Help Wanted with this Election --- Seriously, Help WANTED!

Help wanted. A high-powered executive whose power is limited, but whose presence is essential. Home, transportation, and security detail included. Ability to negotiate with staff and opposing forces is essential. Media presence is a regular part of the job, so you need to be able to communicate clearly and efficiently – especially during high stress times. Prior experience is a near impossibility, but a willingness and ability to learn on the fly is critical.

Position contract is for four years, with one possible renewal. Pay is not high, but after you retire, you can become wealthy on speaking fees and corporate board positions.

         Lets say congress decided to run an ad soliciting resumes for President of the United States. It is likely going to read similarly to the above ad.

         For the sake of argument, lets play out 2016 thus far:

The ad ran back in early 2014, and resumes come pouring in--- some only minutes after the ad ran. As any good Human Resources person will tell you, Phase One of recruitment is wading through the resumes of people who are just woefully unqualified but they think the job would be fun. But HR people know you want to find the best candidate from whoever applies, no matter how much you love who applied. 

The Cast of Campaign Characters

Sometimes a butcher feels they are qualified to perform brain surgery because they know basic anatomy and can use a knife. Not always the case though. Similarly, it is unwise to hire a person to become a high-powered executive who has never held a position that requires leadership skills.

         So HR has the daunting responsibility of wading through dozens of resumes, making sure candidates meet the job requirements. In this case, born in the country and at least 35 years old by inauguration day. After that, the members of this large organization get to choose their own leader.

Primary Discussions

Over the course of several months and many interviews, several job candidates were removed from contention. They threw away the brain surgeon, one of the trust fund kids, the failed corporate executive, the television talking heads, and the retirees who used to work within the company. Finally, the list was pared down to two people: one has worked in and around the organization for decades, and the other is an outsider trust fund kid who claims extensive business acumen, and whose self-assurance, bordering on pomposity, made him a compelling enough choice to keep around.

         As the interviewers got to know the more experienced folks, they took a vote and narrowed the selection to just two. One has been in and around the business for decades, and the other is that outsider who, while he lacks any experience, his confidence is compelling to large swaths of the voters—compelling enough to help him outlast people who might better understand the requirements of the job.  

Infomercials for Candidates

         Now comes the final phase of the interview process, and it is a long one. Both job candidates get four days to put on their best infomercials as to why they should get the job. While this infomercial does not have mandates, potential candidates are usually better off if they can compel someone who has held the job to speak on their behalf. Ideal infomercials are exciting, engaging, and leave their voters with an uplifting message about themselves.

Infomercials for a sponge: at least you know what you are getting!

         In this cycle, one candidate received glowing endorsements from three prior jobholders--- the only living people who held the job. The other candidate failed to have any prior jobholders even willing to acknowledge the candidate. This is different, but not the last of the changes from prior job interviews.

         Also, in most recruitment cycles for this executive, there is a period of respectful quiet during the rival candidate’s infomercial. In this cycle, one candidate has been deftly determined to get their names in the media throughout his opponent’s four days. Typically, candidates for the job use this time to strategize their final stretch of the job interview, because it can be so grueling.

Time for some Campaigning

After the final red, white, and blue balloon is popped from the second infomercial, both candidates are on a sprint to convince as many people as possible that they should be hired.

Both job candidates have about fifteen weeks to convince as many people on the hiring panel, and nothing is out of bounds. A candidate could threaten to kill a citizen, if they think it will buy them a vote.

Balloons pop, just like dreams- loudly & unceremoniously

Seriously, nothing is off limits. Both candidates are allowed to mingle with the professional media, social media, and entertainment media. The more you can balance entertainment and stoicism the better. Yes, these are opposing skill sets, but remember: there are many personalities of people deciding who gets this job. And the more entertaining a candidate can be, the more likely voters will advocate for them amongst their cute kitty youtubes on social media.

The Final Balloon    

         The second candidate’s final balloon will pop tonight in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. We are about to hit the straightaway to the final decision. Amongst the initial supporters of both candidates,

everyone has cold feet. But that doesn’t matter. Our options have been selected. Now, it’s a matter of how the people in this organization vote in just under four months.

        While we are talking, somewhat obviously tongue-in-cheek about the presidential election, this year feels different than previous years. There is palpable frustration, excitement, and energy throughout the country. Never in modern elections have people been simultaneously so intractable and indifferent to their party’s candidate of “choice”. This is going to be an interesting one.

         So lets spend the summer watching the chaos through the prism of a job interview. This sounds like it could be a great reality show--- nah. Too mean.

An Open Letter to Bernie Sanders

Dear Bernie:

From the floor of University at Buffalo's Alumni Arena

                  I felt the Bern, I really did. I voted for you, I bought your swag, I donated $27 on more than one occasion, I went to your rally in Buffalo, NY. But now I fear that all my berning has left me with a metastasized Nader right on my Electoral College.

                  You have a long and admirable career of calling out the wolves in sheep’s clothing, and yes, you have been on the right side of history more often than not.

Last summer, you came on the national scene like a whirling dervish, even though we political nerds already knew who you were. Your unkempt look and non-traditional personality had a quaint charm that many people took an immediate shine to. You took a country by storm politically, especially the people who really do not follow politics, but were attracted to your unpolished bluster. The benefit is that you raised so many issues that no one in politics had the courage to touch.

Your complaints that the media was suppressing you was brilliant. The Millennials and middle class voters you are attracting loves a righteous underdog to advocate for via social media. And they did. Your message of $15 minimum wage and free tuition for all traveled up and down the Internet’s highways and byways. Your video clips were stirring. You packed stadiums and activated a younger generation. And on more than a few occasions you rattled the cages of the establishment. 

                  But, not atypical to political history, the activists had a passion that would not carry triumphantly to the ballot box. You relied on for social media blasts, stadium rallies, and $27 donations did not always coalesce on the various primary Election Days. Too many Bern-ers either did not vote, forgot, did not register, or felt they had already fulfilled their civic duty. 

                  Now, the Bernie movement is becoming relegated to a defiant hashtag: #Bernieorbust. The problem is, politics is more than hashtags. Politics, beyond social media and money is how much of that passive action turns into votes on Election Day. In 2000, there was a presidential election- one that was won by George W. Bush, the trust fund businessman over Al Gore the Vice President, thanks in large part to the jilted feelings of Green Party or Bust voters. Neither Bush or Gore was exciting, but they were both more mainstream than Ralph Nader, who was running for his fourth time as an impassioned environmentalist, and Pat Buchanan, the Conservative party’s far right answer for the election.

                  In Election 2000, minor party and write-ins accounted for 3.6% of votes cast[1], but that was enough to put Dubya in office because of Florida. In Florida, regardless of chads, dimples, butterflies, or the US Supreme Court, according to final totals, George W. Bush won the state by 537 votes. Nader got 97,488[2] in Florida, meaning if just 0.65% of Nader's Florida voters had changed their votes from protest to acquiescence, history would have worked out completely differently. Loyalty and passion are lovely attributes, but are you willing to bet your children's future on it?

And the Republicans have had the same problems, which is why they want you to keep fighting! In 1992, H. Ross Perot stole enough votes in enough states to help Bill Clinton win an election that George Bush I may have otherwise dominated.

Now, whether every Perot vote would have gone out to vote, and whether they would have all voted Bush is impossible to say… But for arguments sake, converting Perot votes to Bush flips the election. Without Perot, Bill Clinton would have lost an additional 26 states, including liberal bastions like California, Massachusetts, and Hawaii[3]. In Electoral Votes, we are talking a dizzying swing of 306 Electoral Votes moving from Bill Clinton to George Bush. Rather than winning with a 100-vote buffer, Clinton would have garnered only 64 of the 270 EV’s needed. 

My fear, Bernie, is that your shtick is wearing thin on voters. The party has heard your voice, and now you are simply taunting and poking the bear. Why, because you have the bank account to afford it? Your opportunity to speak at the convention, and continue to advance your rhetoric is quickly running out. You are threatening your otherwise noble campaign to be history’s 2016 Edition of Nader and Perot.

                  Fringe candidates are fun. They shake things up a little, but I fear you are overstepping your warrior status into becoming a nuisance benefitting the Trump campaign. Don’t you realize that these open primary voters could be republicans trying to put their thumb on the scale[4]?!

                  You have made your point, and the party has noticed. Now it is time to walk away. You say that you do not want Trump to win. Well, you are helping Trump now more than any media source ever could.

                  You fought the good fight. It’s time for Hillary to carry the baton. Rally the troops back into the Democratic tent, just as Hillary Clinton did in 2008 after an equally contentious primary election.

I will root for you to speak at the convention, but for that to happen, you need to be an asset to the Democrats. Right now I am afraid your remaining fans are becoming overcome with emotion. The fact is, and you know it, most of your most rabid fans had no idea you existed last spring. But your message connected to them--- you just could not convert them into voters.

Thank you for your dedication, and I look forward to seeing your stalwart passion back on the Senate floor serving the country as you have for decades. You are a dedicated public servant, and for that we all say thank you.

Very Truly,

A Grateful but Tired Nation

---

[1] National Archives and Records Administration. (N.D.). 2000 Presidential Election.Retrieved from http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2000/popular_vote.html

[2] National Archives and Records Administration. (N.D.). 2000 Presidential Election.Retrieved from http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2000/popular_vote.html

[3] UC Santa Barbara. (2016). The American Presidency Project. Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1992

[4] Savransky, R. (2016, May 10). Exit polls: Nearly half of W.Va. Sanders backers would vote Trump. The Hill. Retrieved from http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279430-nearly-half-of-sanders-voters-in-west-virginia-would-vote