We are now three Tuesday’s away from the first (perhaps only) midterm of the Biden Presidency, and things have certainly changed from last Fall when Republicans hailed their conquering hero in Virginia, now Governor Glenn Youngkin, as a harbinger of things to come; a Red Wave. However, a confluence of events has drastically altered the playing field for the two parties and Democrats now find themselves within striking distance of maintaining control of Congress. Last year I previewed the midterms here, and an update is necessary. Let’s start off checking in on a few predictions:

“Another Glenn Youngkin is Hard to Find. Therein lies the greatest hope for Democrats, Youngkin of course was not the choice of a primary electorate. The Virginia Republican party opted to hold a convention to select its nominees for statewide row offices as opposed to a regular primary. This was because the party establishment correctly understood that State Sen. Amanda Chase, who self-described as “Trump in heels”, would run away with the nomination if left up to primary voters. A convention however would limit the influence of party outsiders and the folks who might be motivated enough to vote but not spend several hours at a convention. Most states will have primaries and as we saw in 2010 when Republicans lost easy pickup opportunities in Senate races in Nevada, Delaware, and Colorado; sometimes a bad candidate is just bad enough to break a wave.”

Possibly more than the Dobbs decision, Democratic prospects have been saved by abysmal candidate quality on the part of the Republicans. Earlier this month the nominee for the United States Senate in Pennsylvania, Dr. Mehmet Oz, was forced to play defense against a story that he managed experiments at Columbia which killed over 300 dogs including an entire litter of puppies. That same week, we found out that Herschel Walker in Georgia who has said he believes abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape paid for at least one abortion. That’s on top of scandals from earlier in the cycle where we learned that Walker had several secret children or that Walker had held a gun to his ex-wife’s head or more recently that he lied about Native American ancestry.

In Arizona, US Senate nominee Blake Masters has been all but abandoned by Mitch McConnell and his massive fundraising apparatus. Partially because of his history of extreme or heterodox views on every domestic issue (and unsuccessfully has tried to scrub them from his website), but more likely because he has consistently polled behind Senator Mark Kelly. In New Hampshire, Republicans opted to nominate Don Bolduc to challenge Sen. Maggie Hassan. The problem? Bolduc is an election denier in a state that leans Democratic and doesn’t appear to have any of the moderate inclinations that usually propel Republicans to victory in New England.

Then finally there’s the potential sleeper scare for Republicans in Ohio, a state that shouldn’t even be considered competitive. J.D. Vance has proven to be a much weaker candidate than the partisanship of the state would suggest. Even acknowledging the problems of modern election polling, in multiple polls that show President Biden significantly underwater and Governor Mike Dewine cruising to re-election by double digits, Vance either trails his Democratic opponent Rep. Tim Ryan or leads within the margin of error.

Let’s not bury the lead here, Republicans have seriously fucked this one up. The self-destructive tendencies of GOP primary voters as well as Donald Trump’s need to have himself surrounding by sycophants have produced a field so weak that the US Senate is not a toss-up but leans substantially in Democrats favor. Of course it is not a sure thing that Democrats will keep control of the Senate, a polling error as significant as 2020 would at the very least flip as many as two or three seats where Democrats are currently favored. However it seems likely that the polls will not have the same error as 2020, because as we saw in 2018 polling was actually quite good without Trump on the ballot who has twice produced millions of low propensity voters who were not reachable by conventional polling methodology.

“Split Ticket Voting is a thing of the past. The seats Democrats see as most vulnerable, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and New Hampshire are not necessarily full of voters that are trending towards Democrats currently. In Virginia according to exit polls, these white voters without college education went from voting Republican 62% to 38% in 2020 to 74% to 24% in 2021. There are of course problems with using only exit polling data but looking at county level swings in conservative southwestern Virginia tell this story too. Every county swung more Republican, some as little as Buchanan County which became only 2.1% more Republican but some as large as Radford County which swung right 18%. If you apply that kind of shift to Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and New Hampshire what you find is that every state flips Republican. The challenge becomes clearer when you look at the states Democrats want to flip; Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida which at least have 40% of their voters being non-college educated white people.”

This appears less true than a year ago as some issues, namely abortion, have risen in salience. In Kansas, a state which has not given Democratic candidates for President more than 41% of the vote since 1988 (and that year Dukakis only mustered 42%), voters enshrined Abortion in the state constitution with nearly 60% in favor. This could not have been possible without substantial support from the white non-college educated voters who Republicans have had great success with since the turn of this century. In recent years there has been much greater partisan sorting on the issue, with fewer Democratic politicians identifying as anti-abortion and even fewer Republicans politicians identifying as pro-choice. But the voters themselves have been much more varied, in 2020 24% of voters who thought abortion should be legal in most cases voted for Donald Trump and 23% of voters who thought abortion should be mostly illegal voted for Joe Biden. This year has the potential (more on those italics later) to deliver a not insignificant number of those pro-choice but otherwise conservative voters to Democratic candidates.

The greater split in voters however is related to perceptions of President Biden who despite being up from his nadir over the summer, is still significantly underwater in most of America and especially so in the states that will decide control of Congress. In an poll of Georgia from Emerson College just last week, President Biden managed a dismal 41% approval rating among likely voters with 52% disapproving. At the same time, Sen. Raphael Warnock leads Herschel Walker by 2-points, 48% to 46% (many other polls put Warnock further ahead). In a poll of Pennsylvania from Suffolk University, once again Biden receives a much lower approval (42%) than the share of support for the Democratic nominee for US Senate (John Fetterman leads Mehmet Oz 46% to 40%). That story repeats itself in North Carolina, in Wisconsin, in Arizona, and very notably in Ohio. There are many reasons for this split, but a lot of it can be attributed to voters who supported the President in 2020 and are generally left of center but disapprove of his performance now. This group, many of whom are under 35, non-white, and/or do not identify with either political party would traditionally be low-propensity voters as they were in 2014 and 2010. In 2022 however, their turnout is predicted to be closer to 2018 than 2010 or 2014 and they support down ballot Democrats over President Biden by upwards of 10%  in many polls.

“The Fundamentals favor the Republicans. On key questions where Democrats had previously enjoyed relatively good numbers in our hyper-partisan political environment but polling from YouGov/The Economist shows a pretty clear story of declining fortunes over the last several months.

Direction of the Country:

Generally headed in the right direction: 27% Nov., 31% Sept., 35% Jul., 42% May

Off on the wrong track: 61% Nov., 55% Sept., 51% Jul., 46% May

Trend of the Economy

Getting Better: 16% Nov., 17% Sept., 23% Jul., 28% May

Getting Worse: 54% Nov., 45% Sept., 38% Jul., 34% May

The bit of good news is the final question that most analysts look at when trying to handicap the political environment shows some hope for Democrats. The only thing people dislike worse than Democrats are Republicans! 53% of voters dislike the Democratic Party including 39% who strongly dislike Democrats, but 59% dislike the Republican Party including 40% who strongly dislike Republicans.”

It looked likely at the time that things could get worse, and things certainly have with the invasion of Ukraine by Russia has certainly accelerated negative trends. Americans are not optimistic about the economy or the Direction of the Country and that appears unlikely to change as the Federal Reserve has indicated that they will continue to raise interest rates while OPEC has reduced the global oil supply. In YouGov polling from this week, perceptions have either gone from bad to worse or have simply stagnated at bad.

Direction of the Country

Generally headed in the right direction: 28%

Off on the wrong track: 60%

Trend of the Economy

Getting Better: 12%

Getting Worse: 52%

With less than a month before Election Day, it’s unlikely that American optimism will suddenly rebound to anywhere near where it was at the beginning of the Biden term. The cake is probably baked on this one, Americans think inflation and the economy are serious issues and they can’t be convinced otherwise when their bank statements confirm this truth every month. The fact that Democrats have been able to hold their own in such dire straits is noteworthy, but if they end up faltering on election day the answer will be obvious as to why.

“The Democrats Actually Are in Disarray. Despite what you might hear from party loyalists, self-proclaimed resistance members, never-Trumpers, and MSNBC viewers there is actually a lot of internal discontent in the Democratic Party. The left is likely more distrustful of moderates than ever after several betrayals over the last several months. Years of “Vote Blue No Matter Who” rhetoric to encourage disaffected progressives to support the party fell apart when the incumbent mayor of Buffalo was defeated by India Walton, a democratic socialist, in their democratic primary. Instead of conceding, the defeated mayor launched an independent bid for mayor which went unchallenged by Gov. Kathy Hochul (who had made endorsements in other races) and was actively supported by establishment figures in the state (except for Majority Leader Schumer). Brown was successful in his re-election, showing progressives that the relationship they have with the party is entirely one-sided as they were left flailing looking for support when just a year earlier, they we were decisive in defeating Donald Trump. There’s also the Build Back Better/Infrastructure chicanery which has produced a lot of bad will not just among rank-and-file voters but clearly amongst members….James Carville and his neoliberal allies have made clear that they blame Democratic misfortunes on leftist activists and progressives lending support to causes they think are electorally toxic. Namely “Defund the Police”, “Critical Race Theory”, “Wokeness”, “Cancel Culture” and “Socialism” generally. Admittedly these issues clearly have some cultural resonance among at least some voters although this has likely been helped by a media that seems insistent on promoting narratives as opposed to nuance. However much of the blame does lay with Democrats who have not effectively found a way to explain exactly what it is that they do believe in this new culture war. The answers they’ve given on these issues is some variation of “This isn’t real, it’s more of an academic thing that most people don’t engage with and it’s missing context, but we do agree with the sentiment and will attack anyone who attacks these ideas by name although we aren’t running on these things but opposing these things puts you closer to Donald Trump.” To be clear, it is not the job of activists to support popular policies, lunch sit-ins and Martin Luther King Jr. were widely disapproved of by white Americans. Their job is to shift the window of what is politically possible and bring issues to the attention of the actors who can address them. The job of politicians is to build public support for policies and then to enact them. If something associated with the Democratic Party is “Toxic” that is the fault of the party for not figuring out how to explain themselves to the voters.”

What a difference a year can make. Democrats have found themselves united, perhaps more so than anytime in 10 years, and that is in large part thanks to the United States Supreme Court’s extreme term which saw many right-wing decisions with the most far-reaching being the overturn of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey which ended the constitutional right to an abortion and effectively made abortion illegal in 13 states and virtually inaccessible in several more. It appears, at least for now, that Democratic voters and politicians have agreed to point their fire outside their circle as opposed to at each other.

President Biden has also encouraged this development over the last several months with wins on the Inflation Reduction Act (a diminutive spiritual successor to Build Back Better), the Supreme Court nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson, a limited but still expansive student loan forgiveness, the PACT Act for veterans, and the CHIPS and Science Act. The President with no time to spare seems to have caught his stride, and a party desperate for policy wins started getting them at a pretty rapid clip while the price of gasoline declined all summer long. It’s easy to cheer for your team when you’re winning.

So that leaves a question of, how does this midterm resolve itself?

My Prediction: A Divided Congress is Likely, but both Parties have Room for Error to Change That

Before we get into predictions, just briefly let’s talk about terms.

From www.ballotpedia.com:

“The Cook Political Report published its first Partisan Voter Index (PVI) in August 1997. The PVI was developed by Charles Cook, editor and publisher of Cook, and scores each congressional district based on how strongly it leans toward one political party. The PVI is determined by comparing each congressional district presidential vote to the national presidential election results. According to Cook, the PVI “is an attempt to find an objective measurement of each congressional district that allows comparisons between states and districts, thereby making it relevant in both mid-term and presidential election years”

You can find the 2022 updated PVI of your state or congressional district here. For example, Rep. Cori Bush (MO-1) represents the 27th most Democratic seat in the nation with a PVI of D+27. Therefore, in an election where nationally Republicans and Democrats tied in the popular vote (a D+0 or R+0 environment), you’d expect Bush to win her election with about 77% of the vote. In 2020, Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by about 4.5 points nationally (meaning a D+4.5 national environment) and Bush won her election with about 78% of the vote, a slight underperformance. Meanwhile Rep. Jared Golden (ME-2) represents one of the most Republican leaning districts held by a Democrat at R+6. In 2020, Golden won with 53% of the vote, running ahead of his district’s partisanship by an impressive 8 points. What accounts for over performance or underperformance varies from race but political science says generally a few things matter: incumbency, fundraising, voter contact, and candidate favorability (not necessarily in that order). In the Senate we see a bit more of candidates defying state partisanship like Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin in West Virginia which has a score of R+22 and Republican Sen. Susan Collins in Maine which has a score of D+2. The House is increasingly becoming more partisan with no Democrat representing a district redder than R+6 and no Republican representing a district bluer than D+9. This isn’t usually true in the aftermath of a wave election, 2006 and 2008 saw many Democrats representing Republican leaning districts while 2010 and 2014 brought a lot more Republicans from D districts. So, while you’d expect Republicans to lurch further into Democratic leaning territory and Democrats to lose some of their Republican leaning seats, partisanship will blunt some of that momentum. That said, the party favored usually wins most of the toss up races and I expect that to be the case in 2022.

THE HOUSE

While there will be a margin of error, perhaps as many as +/- 10 seats, this is how the House of Representatives could look in January. I think Republicans are still very clearly favored in the House for the simple fact that Democrats have such a narrow majority, it doesn’t take much for them to win. Democrats have 220 seats to Republicans 212, that means just 6 flips and it’s hard to imagine a scenario where Republicans can’t find 6 seats. The question I believe is can they find a governable majority and that is very much an open question. Kevin McCarthy will be greeted by no fewer than a dozen members of Congress who have espoused some belief in the QAnon conspiracy, if Republicans maintain a majority on the backs of these members then McCarthy may very well find himself in a situation like former Speaker John Boehner who was ousted in 2015 by a revolt in the right flank of his party conference. That’s a battle for 2023, the question before us is where might those GOP gains come from? There’s been some movement among Latino voters in the Rio Grande valley that should work in Republicans favor, you might also expect some reversion in the suburbs which could make the northeast and the southwest more competitive than it might otherwise be. However, the most beneficial factor for Republicans will be redistricting as states like Texas, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama have drawn maps that have been largely regarded as racial gerrymanders by independent observers. Democrats have some upside to be sure, Rep. Mary Peltola (D-AK) seems well positioned against either Former Governor Sarah Palin or Nick Begich. There are also Democratic pickup opportunities in California, Illinois, and New York thanks in part to Democratic gerrymanders but also thanks to long term demographic trends. Still, you’d rather be the Republicans even if you wouldn’t necessarily want to be Kevin McCarthy.

THE SENATE

The Democrats are probably more likely to pick up a Senate seat than Republicans are to win the majority, although I think the most likely outcome is the status quo with a seat traded in Nevada for one in Pennsylvania. If Democrats hold a narrow margin in the House, they are living on a razor’s edge in the Senate with a 0-seat majority. Last year I thought it was likely that candidate quality would matter and it has in ways that I couldn’t have imagined at the time. The Democratic field is strong, and the Republican field with a notable exception in Nevada is fairly weak.

The “party crackup” in Pennsylvania never materialized as Lt. Governor John Fetterman won his primary in a landslide and despite health issues has maintained a lead the entire campaign. That’s in part because of Fetterman’s appeal, but the most relevant factor is the unpopularity of Republican nominee Dr. Mehmet Oz who rose to prominence as a television doctor who was investigated by the US Senate for advertising pseudo scientific health products. While Fetterman has a net +1 approval rating among Pennsylvania voters, Oz gets a net -17 rating with a majority of voters (51%) saying they have an unfavorable opinion of Oz. It wouldn’t be impossible to overcome those perceptions, but Oz would need a lot of things to break his way to even break even.

In Arizona, largely on the power of Donald Trump’s endorsement, Blake Masters defeated Attorney General Mark Brnovich and businessman Jim Lamon in the GOP Primary. Masters so far has had to mostly rely on the generosity of crypto bros and billionaires like Peter Thiel to raise money as Mitch McConnell and the NSRC have begun to triage this race. Senator Mark Kelly could’ve had a much tighter race had he faced any of Master’s opponents, then again Kelly amassed a war chest of over $73 million which probably always made the incumbent favored.

A lot has already been written about the Senate race in Georgia, and that’s because of Herschel Walker has been a lightning rod for controversy. The danger for Senator Warnock is not Mr. Walker, but it is Governor Kemp who will also be on the ballot and is heavily favored for re-election. Although there will be some split ticket voting to be sure, southern states like Georgia have incredibly racially polarized electorates with very few swing voters. It is possible for Gov. Kemp and Sen. Warnock to both win re-election, but the larger Kemp’s margin gets the closer Warnock will be to a runoff in which it’s harder to predict what the result might be. It’s less likely that Walker could win outright without a run-off due to the presence of a libertarian candidate who is likely to draw more votes from the Republican.

The closest race will likely be in Nevada where the wild card is not third-party voters but a ballot option that gives voters the chance to select “none of these candidates” which has received anywhere from 15,000 to over 50,000 votes over the last decade. Sen. Cortez-Masto despite serving in the US Senate for the last 6 years hasn’t built her own brand in the state once dominated by the Reid machine and it wasn’t until recently that most voters could form an opinion about her performance. Nevada is also a state that in theory could be ripe for a realignment as it has a significant Latino population, many voters are non-college educated, and even more voters are working class. The Republican, former Attorney General Adam Laxalt for his part has been a top-tier recruit. Nevada has historically been a difficult state to poll because it is so rural and a not insignificant population only speaks Spanish, yet that’s still the best predictive tool we have. Laxalt and Cortez-Masto have traded leads in polling throughout the election with Laxalt currently having a one-point edge in the fivethirtyeight polling average. Of course, Nevada is still a Democrat leaning state and every statewide office except secretary of state is held by a Democrat so there is institutional strength working in Sen. Cortes-Masto’s favor. Still, Las Vegas has been especially affected by inflation and without Clark County Democrats can’t win Nevada. Again, it’ll be close, but I’d give the advantage to Laxalt.

Now for some discussion on Ohio, Wisconsin, and North Carolina where Democrats are tied but facing significant electoral obstacles. Donald Trump won Ohio twice and both times by about 8%, which is better than he got in Texas. North Carolina has elected and re-elected it’s Democratic Governor, but it has not elected a Democratic senator since 2008 and has given Republicans it’s electoral votes in every election except one from 1980 until present. Wisconsin was won by President Biden and Democratic nominees from Obama to Dukakis, but Sen. Ron Johnson is an incumbent who despite being pugilistic and divisive has managed to win two statewide elections with at least 50% of the vote when the expectation was that he would not be favored. Democrats nominated very strong candidates in each race, and Republicans are frankly not sending their best. Despite that, you’d expect partisanship to still carry the day and give Republicans wins in each contest. That said, if Democrats win any of these races, then they have almost certainly won the Senate. If you had to ask me who I’d consider most favored in these races, I’d say Cheri Beasley in North Carolina, then Tim Ryan in Ohio, and then Mandela Barnes in Wisconsin.

It’s not worth discussing Florida, Iowa, Missouri, or South Carolina. Republicans will win these races, and in the case of Missouri and South Carolina it will be a landslide. If there is any mystery, it is in Alaska where Senator Lisa Murkowski and Trump endorsed Kelly Tshibaka are locked in an epic battle for that seat. In a split Senate, there is a world of difference between a Sen. Murkowski and a Sen. Tshibaka. Ranked choice voting has already helped Sen. Murkowski because it’s almost certain that she would’ve been defeated in a Republican primary as she was in 2010 when she had to launch a write-in campaign to win her election. Still, it’s not a sure thing that in a Republican leaning state that a Republican Senator can get away with voting to impeach a Republican President as Murkowski did after Trump’s role in inciting the January 6th insurrection. I have Murkowski favored, but there could be a surprise.

THE GOVERNORS RACES

Despite a surprisingly strong effort by Rep. Beto O’Rourke, Texas will re-elect Gov. Greg Abbott. The fact is, Beto’s run for President did him no favors and his comments on the trail have become a recurring campaign theme. Gov. Abbott has had a controversial term with many failures included the power grid collapse that left millions freezing, a mass shooting in Uvalde, and many more unforced controversies. Still, he is favored because Texas is still Texas, and Abbott is still popular among conservatives who remain the largest voting bloc in the state.

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis looks like a presidential candidate in waiting and looks likely to announce for 2024 whether or not Donald Trump does the same. His culture war has been popular in Florida, and the state has only gotten more red between 2018 and today. Charlie Crist has been a Republican, an Independent, and a Democrat and has been painted as a political chameleon because of that. This race probably wasn’t ever going to be close; the question now is whether DeSantis will win left leaning Miami-Dade in his re-election.

Georgia is shaping up to be another disappointment for Democrats, and the nominee Stacey Abrams will likely lose by a larger margin than she did in 2018. Why? Gov. Brian Kemp by doing the bare minimum of not breaking the law to support Donald Trump’s false claims of election fraud, has earned a reputation as a conservative willing to stand up to the former President which has endeared him to the suburbanites he lost in his first campaign. Abrams also did herself no favors by refusing to concede her race in 2018 which has been used against her by Republicans claiming Democratic hypocrisy. Finally, Kemp is the incumbent and he isn’t unpopular.

Republicans are in for barn burners in Nevada, Arizona, and Oregon (yes Oregon!) but they are favored in each race albeit slightly. In Arizona, Kari Lake is a Trump acolyte and true believer in his political vision which ordinarily wouldn’t be a strength in Arizona. However, Lake is a household name with decades of television experience and is frankly very very good on camera and has been able to out-message and out-perform her Democratic opponent Secretary of State Katie Hobbs who refused to debate Lake. Polling shows a close race, but more polls recently have given Lake an edge. In Nevada, Governor Sisolak is in a similar situation to Sen. Cortez-Masto which is a state where tens of thousands are employed in hospitality and tourism are facing hard times because of inflation. There seem to be plenty of undecided voters, but Sheriff Lombardo leads in most polls. Finally Oregon has gotten itself a competitive race because of a strong independent candidate, Betsey Johnson, running as liberal leaning centrist who is siphoning votes from the Democrat, Tina Kotek, which has left an opening for Christine Drazan to win with perhaps as little as 40% of the vote. As election day gets closer independent candidates usually fade as voters come home to one of the major parties, but Johnson has not faded as much as would’ve been expected and her candidacy will matter a lot in the final outcome

In Kansas, New Mexico, and Wisconsin Democratic Incumbents are in very different races but may very well win by similar margins. Kansas is a red state, but as we saw earlier this year Abortion is clearly on the mind of voters in more pronounced way than perhaps any other state. That works to Governor Kelly’s advantage who has led in the few polls of this race and has run an active campaign across the state. Still, her opponent Attorney General Derek Schmidt is no slouch and will gather more support from Republicans than Kris Kobach did 4 years ago. In New Mexico, Gov. Grisham is experiencing the same trends among Latino voters that are happening all over the southwest but New Mexico is much bluer than Nevada and for that reason alone she should win re-election. To be clear, New Mexico is not a done deal and has elected Republicans to statewide office as recently as 2014 and Mark Ronchetti, the Republican nominee, outperformed expectations in 2020 when he was a candidate for US Senate and lost by only 6%. That said, Ronchetti did lose in New Mexico and Gov. Grisham has won in New Mexico, and that’s worth something. Wisconsin will be the closest of these races, and that’s just the nature of Wisconsin. Gov. Evers and Tim Michaels have been in a two-point race since the summer as Wisconsin, more than any other Midwestern state, has the pedal to the floor on partisanship. Anything that happens between now and election day will affect things on the margins, and luckily for Evers there seems to be some evidence of falling gas prices in the Great Lakes states which is exactly the boost he’d need but the race may still be close enough for a recount.

In New England, voters will almost certainly continue their tradition of electing unorthodox Republicans to their Governor’s mansions in Vermont and New Hampshire but not Massachusetts or Maine. In Pennsylvania, Doug Mastriano has struggled to fundraise, attract volunteers, and any positive media attention and for that reason Attorney General Josh Shapiro should be heavily favored. In Michigan, Republicans had hoped for a closer race against Gov. Whitmer who has been a target on Fox for her response to Covid but an abortion referendum being held in the state seems to have foreclosed that possibility. Finally, Illinois and Ohio, states which were competitive in recent midterm cycles will re-elect their incumbents, Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Gov. Mike Dewine, if polling is to be believed, have gathered the weakest opponents possible and are headed to large victories in November. If there are any surprises they might come from South Dakota or Oklahoma where recent polling has shown Democratic candidates tied or leading Republican incumbents, but I’d take those polls with a grain of salt and expect a closer race but not a flip. Although stranger things have certainly happened.

Going Forward

What happens this November will directly shape what happens in the 2024 Presidential campaign and we might see some potential candidates, especially President Biden and former President Trump, recalculate their chances and opt not to run or decide definitively to throw their hat in the ring. If Republicans get their wave, and some Trump endorsed long-shots defy the odds then the former President would rightly feel vindicated and other candidates might back off. Alternatively, if Democrats maintain control of Congress, it would be difficult to imagine anyone challenging Biden although Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) and others seem to be ready to jump on any sign of weakness. Ultimately though, 2024 is an eternity away and there are Secretary of State, Attorneys General, and Supreme Court Justices who might have more of an impact on our politics than anything else.

We are not dealing with politics as usual, and if I have learned anything about the Trump era it has been to forget what you know and expect the unexpected.

The post An (Updated) Honest Preview of the 2022 Midterms appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Here are some questions that were posed in the April 21 On-Line forum about “The 40% Solution: How to get those citizens who don’t vote. We are open to more questions; just e-mail arthur@politicalintroverts.com.

Q: Is there a certain demographic of non-voters we should target? [Jean Dugan – STL League of Women Voters]

A:  This is a tough question because it really depends on your reason for asking. Let me posit four possibilities with suggested answers to each:

1. You are asking because you want to promote democracy. In this case, you probably want to get the most likely non-voters to flip the switch and vote. This would be regardless of their political persuasion. I would suggest that political introverts would be a good group to target, because with our current “shut-down,” it is within the power of politicians to communicate in more of a “quiet” way to them.Another group would be those who are angry. We see that on both the left and the right. Anger is a good motivator as opposed to apathy which by definition is never a motivator. Conventional wisdom is that college-educated non-voters would be a good demographic to target, but their reasons for not voting may be more philosophical than laziness. It is my contention that if we want more people to vote, we need to reform schools so that students naturally identify with the political process and come to see engaging in politics is the way to promote their own interests as well as that of society as a whole?
2. You are asking because you want to benefit the Democratic Party. In recent years, Democrats have appealed to identity groups, racial minorities, women, the young, the elderly, the economically disenfranchised, others whose civil liberties have been abrogated. Democrats indeed try to reach these groups by trying to offer something to virtually every one of these groups. But one of the great failings of the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 was insufficient appeal to what she called “the basket of deplorables.” FDR would have referred to them as the core to his base, blue-collar workers.Democrats need to understand that the FDR base, which has now morphed in part to the Trump base, is just another minority among the patchwork of groups that make up the body politic. Appealing to white working class voters and non-voters is not mutually exclusive from working to enlarge the traditional bases of modern Democrats. Bernie did that well; others can as well. Most policies advocated by Democrats will be of economic benefit to any subsection of Americans. Therefore, it is wise for them to appeal to all.
3. You are asking because you want to benefit the Republican Party. In 2016, Donald Trump brought many people who previously had rarely or never voted into his coalition. Most of these people were white, not well-educated, and struggling economically. Many were also angry, and also lived by what Kellyanne Conway called “alternative facts.” Quite frankly, they were fodder for a demagogue. There are more of these people who did not vote in 2016 and who could join the ranks of voters in the future.Reaching them is a key part of Trump’s strategy. However, if you are a non-Trumpian Republican, you have to find other strategies. These probably include appealing to wealthy people who think that the best way for them to remain wealthy is through “trickle-down” economics as well as others who may subscribe to a “rational non-hateful libertarian” philosophy.
4. You are from a third (or other alternative) party. The answer here depends on what issues are most important to your party and how you think that you can interest non-voters in joining your ranks. The Green Party has a natural constituency in environmentalists, but the party has a long record of not winning, in fact, not even coming close to winning elections (though at times play the role of spoilers as Ralph Nader did in Florida in 2000).If we change our system of voting, it will be friendlier to third parties and beyond. In Political Introverts, we mention Ranked Choice Voting. This makes it much easier for alternative parties to thrive, while still vesting considerable power in the two major parties. Andy Bossie and Anna Kellar are both very knowledgeable about Ranked Choice Voting with information on the Maine Citizens for Clean Elections web site. – Response from Arthur

Q:  What is the biggest misconception about people who are introverted. [Anonymous]

A: The biggest misconception is that introverts do not like people. The general belief is that extroverts get energy from being with others and introverts get energy from solitude or quiet environments with one or two people. The truth is all people get energy and feel better after being with others. This information was discovered through a study quoted in Quiet: The Power of Introverts by Susan Cain. Introverts struggle with high levels of stimulation, which may or may not come from people. – Response from Brenda

Q: Can you name any current, well-known elected officials who you would call introverts? [Anonymous]

A: From Brenda: First one to come to mind is Barack Obama. Some say Hilary Clinton is also an introvert. Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, also fits the description of an introvert. A former Trump administration official referring to Trump and McConnell, said, “It would be hard to find two people less alike in temperament in the political arena.” McConnell is known for saying as little as possible but thinking a lot. – Response from Brenda

A: From Arthur: Technically, he may not be current, but the first who comes to mind is Barack Obama. He is a prolific writer, and thrives on loneliness when he is doing that. My hunch is that when he was making policy, he rarely made decisions in a group; rather he would take in others’ ideas and then make his choices in solitude. We’ll learn more about that when his memoirs come out, hopefully shortly after the 2020 election.

Others who might lean towards being more introverted than not might include Montana Governor (and Senate candidate) Steve Bullock, Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot – but these are all conjecture; labeling is clearly an inexact science. – Response from Arthur

Q: What can we do to get more people to vote in this pandemic? [Anonymous]

A: There is a natural connection between “stay-at-home” life and vote-by-mail.” There are five states in which vote-by-mail is not only legal; it is the norm (Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Utah). Since many voters in these states are currently living domesticated lives, it is likely that they would have ample time to vote from home. Interest level should be high because so much of what happens in their lives is determined by governmental decisions. However, returning their ballots to election authorities may be a hurdle. Most voters would have to venture out to a mailbox, post office, or Ballot DropBox (similar to mailboxes). Some would be able to avoid even leaving their homes if they have one of those mailboxes in which they can leave outgoing mail for pick-up.

In other states, many voters can request absentee ballots. But that is different from vote-by-mail because rather than automatically receiving a ballot at home, these voters have to request the ballot. Also, states vary in terms of what are valid reasons for voting absentee and whether the ballots need to be notarized.

For those who would vote by going to the polls, there will be countervailing forces. Many will be reluctant because of the risk of coming in contact with other voters or poll workers who might be infected with COVID-19. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine an election in which the stakes would be higher than in 2020, and in which there will be such a clear choice among the candidates.

Elections in 2020 should be much more attractive to political introverts. Most of the “noise” in politics will be diminished without big rallies, and possibly without conventions. If there are debates, they may not be in front of audiences, which again would make them quieter. Issues should become more important; image less so. All of that would be appealing to political introverts who may find politics more inviting than they have in the past. Many political introverts would also like to vote from home rather than going to the polls. – Response from Arthur

Q:  Do political introverts donate to campaigns, as a way of participating behind the scenes? [Anonymous]

A:  Excellent question, but I have seen no evidence to either affirm or deny this contention. Since the definition of a political introvert is vague, it will probably be difficult to determine. – Response from Arthur

Q: Back to education. What role do parents play in the competitive climate of high school? In my teaching experience, I sensed lack of empathy often came from home. [Stephanie Gavin]

A: It takes a strong person to live a life in which competition and empathy are mutually compatible. I’m far from good at this, but when watching a sporting event, I usually feel as bad for the team that I root against as I do feel good for “my team.” We tend to demonize opponents. I don’t believe that this phenomenon frequently occurs in elementary school, but it ramps up in middle school and often becomes close to out of control at the high school, college and professional levels. In this regard, the United States is no worse than the countries in which soccer is the be-all and end-all of sports, and to a certain extent, life.

Competition in schools goes far beyond sports. There are constant races to get ahead – grades, test scores, admissions to private schools and then to college. Parents often stoke the fires within their children. In a sense, the parents, and then the children are being rational. After all, a student can rise to be the valedictorian only if other students get lower grades than he or she does. A student’s chance of getting into the college of his or her choice with a good financial package not only requires him or her to do well, but also for others to do less well. If a parent is thinking about the best interests of his or her child, then it makes sense for that parent to not be empathetic towards the competition.

In a society in which it is equally important to promote the common good as it is to protecting individual liberties, we need to be sensitive to the needs of others. American schools are not designed to give students the skills to strive to be the best while concurrently being empathetic to the needs of others (at least those who are not in each students’ “inner circle”). If schools can look at their communities as being a microcosm of the world at large, then students can have the opportunity to learn to value each individual student with respect. If a school is successful at that, then the students will be more likely as adults to be empathetic towards others in their localities, their nation, and the global community. – Response from Arthur

Q: What’s your observation on how introverted students respond to the competitive environment of the school you work in? [Anonymous]

A: Academically, they are competing just as diligently if not more so than extroverts. They feel the pressure and, in my opinion, experience a lot of anxiety. There is a lot of inner turmoil trying to complete assignments, speak frequently in class (a common requirement), take part in extra-curricular activities (often mentally and physically draining) and maintain a high GPA. It helps if they find an understanding teacher and activities that align with their preference for quieter expression like in a drawing class or writing class. I see many introverts in the AP classes, especially the math classes. Technology classes also give introverts a place to thrive. – Response from Brenda

Q: Has cheating really changed that much from 30 or 40 years ago until now? I’m not sure I think so. [Dan Weinberg]

A: My hunch is that cheating has increased from what it was 30 or 40 years ago, and much of that is confirmed by Rutgers study on cheating that we cited in the forum. In my mind, there are two reasons why.

First, there seems to be a multiplier effect to the acceptance of cheating. The more frequently that people do it, the more acceptable that it becomes. If we go back further than 30 or 40 years; let’s say before the Vietnam War, I think that it is likely that students had more respect for the schools that the attended, and the values of honesty that many schools seemed to promote (though did not necessarily faithfully practice). In my mind, the Vietnam War opened the door to much great cynicism about our society. Cutting corners became more acceptable, and that is central to cheating. Add to this that the competition has become fiercer, and I think that there are more reasons for students to think that cheating is almost a necessity. In most cases, they do not have to look far to find someone else who is cheating.

Second, technology obviously makes cheating easier. Plagiarizing was more difficult when it was not so easy to copy and paste. Students can see much more of one another’s works now with shared platforms such as Google docs. Hacking is something that hardly existed 30 or 40 years ago, but now it is an option for many students who want to access information that provides them with a shortcut. Hacking can also be an avenue for students to actually change their grades.

I’ll take the risk of saying that if pressure to achieve and to match the accomplishments of peers is reduced, then the “need” and desire to cheat will diminish. There is an element of rationality (not necessarily to be confused with morality) in cheating. If students are more motivated to learn because of their individual inquisitiveness rather than external pressure to perform well, then I suspect that cheating will diminish. Regrettably, I’m not sure that very many educators are looking at it that way. – Response from Arthur

Q: Do you think that any of the election reforms that are being discussed would encourage introverts to vote? [Anonymous]

A: Voting by mail makes it easy for introverts to not have to leave their homes. This is convenient and avoids small talk at the polls. J Candidates more like themselves might encourage introverts to vote as well. I’m not sure if rank choice voting or changing political funding laws will convince an introverted non-voter to vote. –Response from Brenda

• Recording of forum

The post Why People Don’t Vote — Q and A appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I have run for Congress twice as a Democrat, but I might as well have run as an introvert. You may have heard of me had I won, but it’s important to note that the real reason that an introvert like me got the Democratic nomination was because nobody else wanted to run in a strongly Republican district (which fortunately is changing now and may turn blue this November).

I am passionate about politics. I find it very troubling that in the United States we leave millions of people behind. For many, it is economically. For others it is socially; still others, educationally. You know the drill: There are a myriad of ways to be left behind in any society.

I became more aware of this around the time that I was seven years old. Many Sundays I would go to St. Louis Cardinals games with my father in what was the first of three iterations of Busch Stadium. I knew that something was wrong by what I saw as we walked the five blocks to the stadium from where we parked. North St. Louis was different from the suburb where I had grown up. Virtually everyone was African-American, most of the homes were in disrepair, and the looks on many faces were ones of despair. Why was this so? I wasn’t sure, but I knew that somehow, some way, when I “grew up,” I would try to do something to in some small way remedy the unfairness in our society that I was experiencing for the first time.

I first visited Washington, DC when John F. Kennedy was president and then became even more committed to wanting to be a positive agent of change. My career choice was teaching, because (a) it was an opportunity to try to provide empathy and support to young people, and (b) by teaching in inner-city St. Louis, I was exempt from the draft, and this was during the Vietnam War.

I have teaching almost all of the time. However, by 2010, I wanted a larger platform from which I could address national and global issues. But I was scared to run for office. I did not think that I belonged. There were things that were absolutely abhorrent to me, fund-raising for example. As a person who largely sees himself as an introvert, I could hardly think of anything worse than asking another for money. Let me count the ways: (a) I don’t want to be beholden to anyone else, (b) the person I am asking may well need the money far more than I do, and (c) what gives me the right to argue that giving money to me or my campaign is a worthy endeavor?

Public speaking was something in which I had experience. It’s hard to teach without doing it. But there was never  a day of teaching when I wasn’t anxious about getting in front of the students.  Even more unnerving was my time as director of an independent school, when I had large audiences of, can you believe this, adults.

So in 2010, when I first ran for Congress in MO-02 (against the infamous Todd Akin), I wanted to reach voters, but I didn’t want to have to do it by reaching voters. Does that sound familiar to any introverts? Fortunately for me, the expectations were low. As far as party Democrats were concerned, the only thing worse than me running would have been for there have been no name on the Democratic side of the ballot. I limited myself to three or four campaign appearances a week.

Nobody endorsed me, but that was fine because it would have meant standing on a stage and saying disingenuous things about the endorser as he/she did likewise about me. There were no rallies to attend, because the Dems were very weak in the ‘burbs of St. Louis (as I said, fortunately that is changing now). There were “meet-and greets” and gatherings at voters’ homes. While those were never easy, they were small and contained. I had chances to recharge my batteries both before and after.

I like to say that I ran a campaign with integrity. I say this with reservations, because it strikes me that integrity is like honesty and courage, where there is no clear sense of what it is and what it is not. But let’s use the term integrity as a handle to describe what I was trying to do.

Attempting to run with integrity meant that I did not force myself to do “stupid human tricks,” the sorts of things that so many politicians are forced to do. I’m talking about mindlessly waving at everyone at a parade, kissing babies who might most of all want distance from a stranger, and dressing up in team colors, regardless of where one’s loyalties might lie.

I had the freedom to run this way, with a certain reckless abandon. Had I been in a competitive district, that would not have been the case. The Democratic Party would have cast me aside and gone with the traditional candidate, the one who is an extrovert and does not mind, perhaps even enjoys, the silly things that politicians have to do, including asking others for money and turning that cash around to run misleading or excessively self-promoting commercials.

Those of us who see ourselves as introverts often think that we have a special wisdom. I feel trepidatioud about saying that I would prefer that introverts have different kinds of insights from people who live more of their lives as extroverts. But introverts’ preferences for quiet, for space, for thought and small group conversations strike me as entryways for those who run for public office to communicate clearly with voters. They can resonate with voters in a way in which substance takes precedence over image. There is room for give-and-take about the issues that our society faces and to explore ways to try to solve them.

The more candidates running for office let their inner introvert out, the more politics will be acceptable, perhaps welcoming, to the 25 to 50 percent of people who fall on the introverts end of the intro-extro scale. I contend that this would be a very good thing, not only for introverts, but for the country at large.

I have just published a book, Political Introverts: How Empathetic Voters Can Help Save American Politics. A basic premise is that our electorate does not seem to be up to the task of providing the country with the quality of leaders  we need. It fascinates me that, in 1968, the country elected Richard Nixon, and forty-eight years later Donald Trump won a majority of the vote in the Electoral College. During those intervening forty-eight years, we have reformed our educational system to presumably give us a wiser electorate. But no matter how much standardized testing we do, how many AP courses students take, how credentialed teachers become, we did no better in 2016 than 1968. So, my book advocates three types of change:

1. Make politics more welcoming to introverts. What do we have to lose? Introverts are frequently more thoughtful, deliberative and empathetic (not always, but enough to make a difference). How do we make politics more introvert-friendly? Partly by making it easier for introverts to run for office, but also to downplay “silly politics” like rallies, and give greater importance to thoughtful conversation. Another big step would be to drastically shorten the length of campaigns, because two-year campaigns make it virtually impossible for introverts to recharge their batteries. In England, campaigns are generally six weeks long.
2. Acknowledge that changing schools is the gateway to changing politics. We need to make it easier for “natural teachers” to get into the classroom. Forget the credentials; look for individuals who are primarily concerned about the well-being of each student, individuals who communicate well, who have a sense of humor, particularly the self-deprecating kind, and who most of all are empathetic.
3. Promote structural change in American politics, such as eliminating the Electoral College. Get rid of gerrymandering and voter suppression. The houses of Congress should not be fiefdoms in which a Mitch McConnell can stifle not only the will of the minority, but also of the majority. Distribute the power equally among all members of Congress. The electorate will be more interested in government if they sense that it operates fairly and logically.

Change has to be thoughtful and deliberate. That’s how introverted people operate. So, everyone like me who spends much of their time on the introverted side of the continuum, consider trying to find ways to engage in politics and still be in your comfort zone. It’s not easy, but I think that that the county would be better off by letting introverts in to the political process. Let’s try to work our way in and concurrently maintain our dignity. It’s not easy, but well worth trying.

The post Running for Congress as an Introvert appeared first on Occasional Planet.

There aren’t that many perks to attending a school in northeast Missouri. The winters are bitterly cold, there seem to be more tornadoes, and the nearest calzone is several counties away. I suppose if you like soybeans and Casey’s pizza then this place has all that you could ever want, but for St. Louis natives like myself we’re often left wanting. But if you count yourself among the politically engaged then there’s no place you’d rather be because just a short drive north of campus is the cradle of political civilization, Iowa. Every 4 years the political universe finds its center in Des Moines at the Iowa State Fairground and this August I decided to experience it first-hand. So, I woke up at 6AM and got in my car and began the 2-hour drive to Iowa.

For those unfamiliar, the Iowa State Fair is a political tradition during campaign season and has been visited by candidates for President dating back to Eisenhower. Currently the newspaper of record, the Des Moines Register, hosts an event called “the soapbox” where candidates are allotted 20 minutes to present their ideas to a crowd of onlookers. The event isn’t just covered by Iowan press but also by national outlets like the Washington Post, NBC, Fox, and even international media. The Iowa State Fair is an 11-day event that attracts over 1 million people (only 3 million people live in Iowa) and is an enormous undertaking. The candidates for President are spread out across different dates but they themselves are not the major draw for most attendees as the fair has so many different attractions. Ask yourself, would you rather spend 20 minutes with John Delaney or a deep fried twinkie on a stick? The question answers itself.

The drive through Iowa was rural to say the least, I frankly lost count of how many horse and buggies I passed. I was unaware at how beautiful the landscape was and how comparatively flat Missouri is, Iowa has lush rolling green hills which was a nice change of pace from the all too familiar hundred miles of row crops on I-70. It’s important to note that I’ve never attended a county fair let alone the Missouri State Fair, so I truly didn’t know what to expect because up until that point my largest festival of any kind was “Taste of St. Louis.” So, when it began to rain hard as I approached my highway exit, I figured that my drive had been for nothing and the fair wouldn’t open, but I didn’t account for the persistence of Iowans or the sheer scale of the event.

The first thing you notice when driving into Des Moines is all of the campaign signs. On the day of my visit Iowa was a full 176 days away from the caucus so everything seemed somewhat…premature.  We’re not just talking about your expected Biden, Warren, or Sanders signs either we’re talking about a very prominent “Tim Ryan 2020” which was surreal. There were people in shirts handing out literature for Joe Sestak (yes, the Joe Sestak who lost to Pat Toomey in a Pennsylvania Senate race 9 years ago is running for President) and there’s a man on a lawn chair waving a homemade Tulsi flag at the cars waiting to enter the fairgrounds. It’s very reminiscent of a college tailgate actually, right down to people with signs in their grass offering to let you park on top of their child’s slip in slide for cheaper than you’d pay to park at the fairgrounds. There were not so surprisingly a lot of takers for off street front lawn parking as the line to get into the fairgrounds was several city blocks long. After waiting for about half an hour in line my car was rushed into the fairgrounds by a team of volunteers who were parking what seemed like a dozen cars a minute and there were hundreds, maybe thousands, of rows of cars requiring a shuttle for people parked at the furthest expanse of the greenspace now turned parking lot. Thinking about the rain earlier, I’m not sure that an approaching tornado could’ve cancelled the fair.

The first candidate to speak was former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld who you’ll remember from 2016 as he was the other half of the doomed libertarian ticket lead by Gary Johnson. At the time Weld was the only Republican challenger to President Trump but he has since been joined by Mark Sanford of Appalachian trail fame and Joe Walsh, a favorite of “resistors” despite his unabashed racism and Trump support as recently as last July. Again, despite how the media presents it, the political element of the Iowa State Fair is not the largest draw and so it’s not in any location of particular prominence that is easy to find. You can tell a lot about people by looking at what they value and while the soapbox was in some less obvious location of the fair, there was something prominently displayed…the butter cow. The butter cow is the stuff of legends, it is a 600-pound sculpture made of butter which is often accompanied by additional butter sculptures ranging from John Wayne, Elvis, and this year Sesame Street (and a working television set). The butter sculptures are housed in the agriculture building, which is furnished by prize winning crops, blue ribbon corn, the largest pumpkin (over 700 pounds!), and so on. Meanwhile the political soapbox is stationed outside the administration building, it’s a little raised stage with a couple hay bales on top for full Iowa effect and it’s across from novelty fair food stands. Not a whole lot of pomp accompanies the soapbox, just a few folding chairs next to the stage for people willing to show up early and rows and rows of press gorging themselves on fair food while sweating in the heat waiting for the next candidate to arrive (and they do wait, sometimes hours in between speeches).

After visiting with the butter cow, I made my way to the soapbox and I passed the WHO 13 corn kernel polling outfit where all the candidates had their pictures and an attached mason jar for fairgoers to “Cast their kernel” to signal support. Only 4 candidates had broken double digits, Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and Harris in that order. Some jars were more popular than others, Marianne Williamson and Mayor Wayne Messam had only gathered a handful of kernels. It was unclear whether the voting was for anyone at the fair or just Iowans, but I left a kernel in Bernie’s jar and kept moving towards the soapbox. I made it to Bill Weld during the middle of his remarks and the crowd was…small to be polite. For reference on the GOP side, Trump had 97% of the kernels to Weld’s 3%. Ouch. Watching Weld was a lot like watching Morning Joe in the sense that I was seeing a Republican who was very mediocre in his presentation given an outlet simply because he loathes Donald Trump. Weld repeated the usual lines we’ve come to expect from NeverTrumpers, Russia this and Deficit that but there was a point when Weld lost the audience. On a question about gun control Weld said that he didn’t support universal background checks, a broadly popular position even in Iowa, and he was booed by the crowd to the amusement of the bored press forced to cover his speech. After Weld left the stage an assortment of characters presented themselves who would continue to reappear throughout the day. The first was an older gentleman in a sleeveless camouflage shirt wearing a trucker cap who was weirdly belligerent and seemed to have been at the fair for multiple days. He approached the press requesting to be interviewed and his question was the same “why do the Democrats have to disrespect our president?” There were also a group of young women wearing shirts for a non-profit related to Alzheimer’s research who occupied a block of seats and asked every candidate about Alzheimer’s research funding. Finally, there was an unnamed Democratic Party county level official with an overinflated sense of importance who talked as if he was the king-maker of Iowa politics and every candidate, including Barack Obama, owed their fortunes to him.

When Weld stopped speaking the rain stopped which probably isn’t a good omen for his campaign. I had a few hours to kill before the next candidate spoke, so I decided to embark on trying fair food. There were hundreds of food stands, some of them franchises and many serving similar items but there were some unique experiences that I have to share. First was the deep-fried bacon wrapped rib on a stick which was probably as close to a religious experience that any of us can hope to experience on Earth. Next was the classic fair food, the deep fried twinkie which was covered in powdered sugar and drizzled with chocolate sauce. Then there was a Canadian import, poutine which is French Fries sprinkled with cheese curds and served with hot brown gravy. Finally, there was the apple eggroll from Applishus which can only be described as everything you love about apple pie with the handheld mobility of an egg roll complete with cinnamon caramel dipping sauce. When I finished eating and exploring the fairgrounds it was time for the next candidate to speak, Tom Steyer. Money can’t buy you happiness, but it seems to be able to buy you one hell of a campaign organization because Steyer arrived with some fanfare to the soapbox. The type of swarm that surrounded him was unexpected given the fact that he’s polling in the low single digits nationally and I’d almost forgotten he was running.

Before he spoke a woman from the Des Moines Register gave a very practiced speech that she would repeat a number of times throughout the day. She told the audience to be “Iowa Nice” which was obvious code for “shut the hell up when the candidate is talking” and she also requested that we keep our signs down if we had any. Steyer walked out and gave an impassioned speech about the threat of climate change and the importance of defeating Donald Trump. He saved time for questions, much of which was eaten up but the Alzheimer’s group and the sleeveless wonder defending Trump’s honor. Then as quickly as he appeared, he was then gone again, disappearing behind the administration building to the press scrum to be questioned. The main event had yet to arrive, waiting through this cast of background characters in the 2020 was a formality for myself and many fairgoers who were waiting for the late afternoon when Sen. Bernie Sanders would speak. But admittedly I was disappointed at the day thus far. No of course I wasn’t going to vote for Weld or Steyer, but I would like to be heard and ask a question and so far, the opportunity had presented itself, perhaps because at every event I wasn’t directly in the candidates eyeline. Therefore, I resolved myself to be heard so I decided I was going to wait the 90 minutes between Steyer and the next candidate to make sure I got a prime position.

The next candidate to speak was Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado who had amassed a very large crowd but likely not because Iowa is Bennet country but rather directly following his remarks Bernie would take the stage. Bennet looks like what would happen if a company market tested what people think a politician should look like and then they created him in a lab. Bennet came with wrangler jeans and a blue dress shirt with the sleeves rolled up, the standard uniform for a politician running for office. He was the first candidate I saw to bring his family; he brought his teen daughters and wife who stood at the side of the stage watching as Bennet spoke. He placed one leg on a hay bale and began to speak and although I’m no fan of Bennet I will say that he had the best delivery of the day so far. Then came the questions, I raised my hand and to my surprise we locked eyes and he pointed to me. Then some of the cameras pivoted to me in the crowd and the pressure was on and I knew that I needed to ask him about healthcare. So, I asked him about Medicare-for-All and why he opposes it and wouldn’t his plan for a public option necessarily lead to means testing. It was clear that he did not appreciate the question, nor did he appreciate the positive audience response. At first, he tried to deny that his plan would lead to means testing and for some reason that answer in addition to having the crowd on my side lead me to heckle him. He said it wasn’t means testing I yelled “Oh yes it is!” and then he said he said Medicare- for-All was dangerous and I yelled “Says the guy with a government healthcare plan” and when he said that he appreciated what Bernie brought to the debate my comment of “Well drop out and endorse him!” got the crowd laughing and Sen. Bennet started to get worked up. At one point he was basically screaming into his microphone and the crowd of onlookers just looked dazed as he wrapped up his remarks.

Then the main event arrived. A plane flew overhead with a banner that said “Sen. Joni Ernst…WHAT THE FLOOD? – League of Conservation Voters” and there was pandemonium in the street. There were suddenly thousands of people, some hanging in trees, others banging makeshift drums, there was a sea of red MAGA hats yelling into the crowd, screaming throngs of college students, and an army of young frazzled volunteers handing out signs to the roaring masses. Then in the distance there was the sound of a hundred cameras shuttering all at once, a ball of mass slowly working its way through the crowd and in the middle just barely visible was a tuft of uncombed white hair. It was Bernie.

Bernie couldn’t stop moving or else he would’ve been swamped and perhaps he would’ve never made the stage. He didn’t stop for pictures and people reached out their hands to touch him and he let them often grabbing hands but there were always more coming at him in a constant stream, the scene reminded me of old pictures of Bobby Kennedy out on the trail. The Bennet people were quickly pushed out and Bernie’s people were hustled to the soapbox area. Bernie stood next to his wife Jane, both peering out at the massive crowd that stretched out in all directions while they waited for the woman from the DMR to finish her “Iowa nice” speech. When she did, he took the stage and there was an audible boom from the crowd and chants of “Bernie!” with signs waving and horns blasting, the rules of Iowa nice abandoned for the Senator from Vermont. The crowd took a long time to be settled but they followed Bernie’s remarks closely, on time for every applause line and with a vigor that is usually reserved for rock stars. Bernie spoke straight for 20 minutes about healthcare, the environment, wages, and the fundamentals that his campaign has been built around. He didn’t take a single question and the crowd didn’t care, when he began to leave the stage the crowd rushed behind the building scrambling to get into the press scrum which had been roped off in anticipation of the crowd reaction to Bernie. Hundreds of people lined the area behind the cameras clamoring for a chance to see Bernie up close, they stood quietly as to not interrupt their candidate during his interviews but there was a hum among those gathered.

Finally, the candidate finished his interviews but whether it was because of the heat, a prior engagement, or the daunting task of giving time to so many enthusiastic supporters, Bernie simply waved said “Thank You!” and left the fair. There wasn’t a person standing who wasn’t a little disappointed they couldn’t meet Bernie, but they still chanted his name as he walked away. It was truly unlike anything I’ve ever seen. After some time, the crowd dispersed, and I thought very briefly about staying another hour to listen to New York Mayor Bill deBlasio but that wasn’t a particularly appealing idea, so I decided it was time to call it a day. I left the fair, but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. There was something charming about the entire experience that I would recommend to everyone regardless of their political engagement.

I’ve often questioned whether Iowa ought to be the first in the nation primary. After all it is much whiter, older, and rural than the rest of America. There are states that are certainly more representative of not just America but the Democratic electorate, like Illinois or New Jersey. But there is value in Iowa, to win it you need more than name recognition or money, you need visibility and a strong field program. Developing those things can help a candidate win a national election and if you can’t do well in Iowa, you probably don’t have the campaign skills to become President. With bigger states and lower-information electorates, it might be enough to just buy $50 million dollars of TV ads. But with Iowa candidates must go to union halls, VFWs, churches, rotary clubs, universities, people’s living rooms, and engage every part of the electorate. That’s good and it gives underdogs the chance to compete. Without Iowa we may not have known the strength of Barack Obama or the weakness of Hillary Clinton or have ever seriously changed the political debate with Bernie Sanders. Iowa encourages candidates to remember the grassroots and see voters as something other than numbers, and the Iowa State Fair for all its wackiness is an important part of the process.

The post I Went to Iowa So You Don’t Have To appeared first on Occasional Planet.

There were a number of competitive Senate races last year, Democrats ended up shocking Republicans in the Great Lakes and Sunbelt, while Republicans were able to do fairly well in the Midwest. Independent experts have described this midterm cycle as “the most expensive in history” with over $5 billion dollars spent on organizing and ads. We’ve grown accustomed to high-dollar spending in competitive races, but what’s happening in a state like Wyoming which hasn’t historically been competitive? No Democratic presidential candidate has carried Wyoming since 1964, so one might imagine that the state would be immune to the gratuitous levels of spending that we’ve seen in Missouri. Yet, incumbent senator John Barrasso raised over $7 million dollars and spent over $5 million on his race which had not even the slightest chance of being competitive.

Barrasso’s race isn’t an outlier, there are a number of noncompetitive races where favored candidates spent ungodly amounts of money. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D) of Hawaii has spent over $3 million, Mitt Romney (R) of Utah has spent nearly $5 million, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) of Massachusetts spent an eye popping $20.4 million.  There’s simply an unconscionable amount of money in politics and the tactics campaigns have been using to fundraise border on the ridiculous (Something Arthur Lieber has written about at length here and here). The numbers get even more extreme when we look into the actually competitive races. In Texas, Beto O’Rourke spent $60 million to lose to Sen. Ted Cruz (R). In Missouri, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) spent $33 million to lose to Josh Hawley. In Florida, Rick Scott had to spend $66 million to barely beat Sen. Bill Nelson (D).

Which poses an interesting question…why the hell are we spending so much money on campaigns and was it always like this? The answer to the first question isn’t overly complicated. In politics there aren’t a whole lot of quantitative measurements, metrics that have numbers and not only measure success but can be understood by voters. Of course, we have poll numbers, but voters already follow those and campaigns have essentially no control over the polls. So, when there aren’t any meaningful things to measure, you begin to measure things that were previously meaningless that you’ve decided to assign meaning to; money. A negative consequence of our decision to use money to measure success means that we’ve prioritized fundraising numbers over important things that are hard to quantify like policy positions or authenticity. Our present situation is reminiscent of Vietnam when the military began tracking “body counts” to produce some misleading characterization about American strength throughout the war. We’re at the point that voters ask candidates “how much money have you raised” and we have countdown clocks to await the end of quarter fundraising numbers, the party apparatuses are pushing candidates harder and harder to beg for money and the candidates oblige because the donor-industrial complex demands that they do.

Now as to the question of is this the way it has always been, the answer is no. Believe it or not, there was once a time where the media didn’t report on campaign contributions and knowing your constituents was enough to get re-elected. Before there was Citizens United or CNN or ActBlue or email, there was Bill Proxmire.

Sen. William Proxmire was the longest serving senator from Wisconsin, in office from 1957 until 1989, succeeding Ted Cruz lookalike and anti-communist crusader Joseph McCarthy. Proxmire did not do the rubber chicken circuit nor did he send out solicitations for campaign donations in his last two campaigns. In fact, Proxmire returned campaign donations and typically only spent $200 on each of his campaigns and that money was earmarked for postage to return donations. Proxmire wasn’t necessarily the exception, many of his contemporaries didn’t spend time dialing for dollars. Until 1976 when the Supreme Court decided Buckley v. Valeo there were very few enforced rules on spending and fundraising which allowed for some obviously unethical activities, namely the slush fund utilized by the Committee to Re-elect the President during Watergate. However most established politicians like Birch Bayh in Indiana or Frank Church in Idaho simply went about the business of legislating with the assumption that doing their jobs well would be enough. Which was true to an extent, from 1970 until 1990 incumbent senators could expect to outperform the partisanship of their state somewhere between 11 to 22 points compared to less than 3 points in 2018.

Proxmire in the elections where he eschewed campaign donations was still re-elected by large margins, 29 points in 1982 and 46 points in 1976. This is more impressive when one remembers that Proxmire was a Democrat and Wisconsin supported Republican Presidential Candidates in every election from 1952 through 1984 with the exception of a narrow Carter victory in 1976 and LBJ’s landslide in 1964. Of course, partisanship was not as high nor were the parties as fractured 40 years ago as they are today, however what Proxmire figured out then could still be true today and that is if you prioritize your principles over getting re-elected that can endear you to voters. Proxmire was famous for his monthly “Golden Fleece Awards” where he listed what he believed to be a particularly jarring use of government money like thousands of dollars spent to study why people fall in love or a study by the army on how to purchase Worcester sauce. But perhaps even more important than principle is authenticity and voters will forgive you for being wrong so long as you give it to them straight. Which is important because Proxmire was not always on the side of progress (but perhaps neither were the people of Wisconsin), he was opposed to busing, spending on public works projects that he deemed “frivolous”, and he supported the Vietnam War way longer than was politically necessary.

Proxmire was visible around Wisconsin, he visited VFW halls, he marched in parades, and he was interviewed by local papers. It’s hard to imagine this now but there was a time when our members of Congress simply went to Washington but were not of Washington. Proxmire was of course a larger figure in his day, not towering like Robert Byrd or Bob Dole, but big nonetheless and that certainly helps when running for re-election. But being well known isn’t everything, Tom Daschle found that out being Senate minority leader doesn’t mean you can’t lose re-election which happened to him in 2004. Being visible also doesn’t guarantee success, in Missouri Claire McCaskill held more than 50 townhalls just to lose 109 out of 115 counties.

So, the larger more important question is what changed? Ryan Grim discusses the emergence of big money in his book We’ve Got People: From Jesse Jackson to AOC, the End of Big Money and the Rise of a Movement. The moral majority and the election of 1980 permanently changed the calculus of the Democratic Party which until then had succeeded largely on the strength of organized labor. The election of 1980 was a very good year for Republicans and for the first time since 1952 they’d won control of the US Senate. This was a result that stunned Democrats but leadership still didn’t fully see the writing on the wall and there was an assumption that they would never lose the House because a so-called “blue wall” had been amassed that was insurmountable. From 1930 until 1980 Democrats controlled the House 46 out of 50 years and hadn’t lost control since 1952. Previously the organizing theory of the party was to register the most people and incentivize them to the polls, ideally with hope but occasionally with fear. However, this historic loss lead some to believe in a new theory, that raising more money than the GOP and spending it on ads or consultants and targeting voters could produce majorities. So, starting in 1980 Democrats started turning to Wall Street and other corporate interests for money and the natural consequence was a monetary arms race between both parties trying to out fundraise each other which is how we’ve arrived to our current state of affairs, made worse by a few particularly heinous SCOTUS decisions.

So, can a candidate do what Proxmire did and still win? Are elections now won on money instead of ideas? Even the examples we have of the underdog beating the more monied competitor like Donald Trump in 2016 or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2018, those candidates still raised huge sums (Trump raised $333 million to Clinton’s $563 million and Ocasio-Cortez raised $600 thousand to Crowley’s $3 million). Are the parties so polarized that it’s simply not enough to be effective in Congress or represent the views of your constituents? In 2018 we saw a particularly animated electorate where races were decided purely on what party had more voters as split ticketing disappeared in many states. Voters and their elected members are more partisan now than at any time since the civil war which likely means the era of landslide victories built on bipartisan majorities is over for the foreseeable future.

This chart displays the partisanship in each house of congress. The lines represent the ideological distance between the average Democratic member and the average Republican member. The distance today is greater than any time since the end of Reconstruction.

It’s worth noting that as was alluded to at the beginning of this article, every state isn’t competitive. Proxmire himself said “I think fully two-thirds of the senators could get re-elected without spending a penny.” and he very well have been right, Idaho likely isn’t electing any Democrats soon and Hawaii almost certainly isn’t sending any Republicans to Washington. The same can be said of probably 200 house seats give or take a dozen. So, for the majority of cases, Proxmire would be right. However, there are a good number of seats in the Senate and the House, enough to decide control of either chamber, that are competitive and so the question of money and fair elections is still relevant.

This is all to say that as our system currently exists, it is not possible to recreate the successes of Sen. Proxmire everywhere. However, our system does not have to carry on as it has been and some states are experimenting with ways to bring people back into democracy. In 1995 Maine enacted the Maine Clean Election Act (MCEA) which established a voluntary program of full public financing of political campaigns for candidates running for Governor, State Senator, and State Representative. Before Citizens United v. FEC there was a point when a full 85% of members of the legislature were elected using this system. It’s clear that in our current political eco-system it would be impossible to achieve Proxmire style campaigns for a number of reasons, even in non-competitive states where politicians are forced to fundraise if not for themselves then for the party and are punished for refusing. But perhaps we can look toward a system of public financing which could still create expensive races, but it would also lead to more open and transparent races. Public financing would also allow a more diverse crop of candidates. Continuing to use Maine as an example, 7 out of 10 women stated that the MCEA was very important in their decision to run.

The way forward for politics has to involve reducing the role of money or inevitably our democracy will morph into a corporate kleptocracy if that transition has not already occurred.

The post Bill Proxmire and the Art of Fundraising appeared first on Occasional Planet.

We need public financing. And we need it immediately.

When I began my very long-shot campaign for the Democratic party’s nomination in Missouri’s 2^nd Congressional district, I knew that my campaign would concentrate on political reform. I spoke ad nauseam whenever I had the chance about our need for fundamental reform across elections, ethics, and, in particular, the way we fund our campaigns.

I went into this campaign already convinced that money was a corrupting influence that we should not ignore. My experience across the 216 days I campaigned only solidified my already strong opinion that money is a corruption and that political reform must be our priority.

In fact, money isn’t just an ordinary run-of-the-mill corruption, it’s a catastrophic corruption. The 2018 Democratic primary in Missouri’s 2^nd District proves it.

Cort VanOstran was a fine candidate. He worked hard. He campaigned with passion and conviction. You can say he deserved to win the Democratic nomination. But you can’t say that he deserved to win by as much as he did. Nor can you say that the process was fair.

His campaign had a lot of things going for it. But the tragedy that we can’t ignore is that only one of those things really mattered: the amount of money he was able to raise – an amount that dwarfed the amount raised by this closest competitor, Mark Osmack.

By the time the August 7^th primary was held, the battle for money wasn’t even close.

Cort raised and spent a little more than $800,000. Mark was only able to raise a quarter of that.

Both Cort and Mark announced their candidacies over a year earlier –  in the summer of 2017. But after just a couple of months, the winner was already crowned. Cort had won the most important primary of all, the “money primary.”

Recall, by the way, that there was another very popular candidate in this race, Kelli Dunaway. As the only woman running for the Democratic nomination, Kelli should have been a favorite. But after just a few months of campaigning, Kelli dropped out. Chief among her reasons for her exit, “I was getting my ass kicked in fundraising.” (her words).

Those early numbers are pretty shocking. By the time Kelli dropped out (November 2017), Cort had already raised over $200,000. This included 20 donations from contributors donating the maximum amount, $2700. And 71 individuals contributing over $1000!

Compare that to Kelli. At the time of her withdrawal, Kelli had raised just 18% as much as Cort (about $38,000). That included only three maximum contributors and 10 contributions of over $1000.

Mark’s numbers at that point were even worse. Four months after starting his campaign, Mark had raised a paltry 8% of what Cort had (about $16,000). This included just one $2700 individual contribution and only two donations of over $1000.

Let’s not fool ourselves. Cort won by as much as he did because he was able to do what Mark and the other candidates couldn’t: advertise on TV and bombard mailboxes with campaign literature. Only he had contributors with that kind of money.

Two fine candidates. But only one had the finances to significantly amplify his message.  Two fine candidates. But only one had the means to thoroughly advertise throughout the district. Two fine candidates. But given these differences, only one had any real chance to win.

Three days into my campaign a Missouri Democratic party leader approached me and told me to drop out. One month later, that same party leader approached Mark and strongly encouraged him to drop out. Mark’s supporters weren’t as generous with their ActBlue donations as Cort’s. And to the Missouri Democratic party, that was a high crime that deserved impeachment.

Please don’t misconstrue my point. I know that Cort was a fine candidate who worked tirelessly. But the same can be said of Mark. Shouldn’t both men have been given an equal opportunity to make their cases?

As a candidate myself in this race I enjoyed a front-row seat to the campaigns of both Cort and Mark. They worked their rears off! They each had great ideas. And they each attracted a large number of passionate supporters to their ranks. But what I learned most from my experience is that the passion of one’s supporters isn’t important if those supporters are not wealthy. In this corrupted process, we’re fooling ourselves when we talk about passion. The wealth of one’s campaign contributors is what matters overwhelmingly.

Cort didn’t crush Mark because he was a superior candidate. He crushed Mark because he had a lot more wealth on his side. The nomination wasn’t won by Cort. It was purchased.

I pity the American that doesn’t see the tragic injustice in that and who doesn’t want to do something about it.

And let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that the amount of money that you raise is a direct reflection of your hard work, perseverance, or some other heavenly virtue. Yes, you have to work hard to raise money and I’m sure Cort worked tremendously hard.

But Cort raised and spent FOUR times more than Mark. Does anyone really think Cort worked FOUR times harder than Mark? Does anyone believe that his ideas were FOUR times more popular than Mark’s? Is there anyone that can legitimately argue that Cort’s supporters were FOUR times more passionate than Mark’s? Does anyone who paid close attention to this campaign think that Cort deserved FOUR times the opportunity to win?

Most troubling is this question: How much of Cort’s fundraising superiority was a product of unique external factors – factors not available to Mark or other candidates? Factors related to Cort’s position in a prestigious law firm and his connections with Democratic party insiders? Factors that blocked Mark and Kelli from the same resources necessary to get their message across to voters? Mark and Kelli didn’t know the secret handshake. And for that, their campaigns were doomed.

The Public Financing Solution

The Democratic primary in MO-2 proved our process is tragically unfair. Nothing will change until we demand real reform. And that is where public financing comes in. I’ve never been more convinced of this.

Imagine a system where qualified candidates are given an equal opportunity to make their cases. A system that rewards candidates that work hard but doesn’t show favoritism to those that just happen to have access to wealthy contributors. A system that says that the candidate that has the support of those that give $27 contributions should be taken as seriously as the candidate that is the darling of those that can make $2700 contributions.

In such a system, each of the candidates would be allowed to prove their viability by going out and raising “seed money” – thus demonstrating their seriousness. Taxpayers would grant qualifying candidates with vouchers that would allow them the opportunity to broadcast TV commercials and to send out mass mailings.

Candidates that would want to forego public financing and raise and spend money the old fashioned way would still be allowed to. But candidates without those same deep-pocketed enablers would now be given more of a fighting chance. Public financing levels the playing field.

Imagine the 2018 Democratic primary again but under a public financing system. Mark and Kelli would probably have still been outspent – but with public financing, they would have had a much greater opportunity to compete with Cort.

Given the passion that I saw in their supporters and the vigor I saw in their campaigns, this was an opportunity Mark and Kelli deserved – an opportunity that was cheated them in our current system.

Wealthy Americans should be afforded many privileges in America. But a monopoly to determine which candidates are viable and which are not, should not be one of them. Public financing gives qualified candidates with great ideas but without wealthy connections a chance to compete.

Most importantly, a public financing system would change our political campaigns for the better; transforming them from the farces for funding that they’ve become and into the contests of character and position that true democratic republics require.

The post What I learned about Campaign Financing When I ran for Congress appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In a truly just world, Brett Kavanaugh would not be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court for so many reasons. While the “he said – she said” conflict between Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is stealing center stage, there are countless reasons why the process is flawed. Not the least is that Dr. Ford is already receiving the Anita Hill Treatment from many Republican Senators, both on the Judiciary Committee and in the rank and file.

Let’s deal quickly with this issue. It is possible that what Brett Kavanaugh “remembers” (which seems to be nothing) more accurately describes what happened between him and Christine Blasey thirty-six years ago than what she recalls (being attacked; experiencing trauma; and carrying it with her for the intervening years). It’s possible but far from a certainty.

Suppose that there are no credible witnesses. Is the winner Kavanaugh because (a) he’s a male, (b) he’s a Republican and that party holds the moral high ground, (c) his supporters like Orrin Hatch and Charles Grassley are more righteous? Or is the “winner” Dr. Ford because (a) she does not have the extensive history of shading the truth as Kavanaugh has revealed in the hearings for his nomination, (b) women are more believable than men, (c) in the history of these kinds of disputes, the man has been believed far more than the woman, and (d) it’s payback time for what happened to Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.

Hard to tell. Maybe an FBI investigation will turn up incontrovertible evidence. Maybe the questioning of Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford before the Committee will trip up one or the other. If we have to go by a “feeling in the gut,” I would say that the safe thing to do would be to side with Dr. Ford because the consequences of having two sitting members on the Supreme Court who have acted very inappropriately regarding sex is more than the country should have to bear. As said so eloquently by Anita Hill in an op-ed in today’s New York Times:

But, as Judge Kavanaugh stands to gain the lifetime privilege of serving on the country’s highest court, he has the burden of persuasion. And that is only fair.

Surely there is another conservative nominee who has not been charged with such and who may not have the same paper trail as Kavanaugh.

But let’s look at the broader picture of why this process is so flawed. What are we doing here? We’re selecting someone to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States? And what does he/she do? “Interpret” the laws made by extremely flawed individuals; our legislators in the federal, state and local legislatures. While there are some outstanding legislators, the nature of the job is that it attracts many who have excessive egos and who are comfortable asking for money with little to offer in return. That’s not the way in which healthy human beings interact with one another.

As a group, they are not the most qualified people we have in our society to fashion our laws. Yet we treat what they create as being sacrosanct and engraved in stone. The work of these legislators must be precisely interpreted. But what if what they made was crap, as often is the case. What do the judges do then?

If our judges are wise and capable, then their job should be to clean up the mess. That means more than interpreting what has been written. It means working to have our laws conform to the parts of our Constitution that promote democracy and fairness.

How do we know if a nominee is capable of helping us clean up legislative messes? It certainly is not from them providing bullshit like, “That is a hypothetical question and I don’t want to answer it because it’s a case that may come before the court.” Since nominees dodge most questions, we can only use conjecture to try to figure out what they support.

We need a system in which the nominees are fully vetted – and that information is available not only to the executive branch but also to Congress and ultimately to the American people. The nominees must be required to answer all questions, so we learn what their professed beliefs are.

Their skills in interpreting the laws are less important than their abilities to exercise common sense. That means being good at reasoning, having empathy and understanding irony and hypocrisy.

This system won’t change now. If we’re fortunate, Kavanaugh will not be confirmed and we’ll go through the same song and dance with the next nominee. But ultimately, we need to face reality and have Supreme Court Justices be individuals who have boots on the ground of the United States and who are more arbiters of fairness than presumed scholars of the law.

The post It’s not just Kavanaugh; it’s the whole process appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Is there a course in Journalism School that teaches that the best way to cover a political campaign is to use the following metrics: money raised and endorsements? If so, then the Kevin McDermott and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch get mega-points for following the formula.

First, let’s thank McDermott and the Post-Dispatch for getting off the donut and writing an informative article about local congressional races. Together, the first and second Congressional Districts in Missouri include approximately 1.5 million people (every U.S. Congressional district is supposed to include approximately 750,000 people [the population of the U.S. divided by 435 seats]). Those are serious numbers.

Not only do these two districts cover well over half the population of the metropolitan area, but the candidates are running to represent the voters in the most important legislative body in the country, the U.S. Congress. State government may be interesting, especially since it is so tawdry, but it is at the federal level where decisions are made that impact us most in terms of our human rights, economic well-being and personal security.

McDermott’s article provides considerable information about money and endorsements. Implied in the piece is that these are the key barometers for measuring the strength of the candidates. Indeed, it may be true that these two variables are strong indicators of the popularity of the candidates and the likelihood that they will succeed in their races. But from the perspective of voters who would like to be informed about who the candidates really are, it tells them little.

Candidates are more than the numbers that represent the donations they accrue and the endorsements they receive. Those running for office are even more than the positions on the issues that they espouse, although those are very important. Key to knowing how well they would serve includes knowing what kind of people they really are.

This is a dicey road to follow; trying to assess a candidate by the type of person they appear to be. Look no further than the man in the White House. To some, Donald Trump is the most authentic man in politics; a true reflection of the best of America and what every one of us can aspire to be. To others, he is not only dishonest, but also detached from reality and represents one of the greatest threats that this country has ever faced.

The same issue of varying opinions about candidates is present in every race, though usually not as polarizing as the takes on Trump. For instance, in Missouri’s Second District, Democratic candidate Cort VanOstran is seen by some as a real reformer who knows how to run a campaign and is thoroughly prepared to fight for progressive issues. He is very well liked by many. Among his biggest supporters are people in the Democratic donor class, Democratic endorsers, and a growing cadre of young people who combine idealism with realism.

But to others he is lacking in authenticity because he reflects in many ways what has distanced the Democratic Party from the FDR and LBJ constituencies. In his book Listen Liberal, Thomas Frank talks about how the professionals and the “credentialed class” in the Democratic party have largely turned a deaf ear to not only the middle class, but also to poor people, the very individuals who are most in need of the social and economic safety net that has been a vital part of the Democratic platform for ninety years. VanOstran expresses genuine concern for those outside the safety net, but other candidates such as John Messmer and Mark Osmack seem to be better connected with the “non-donor” and non-professional part of the party. Back when FDR and LBJ ran, the ugliness of money was more hidden than it is now. It could be that struggling people do not truly trust candidates who travel in exclusive circles. This is just my opinion; I obviously could be wrong.

It might be asking too much of Kevin McDermott and the Post-Dispatch to try to characterize the candidates beyond the numbers. But, wouldn’t it be a reasonable disclaimer to acknowledge that the article focuses only on the measurable in a world that is often difficult to measure? If the reader wants to really learn about the candidates, he or she will have to seek other sources of information.

And by the way, speaking of numbers, the Post forgot one. Zero is the number of town halls and forums that Ann Wagner has attended in her six years in office. The Post-Dispatch would serve democracy well by pointing this out whenever they are writing about her, which hopefully would be a frequent occurrence.

The post Post-Dispatch story on STL congressional races leaves unanswered questions appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The professor shakes our hands and starts right off with his policy ideas. He admits that small talk and working a room are not his forte, but the passion in his eyes for his reform ideas shines bright. John Messmer, a candidate for Missouri’s Second Congressional District, is a different kind of politician. His campaign is heavily focused on reform, and not just for the soundbite, either. With extensive background in political science, Messmer believes that his ideas, with the help of supporters and legislation, can make American democracy more fair.

Messmer, the son of immigrants who were union workers, studied political science and received his doctorate from the University of Missouri. Eventually, he moved back to his home in Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District, where he has lived for most of his life,and has pursued a career as a political science professor at STL Community College at Meramec.

After years of teaching, Messmer says, “I started listening to my students. And there’s a disconnect. There’s a gap between what we need in a democracy and what the reality is among a lot of particularly young people. But I don’t think it’s just unique to young people.”.

Messmer thinks that this disconnect is dangerous, and that corruption has caused feelings of apathy and helplessness. This realization is what made Messmer decide that it was time for change, and so he announced his bid for Congress, saying, “That’s my first and foremost responsibility, to listen to my constituents, be their voice, and show that they do have a connection when it comes to having to navigate through the federal bureaucracy.”

Messmer wants to fix the disconnect, and he has the perfect role model to do just that. Citing the Bernie Sanders movement, Messmer explains, “Young people…think that American democracy is relatively fair. Yeah, there’s some injustices, but for the most part, it’s a pretty well-functioning machine…. You get into your teenage years, and then you get into high school and someone sticks a clipboard in your face… says, ‘You’ve gotta register to vote.’ You’re going to that responsibility seriously. Which means you’re going to start paying attention. When you start paying attention, you’re going to realize the system is not what the little cartoons in the little civics classes in fourth or fifth grade told you about. There’s a lot of injustice. A huge part of this system is rigged. Every other sentence out of Bernie Sanders’ mouth was about that.”

What Messmer realized (as many of us do when we come into our own in the political world) is that, “The status quo in our federal government, especially in Congress, is like a redwood in our backyard. Deep roots. One person isn’t going to do it. Two people aren’t going to do it. You’re going to need an army of people, just as Bernie Sanders talks about. An army of reformers that get in there. That is how ingrained the corruption and our status quo is.”

Yet, while identifying as a Democratic Socialist like Sanders, he clarifies, “I’m not a communist. I like money….Money should be allowed to buy a lot of things. But I’d be damned if money should buy better representation, and that’s what you’re getting.”

Messmer has surely learned this lesson, too. When asked about what his biggest lesson learned so far from the race, he states, “It is more obsessed with money than I dreamed… it’s not so much the importance of money, but…the importance of money for getting your message out, as much as the importance of money for when it comes to being treated seriously.”

Messmer does not have any endorsements. “I think they… don’t want to endorse someone who they think doesn’t have a chance. And unfortunately, we have become drunk on this mindset that when in doubt, go with the horse that has raised the most money.“

It is easy to see how frustrating this situation can be, because money should not buy better representation or buy a seat in the US House of Representatives.

So, how will Messmer combat this money obsession in politics? He has a simple answer: “I love coffee-maker coffee. I’m going to have a coffee maker in my office, and that’s the only coffee I’ll need. Not a cup of coffee accepted from a lobbyist.”

This policy will be true for himself and his whole staff. He wants to publish his appointments with people, maintain transparency, and be as true to his beliefs as possible. When we asked Messmer if he would take thousands of dollars from Edward Jones,  He replied, “No. No. Now, if individuals that just happened to work for Edward Jones were giving it to me, that might be a different story. I’d have to question, why are they giving it to me as individuals? If it’s coming from the Edward Jones Political Action Committee, forget it. Save your money.”

At the interview, our mentor Arthur Lieber mentioned, “I think what John said about endorsements and contributions is really distinctly different from others….and in my mind, John explains it in a way that makes a lot of sense and maintains integrity.”

Clearly, Messmer isn’t standing for any of the old money-focused politics. He wants to change the system, make it fair, and make government a place free of corruption and that is truly by and for the people. To him, “[Fighting] injustice is the guiding star of what it means to be a progressive. That was true 130 years ago, and it’s true today.”

You’re talking about an injustice that comes about because the powers that be abuse that power. Monopolize that power. [We] re not upholding the virtue of, in essence, as corny as it may sound, what our Constitution and our Bill of Rights are all about.”

It is only constitutional to protect our rights and protect ourselves from injustice. Messmer believes he is going to do just that, saying, “I don’t care if, again, if you’re liberal, conservative, or libertarian, if you’re urban, suburban or rural, you don’t want to be taken advantage of.”

With his heavy focus on reform, though, Messmer lost some footing with his social issues. During our interview, we talked briefly about how he planned to keep representing minority groups in his constituency. He said, “ I don’t think it’s outrageous to suggest that at job of least three of my staff members job would be to reach out to minorities in the district, whether or not they’re economic minorities, or racial minorities, or in the case of the LGBTQ community, marginalized communities.”

Yet, when asked about why he didn’t have any sections about people of color on his website, he promptly apologized and let us know that he would look into it. He did clarify his views, saying, “The racial injustice by our government, that’s systemic racism, that’s institutional racism. That’s racism by not just the government, our government. None of us should tolerate that. To answer your question is I don’t have it on there, I probably should”. He followed up with, “I will fight this to the death, that we need groups like Black Lives Matter”.

Clearly, he supports thee issues, and less than a week later, I received an email from him saying he had updated his website with the issues we discussed in the interview. To me, this shows Messmer’s commitment to listen to his constituents and do his best to represent everyone. Plus, if you haven’t checked out his website, you definitely should. It took the Civitas interns several hours to comb through the extensive platform issues and 15-point plan outlined for Messmer’s first 100 days in Congress.

In the middle of our interview, Messmer asked, “So, have we ever had truly fair elections? No, I suppose it’s like an ideal. Right? That you can only approach and never actually attain. And I think that’s unfortunately, not to become too philosophical here, but I think that’s just sort of part and parcel of being human. We can just try to approach true justice, we can approach pure perfection, but we’ll never get there.”

While things may never be perfect, perhaps we can have some faith that the American ideal is there. Fairness may never happen, but it is a horizon we must be ever-approaching, with people like Messmer at the front of that march.

The post John Messmer: professor, reformer, fighter for fairness appeared first on Occasional Planet.

A short foray back into politics from former President Barack Obama seems to indicate that he is entrenched in the old monied interests of the Democratic Party and about as far away as possible from a new Blue Wave characterized by newcomers such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. As the party needs to connect with more young people and others who have been disaffected, he chose to chastise Democrats for moping too much.

“If you are one of these folks who is watching cable news at your cocktail parties with your friends and you are saying ‘civilization is collapsing’ and you are nervous and worried, but that is not where you are putting all your time, energy and money, then either you don’t actually think civilization is collapsing … or you are not pushing yourself hard enough and I would push harder.”

The problem is, he said this and more at a cocktail party, a fund-raiser in Beverly Hills. He said it with 200 donors in attendance where the evening was “highlighted” by a performance by Christina Aguilera.

Two clear problems. First, there is way too much money in politics and Obama is just reinforcing that. It might do him well to remember that Ocasio-Cortez’s victory came over an entrenched incumbent who spent ten times as much money as she did. More and more Democrats are realizing that can be a turn-off.

That leads to the second point. The voters that Democrats need are not the ones who can go to fund-raisers, and in many ways, fund-raisers are the last place they would want to be.

It is indeed ironic how Obama came to power on a wave largely propelled by inexpensive social media. He carried with him a reputation as a “man of the people” who before he was knocking on doors for votes was knocking on doors to ask people what he could do for them and their community. That’s what community organizers do and it’s also how politicians connect with the electorate. How many of the people at the Beverly Hills shindig live in homes where anyone can get to the door and knock?

Imagine what it would do to the actual and potential Democratic electorate if Obama was going door-to-door with the likes of Ocasio-Cortez and other young progressive candidates who were not relying on money from big donors to propel them into power?

Imagine if he spent one or two days a month knocking on doors in the projects of Chicago and elsewhere to learn of their current concerns and to offer to use his skills as an attorney to help them have their rights properly recognized and respected?

The former president is spending much of his current time working on a book about his White House years. It might help him put his actions and inactions in a better perspective if he spent more time asking questions of the people who are most impacted by government action rather than those who survive no matter what.

Nothing could be more helpful to the Democratic Party and the nation than a freshly energized Barack Obama who combined his experience and wisdom with the dream and hopes that remain with his constituency. The fund-raisers deepen the coffers of fat-cats. If they mope because he doesn’t pander to them, so be it. What is needed is to get grass-roots voters out of their funk and into action.

The post Obama’s “tough love” sounds very tone deaf appeared first on Occasional Planet.