You read it here first!
Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig says he will join the Democratic race for President if he can raise $1 million by September 7.
He promises to be a one-issue candidate:
Yes, he promises to work single-mindedly on that, and when that is accomplished, he will resign, mission accomplished.
As much as I’d love to see Congressional Election reform, I don’t think saying this is good. Saying you’d be a one term president if you accomplish it would be OK in my book – not that I believe it could be accomplished in four years.
If he really has only one issue he cares about, why run for President? Why not start a campaign for a Constitutional amendment?
I can’t see him even getting enough support to make the debate stage. He’s a one issue guy that is basically saying he doesn’t care about the other stuff he’ll have to deal with while he’s actually in office. He’s also basically picking someone to be named later to be the President after he resigns. It sounds like a recipe to be ignored like all the other minor candidates who won’t get invited to the debates.
Nothing wrong with what Lessig is doing. He’s not Presidential material, but he is good at the one task he’s setting for himself. So just name a very qualified VP who will succeed him after 100 days or so and there ya go.
That being said, no way I’d ever vote for Lessig. Don’t agree with his goals, don’t think he’d make a good President.
How jaded do you have to be, as a Harvard law professor, to believe that the only way to make changes in the law is to become President?
It’s difficult to take him seriously. He’s an ivory tower candidate with no connection to the people. Even though we would benefit from serious election reform it is not on the top of the list for any significant portion of the electorate. And every candidate will be in favor of election reform, but they’re not going agree on what that means.
Until Donald Trump calls him stupid he’s not even on the radar.
I guess I’m just repeating the point already made: the President doesn’t have the power to change election laws, so why does he need to be elected President to achieve his goal? And what will he do about all the things a President actually does have control over?
So supposing he gets his $1 million runs around a bit and gives a few speeches. Where is he going to get the other hundreds of millions its going to cost to be a remotely competitive candidate.
Best case scenario, a few papers run a biographic piece on him an his campaign that runs in the Sunday style section, he gains a viral following on the internet of people who already support his view and probably would have voted for Sanders, and pulls in about 1-2% of the primary vote.
Snooze.
There is only one man I can think of who could still step in and make a strong run for the Democratic nomination at this late hour, but I haven’t seen his name mentioned yet: Al Gore.
Interesting, though, how OLD nearly all of the plausible Democratic candidates are. Is there anybody on the proverbial bench who’ll make a strong candidate a few years down the road? Hillary, Biden, Bernie, even Elizabeth Warren are all mighty long in the tooth.
Cory Booker, Kristen Gilibrand? I could see either of them running for President eventually.
Larry Lessig!
Wow! I tend to see him as a bit leftist, though he largely talks about campaign finance these days. I’m kind of surprised that he’s not just backing Bernie or O’Malley. Did they not return his calls?
I…might vote for Lessig. I like Bernie Sanders, but I’ve been reading Lessig’s stuff for years.
I don’t know how to answer that. I’m worried that if we name the quantum, it’ll be called the Lessig. Or the Nader.
Mark Warner, Brian Schweitzer, Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Deval Patrick, Kristen Gillibrand.
What does “explode congressional districts” mean, and how would a federal government do that when it would probably step on the states’ toes?