralph Nader with left-wing voters) or (B) spend a lot of money to raise voter ID among the general public (like Ross Perot). I don't think there are any potential Americans Elect candidates who can satisfy the first test. As for the second test, Bloomberg strikes me as the only plausible one out there who has the resources to do that, but his appeal will hit a pretty hard ceiling in these days of resurgent economic populism. How many middle class voters in swing states do you see abandoning Obama for this cold-blooded, ballot-screwing plutocrat, whose main job these days seems to be to defend the economic viability of Wall Street? And how many Republicans would want to vote for a guy who is in favor of gay marriage and legalized marijuana?

- wildboy

November 2, 2011 at 3:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gspinks You would vote for Obama/Huntsman, but would you vote for Huntsman/Obama? I mean, it's not really bipartisan to have a vice-president of the opposing party. Agree about getting rid of the Conciliator.

- Nusholtz

November 2, 2011 at 3:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Useful idiots, these people. Let me ask you this: Is there any chance a Hillary/Huntsman administration could enact any policy left of the political center with the current Republican Congress? More specifically, do you think they could get any type of revenue increase past this Congress? Then what incentive is there for any left-of-center voter to vote for this "centrist" ticket? The net result would just be to move the political center further to the right.

- ATLeft

November 2, 2011 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Problem is, a Hillary/Huntsman ticket is not, and will not be seen as, "centrist." At least not with Hillary on top. In fact, I challenge anyone to name a national Democrat or Republican with the necessary name recognition who would, these days, be deemed "centrist." A Hillary presidential run on an independent ticket would merely be seen as a Clintonian ploy to get around the hassle of running a primary campaign against Obama (and I'm quite sure Mrs. Clinton knows that). So it's either name Bloomberg (which really would hurt Obama more than whomever the Republicans choose) or pick a no-recognition loser who doesn't mind being a spoiler.

- timteeter

November 2, 2011 at 4:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not to mention that Bloomberg's reputation in NYC isn't so great these days.

- timteeter

November 2, 2011 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think that's part of the point. The very phrase "radical centrist" is an oxymoron. If you're a centrist, you can't be radical. If you're radical, you're not really a centrist. Most of the "pox on both your houses" people I've listened to tend to be more in the Libertarian/Ayn-Randian camp. If you're REALLY a centrist, you'll argue the Democrats should bloody well stand up and do what America is asking them to do (fix the economy), while the Republicans should sit down and do what America is asking THEM to do (quit standing in the way). If you're a centrist, you probably shouldn't be making anti-Government arguments, instead you'll be finding ways to make Government work (like getting the Republicans to quit blocking legislation). Creating yet-another-third-party that's anti-Government isn't going to change the current situation much.

- AllanL5

November 2, 2011 at 6:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“I challenge anyone to name a national Democrat or Republican with the necessary name recognition who would, these days, be deemed ‘centrist.’" I have one for you Tim: David Stern! And I’m only half joking, as I’ve always suspected he’s both smart and cunning enough to be an effective pres.

- OkiSaru

November 2, 2011 at 7:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The truly interesting point about this concept is that a match-up of Obama and Romney will depress turnout so much that an independent ticket could win, assuming the ticket is perceived as being able to bash heads in Congress to get the extremes to stop making things worse, or willing to invoke Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution which states the President can "adjourn" Congress. The dilemma of an "online convention" is that the Ron Paul-bots will hack it. If only Clint Eastwood was younger. David Petraeus. Jim Webb.

- K2K

November 2, 2011 at 8:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OkiSaru, did you mean David Stern, professor of philosophy at the University of Iowa and much published scholar of Wittgenstein? Oh wait, you mean THAT David Stern . . . oh yeah. Like I said . . .

- timteeter

November 2, 2011 at 8:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The concept of America Elects is more interesting than whom it might nominate. It's truly trying to be a place where people think about what they want for the country, discuss it rationally, and get involved in a nomination process. And the nomination itself will essentially be a national primary as well as an online one--an interesting concept that would make it much more fair and easier for regular people across the country to be involved.

- polcereal

November 3, 2011 at 1:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

polcereal, that is a very sensible comment/suggestion. Thus too boring for all those who want a blood in the streets world wrestling entertainment style of politics consisting of spectacularly costumed villains and heroes, not rational, analytic, problem-solving wonks. Zzzz I can hear everyone falling asleep even as I type this comment.

- skahn

November 3, 2011 at 7:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close