keep close !
This much we know - the Fall elections are shaping up to be a referendum on the most divisive American
President in memory. The battle for potential Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh's nomination this fall will
only amplify the polarity of the political debate that is already deeply overwrought on both sides. The rising
tide of pressure on Donald Trump from the Mueller investigation shows no sign of ebbing.
Unless the underlying political dynamics are disrupted, the outcomes of these unprecedented events will still
leave us with the same unsatisfactory two front battlefield of the 2016 Presidential election. Watching these
unrelenting, compounding events since our discussion in May, I am guessing we are all asking the same
question: now what? For the 48 percent of Americans who believe Donald Trump should not be in the White
House, perhaps we too want our own "chaos" candidate in 2020?
Should Trump run again, this could be a "break glass" moment for the majority of Americans who don't
support him. Do we want to break the genteel precedents of two parties running their ceremonious and
seemingly illogical nominating process to select a candidate? (Why do Iowa and New Hampshire play such
outsized roles? What kind of small-d democratic process relies on superdelegates?) The system failed in 2016,
with both parties producing terribly flawed candidates in a race to the bottom. We need to build a back-up plan
in the event the system fails again.
EFTA01004184
It's possible, of course, that we won't need a third-party candidate. Trump could decide not to run for whatever
reason. The Democrats could nominate a winning 2020 candidate. I am not willing to take those bets.
The ideal candidate for a new third party is someone who is widely perceived to be that rare combination of
both good and great. We are looking for a proven leader of men and women, someone with clear, democratic —
and moral — values that reflect the best of America, not our worst. We know people like this on the national
stage now.
As a thought experiment, consider the possibilities of a ticket outside the partisan lanes and imagine the
chemistry of radical combinations: Biden/Romney? Bill Gates/Hogan? Bloomberg/Haley? Howard
Schultz/Bob Corker? SandberglKasich?
As we have discussed narrow path to electing the first president outside the two major party primary system in
168 years is more navigable than most think. Heading into 2020, converging trends in American's demands for
a third party (a historic high of 61%), disapproval of Donald Trump holding steady above 50%, and the
increasingly leftward drift of the Democratic Party suggest that electorate may be susceptible to merits of a new
centrist party. Cynics will say that the structural impediments of ballot and presidential debate access, the
overwhelming advantages of legacy parties' fundraising and voter turn-out operations preordain failure, but
they're wrong; the legal and logistical hurdles are amenable to a combination of lawyering and resources. The
bigger, more consequential factors come in terms of candidate quality and policy. I believe a candidate with
five specific characteristics including a unique — and purposefully non-specific - policy agenda could limbo a
win.
1. This is what I think a successful third-party candidate looks like; a dream third party ticket would start
off with enough name ID to be an instant contender. Building the name ID to run nationally is just too
long and expensive of a process to accomplish in the 28 months until the next presidential election. We
can't beat a celebrity without some celebrity of our own, whether from politics, sports, business, or
entertainment. Instantaneous name ID is so crucial because the candidate must start out in striking
EFTA01004185
distance in any three-way poll against Trump and a fill-in-the-blank Democratic flavor-of-the day
candidate. The media and political class will predetermine irrelevance otherwise.
2. A Democrat-leaning candidate would have to top the ideal third-party ticket. We need someone with a
shot at snaking a plurality of the vote in the blue states Hillary Clinton won (227 electoral votes), but
moderate enough to win a plurality in some combination of Trump states like Florida, Pennsylvania,
Wisconsin and Michigan (another 119 votes). The right candidate may even to put North Carolina, Ohio,
Indiana in play for a centrist bi-partisan ticket as well (totaling an electoral sweep of 464 elector votes). A
right leaning candidate would meet the same fate as a primary challenger to Trump — for all intents and
purposes we need to assume that 36% of voters won't be cleaved from Trump under any circumstances
and run to win around them. The deep red states would be off the table entirely.
3. With the Trump reality show airing daily, voters are now expecting to take their politics with a side of
entertainment. Heretofore, ratings will matter no matter how dry the policy topic. Surely Stephen Colbert
would gladly sacrifice his executive producer Chris Licht to produce a daily comedic segment of this
dream candidate interviewing Americans in truck stops and McDonald's across the country. A few of the
"Saturday Night Live" script writers could certainly be enticed to disguise serious debates as informative
amusement. Any candidate must be committed to a near daily cadence of high quality, compelling video
production. It will be especially crucial to keep the voters' attention during what will be a raucous
Democratic primary season. Rules governing access to the general election debate stage dictate that a
candidate enjoy support of at least 15% of voters in the months leading up to the general election.
4. This dream candidate would pledge to serve only four years and address all of the U.S.'s ticking time
bombs like Social Security, Medicare, health care reform, climate change, money in politics,
gerrymandering, and infrastructure investment in a single term. This one-and-done term decouples our
candidate from the usual politics and gives them the power of promise and deliver decisive action. A
four-year term pledge ensures governance independent of campaign finance concerns and narrow special
interests inherent to winning re-election. This "fix-it" ticket would promise to force decisions on all the
underlying structural policy matters damaging America's long-term prospects and distorting our
democracy. No more kicking the can down the road.
EFTA01004186
5. This candidate should also pledge to push for laws passed that reflect the will of simple majorities in
Congress. Congress now only allows bills to move forward when a "majority of a majority" supports the
policy and on many levels seems fundamentally broken. This third-party president could force votes
based on a transparent reading of where the votes lie via coalition building. The Senate filibuster power
will present a high hurdle, but a third-party candidate would be a de facto disruptor of the two-party
system. Party discipline could well break down, and moderates in both parties could form a powerful,
decisive block willing to work with the new President. The policies passed into law may not be ideal for
either Democrats or Republicans, but for the major agenda items that must be addressed for America's
long-term health, an imperfect fix that corrects course is better than those that now have us hurtling
toward national bankruptcy.
And if no candidate secures 270 electoral votes in 2020? The House of Representatives would choose the next
president. In 2016, reports suggested Michael Bloomberg declined to run on a third-party ticket for fear of
splitting support from Hillary Clinton and throwing the election to a GOP-controlled House of Representatives
who would then vote to select the president. The fear was the GOP controlled House would have just elected
Trump.
Would Democratic control of the House mean that the House would pick an alternative to Trump as president?
Each state delegation has a single vote in selecting a president and it is the incoming Congress - the class
elected in 2020 that would decide the election. But no matter which party has the speaker's chair, the GOP
would almost certainly have the upper hand in the majority of state delegations controlled. Would the state
delegations pick a president based on party majority control of the delegation, the winner of the popular vote in
each state or their own calculations as to who is best for America? Precedent suggests that delegations use
secret ballots, which means individual lawmakers may vote their consciences.
If we recruit this ideal candidate; threading the needle of name ID, a center-left bent, a TV-savvy campaign
team and a pledge to serve only four years with an apartisan agenda, money and campaign expertise would
EFTA01004187
certainly follow. And 50 state ballot access is a function of time (starting in the fall of 2019 would be
prudential) and hard work as we have discussed and many of you have exhaustively war-gamed.
Part and parcel of this effort would be motivating the often politically lackadaisical middle to vote. The raft of
new technologies in data targeting and biometric mobile voting technology could transform the electorate in the
next few, amping voter participation and injecting the voices of moderates (both in political views and level of
political interest) into the process. And any third-party effort must incorporate advocacy for accelerated
adaption of these all but inevitable voter verification tools. I believe Silicon Valley could be game-changing
allies in this effort.
I am sure none of us doubt that chaos could potentially be unleashed by jamming three viable candidates into a
two-party system. An election that ends up in the House of Representatives is an uncontrollable, murky and
ancient process. But might that be a less scary prospect than relying on the Democrats to nominate a candidate
who can beat Trump in 2020?
