The Formula for Democratic Victories

The ground shook Tuesday in Washington, thanks to an election that was hundreds of miles away. Republican Roy Moore lost the Senate race in Alabama, in an absolute shock to our political system. The truth is that a Democrat should almost never be able to win in Alabama, but this was the exception. Roy Moore was accused of pedophilia, and that was enough to drive him to defeat, even in Alabama.

Do not kid yourself- this was as close as it gets. Democrat Doug Jones was elected to the U.S. Senate by under 21,000 votes (at last look), despite the horrible accusations against Moore. Moore was a weak candidate by Alabama standards, a former judge who won his last race for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court by a 52–48% margin, which had been the closest statewide race Alabama had seen in over a decade before this one. Even so, the horrible accusations against Roy Moore were only enough to pull him down by 4% from his last race. That’s a flip of one of every twenty-five people.

Even so, Democrats should take heart in a lot of things that came out of Doug Jones’ victory. Jones, and his coalition, were the perfect ideal for Democratic victories. Three things in specific happened to achieve this victory. The first, and biggest piece of why Jones won, was an increased African-American turnout. African-Americans, especially African-American women, are the base of the Democratic Party, and they came through huge, again. Second, just enough of the suburban, college educated white population came to the Democratic side. No one is confusing the college-educated white vote in Alabama for liberal and suddenly becoming a bunch of socialists, but Trump’s fall from 71% in the 2016 Election to just below 50% in exit polls in Alabama on Tuesday suggests that these folks moving away just enough for Democrats to win in 2018. Third, Democrats effectively made the argument to down-scale white voters, particularly non-college educated voters, that Roy Moore did not represent them well, and they showed up at a lower level than they did in 2016. There is no doubt that a completely reprehensible pig like Roy Moore played a huge part in all three of these things happening. Jones deserves some credit though. African-American voters viewed him as credible for his record on Civil Rights, while the white college educated voters around Tuscaloosa, Auburn, and in suburban areas of the state gave him a much better showing than Hillary Clinton got in the state last year.

Democratic statewide tickets this year were balanced both demographically and ideologically. Phil Murphy and Sheila Oliver in New Jersey are both solidly progressives, and yet solidly members of the state’s establishment- Murphy was President Obama’s Ambassador to Germany and Oliver was the former Speaker of the Assembly. Ralph Northam, Justin Fairfax, and Mark Herring all took solidly liberal positions on climate change, the minimum wage, and marriage equality, but had establishment chops that gave them credibility- Northam as Lieutenant Governor, Fairfax in President Obama’s DOJ, and Herring as the sitting Attorney General. Doug Jones was understandably more moderate on a number of issues to run in Alabama, but his time as a U.S. Attorney ended up being the strongest selling point to the Democratic base. This year’s statewide candidates ran as solid Democrats for their states, but they also didn’t run as wild-eyed outsiders.

Democrats need to take the right lessons out of these elections. Americans are not ready to embrace us fighting a new revolution, but they are ready for us to represent the states and districts we are running in, and to lead based on our values and convictions. If we can continue to sell this version of the Democratic Party, and embrace the political values of our actual base, 2018 will be a very good year for Democrats.

The Moving Moral Lines of Big Tobacco's Favorite Senator

I was a teenager when the Starr Report came out, detailing Bill Clinton’s sexual activity in the Oval Office and beyond, and I must admit that like many people my age, I figured out a way to sneak and read it. I fully understood that Bill Clinton, a man older than my father, had an affair with a woman barely older than me, in the White House. I got why people didn’t approve of it, and also why people didn’t want him removed from office at that time. I have to admit that it took me several years to fully process all of it, but even in 1998, I basically got it.

I can imagine that UCLA Law Grad and Philip Morris Counsel Kirsten Gillibrand had a more sophisticated understanding of the issue than I did at the time. Ivy League educated, no one can say she isn’t smart- she is. She was about 30 at that time, so she was certainly old enough to understand the content of the report. She was old enough to defend “big tobacco” at a time when the government was accusing it of spending decades trying to sell it’s product to children, and old enough to make a rational choice- defending this somewhat “dirty” client allowed her to make a great living, and as she defended it, do pro bono work for abused women and tenants seeking safe housing after being exposed to dangerous lead paint. No one can accuse Kirsten Gillibrand of being naive, stupid, or uninformed.

It goes without saying then that I assume Kirsten Gillibrand fully understood the morality of Bill Clinton when she took a job as the Special Counsel to then-HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo for the final year of the Clinton Administration. Gillibrand clearly comprehended the behavior of President Clinton, and happily took a job in his Administration. I can’t fault her a bit for that.

When Gillibrand left the Clinton Administration, she needed to make more money. She took a job at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, who represented Philip Morris’ parent company. One can presume she used her considerable connections at that point to get into the well-connected law firm. Obviously she had her Philip Morris days, and she had been a donor to Hillary Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign in 2000- to the tune of $12,000. I bet some phone calls were made on her behalf. Again, I can’t blame her a bit.

Gillibrand wanted to run for public office though, and in 2005 she launched a bid for Congress in the Hudson Valley. Bill Clinton came and campaigned for her twice. Hillary Clinton was a big influence on talking her into the race. I presume that she had not yet forgotten the details of the accusations against President Clinton. She took their help all the way to her 2006 Congressional victory, again in her 2008 victory, and in the process of receiving the Senate appointment to replace Hillary Clinton in 2009. The Clintons were there every step of the way for Gillibrand, and to her credit, she was a supporter of Hillary for President in both 2008 and 2016. No one can blame her for taking the help and support from such a prominent Democratic family in her home state. That’s just smart politics. 

Of course, this is where the story gets messy, and Gillibrand is proven to be as craven and opportunistic as any politician we have seen. Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, and the stock of the Clintons is pretty far down right now. One might argue that a popular Senator like Gillibrand might have more actual political power and pull right now than the Clintons after a bruising defeat in the 2016 Presidential Election, especially with the rise of the “Me Too” movement against sex crimes- something she was fighting about for years. One might also guess that Gillibrand could have some compassion for her former mentors, and not want to pile on them with everyone else, now that they aren’t as useful to her. That’s not the case though.

Now again, no one can claim Kirsten Gillibrand did not know the details of the accusations made against Bill Clinton. She knew when she worked for his Administration, and when she took the aide of the Clintons on her campaigns. Of course she still knew when she said Bill Clinton should have stepped down over the Lewinsky affair last month. None of the facts have changed during the 20 years that have passed since the affair ended in 1997. Gillibrand did not suddenly find the importance of protecting victims of sexual assault- it’s been a leading cause of her career. Presumably though for Gillibrand, she has simply changed her mind on President Clinton since she took a job in his Administration in 2000, or had him come campaign for her in 2006, or campaigned for his wife in 2016. People do change their mind. They usually do so for a reason though- changing facts, for instance- not just because they change their mind, especially on a subject they have always been outspoken though. Her behavior is particularly interesting on this subject, to say the least.

It can be pretty hard to criticize Gillibrand for her calls for Al Franken to resign too. Franken has apologized and admitted wrong-doing, which would seem to make things rather simple. Gillibrand returned the campaign contributions she took from the previously popular Franken right after the accusations against him came out. Gillibrand then became the first Senator to call on Franken to resign. One might say she changed her mind on Franken too, particularly in the several weeks between the first accusation that came out, and her decision to call for his head.

Indeed, Gillibrand seems to change her mind a lot. She worked for Philip Morris, presumably with at least her own tacit approval, but then liked to talk about how she voted against “big tobacco” every time in the U.S. Congress. She was pro-gun when she ran in the Upstate of New York, but now is a champion of gun sense legislation, while still being a member of the “Sportsmen’s Caucus” in the Congress. She was fine with Bill Clinton, until he wasn’t helpful anymore, and she wasn’t fine with him. She was fine with Al Franken’s donations, until she wasn’t fine with him anymore. Gillibrand, like any skilled politician, seems to figure out how the winds are blowing, politically, and move with them. One really shouldn’t fault her for that any more than the other 99 members of the Senate. One also shouldn’t buy her line of bullcrap about morality and doing the right thing though either. Gillibrand went after both Bill Clinton and Al Franken in the past month because she could get positive coverage for doing so, and both are considerably weakened. That’s not exactly some profile in courage.

I could take Kirsten Gillibrand’s moral leadership seriously if it wasn’t so transparently political- I think we all know that most of these types of crusades are political, but at least they don’t seem so nakedly opportunistic, usually. She’s not the first, she certainly won’t be the last, but can we at least stop pretending there’s honor in her current actions? Just over a year ago, in writing about why she supported Hillary Clinton, Gillibrand wrote:

“It was just a few years later that my husband Jonathan and I moved back to the Albany area, where I grew up, to prepare for my own run for office. I was lucky enough to receive guidance and mentorship from Hillary during that run, and was truly honored that President Bill Clinton campaigned for me in my first run for Congress in 2006.”

I get it, that’s supporting Hillary, not Bill. All I want to know from Senator Gillibrand is this though: is she still truly honored that President Bill Clinton, who she apparently feels disgraced the White House enough that he should have resigned, campaigned for her in her first run for Congress in 2006?

I would love to hear the verbal gymnastics she’d engage in to spin that one now.

John Lennon

On this night, 36 years ago, John Lennon was pronounced dead to the world, during a Monday Night Football game. He was shot in the arch of the Dakota, along Central Park by Mark David Chapman. Chapman’s motive has been said to be “wanting to be somebody,” “Catcher in the Rye,” and insanity- and it’s possible all of the above are true.

I’m not a huge Beatles fan, I’m more of a Rolling Stones guy. I’m a John Lennon fan though. I find his solo music to have more of an edge than most of his work with the Beatles, and I just tend to like him more on his own. Like most of his fans, I love “Imagine,” but if I were really pinpointing my favorite Lennon works, I’d probably go with “God,” “Merry Christmas,” and “Instant Karma,” while probably adding “Revolution” from his Beatles days. I find his lyrics to be at least as powerful as his music, and a big reason for why I’m a fan.

There is a John Lennon song for just about all of my political values, the only such artist I could say that to. “Imagine” would define my early political beliefs and thoughts, when I became politicized by my opposition to the Iraq War. “God” would define his, and my, rejection of -isms and dogma, a great rejection of the ideologies of the 20th century. “Revolution” would define my disdain for false revolutionaries and people who want to be fake radicals. Lennon seems to have a song to speak to each of my thoughts.

The John Lennon I came to find was an acquired taste. My parents are big Lennon fans, but unlike their love of the Stones, I didn’t inherit it naturally. I didn’t really listen to the Beatles or Lennon as a kid, and only really got into Lennon’s work when I was in high school. In college I started reading about Lennon the man, and found him compelling. His message of peace was simple, yet compelling. I’d like to think I would be a supporter, but some days I don’t know. His activism put him in the cross-hairs of Richard Nixon and other “establishment” figures who found him dangerous. The break-up of the Beatles perplexed me. I wondered how anyone dealt with the constant attention he lived with for his entire adult life. His relationship to Yoko always seemed so much more complicated than most other relationships, at least when I was younger. Lennon just flat out fascinated me.

I’m now old enough to understand and analyze Lennon as a person, and the only conclusion I can come to is that I wish we had someone like him today. He was larger than life, and yet willing to engage his world for it’s betterment. He was a passionate activist, and yet far more realistic than most other passionate activists. He had downfalls and demons, and yet was able to be “good.” He was an actual person, and yet had the ability to do so much more than most of us.

I hope at some point in the coming days to go visit Strawberry Fields, one of my favorite places in the world. I’ll say a quiet prayer in his memory while I’m there.

No, Not Me, Not This Time

I’ve spent most of my adult life electing women to public office. I worked for Hillary, I worked for the first African-American Congresswoman in New Jersey history, the first Bosnian woman to serve in a state legislature, several female statewide judges, and many female state legislators. I don’t do so because of some deep desire to elect women- I do so because I generally do think women do a better job in public office for the values and issues that I care about. I think they bring a better life perspective and experiences to the table, and frankly I think they don’t worry about some of the idiotic political issues that men do as much (for example, having their gun to fight the government.). Women are way under represented in public office, and should at least be occupying enough offices to match their ration in society (women are a slight majority).

Yet, here I found myself yesterday arguing with many people I have called allies and friends- over Al Franken’s resignation. Despite the views of some, the argument isn’t over what Franken did, it is over what should have been done about it. Al Franken admitted wrong-doing, there is no argument there. Al Franken deserves to be punished for that, there is no argument there. I find myself incapable of supporting the actions of the twenty-some Democratic Senators who pushed Franken out though.

My chief issue with all of this was the rush to circumvent due process. Al Franken admitted some things, but not others. He was referred to the Senate Ethics Committee, the body that is supposed to deal with Senate behavioral issues. That body would be able to establish facts, and decide the appropriate punishment for what Franken actually did do. There are some who say this is a moral issue, and that due process should come secondary- those people obviously don’t believe in the U.S. Constitution. That line of thinking has been used in the past to justify all sorts of abuses of justice in this nation, particularly in the Jim Crow South. We’re better than this. We circumvented the Senate Ethics Committee here and had a trial by an angry lynch-mob. A year from now we’ll be disappointed in ourselves, I hope.

The secondary issue with this of course is the question of whether or not the punishment for Al Franken is appropriate- should he have been forced out of the Senate? No one is disputing whether or not he did wrong in the first place, but does he deserve essentially the same punishment as we are calling for on Roy Moore? How about Congressman Conyers, who sexually harassed an employee, creating a hostile work place setting for her, then settled using our tax dollars? How about Trent Franks, asking female staffers to have children with him, “the natural way?” Not all of these cases are the same, morally or legally. There is a real question whether Franken would even have been charged with a crime had his accusers went to the police, while I think any decent person agrees that Roy Moore belongs in jail. Again, Franken deserves punishment, and the Senate Ethics Committee would have many options for how to publicly admonish the Senator after reviewing the facts, everything from written rebuke up to expulsion. Democrats should have lived up to our values- that every offense deserves a fair hearing- and let the process play out.

What will Democrats get for this whole display? A cookie? A medal? Oh, no wait, the moral high ground. You know, “they go low, we go high,” as Michelle Obama told us in 2016. The problem with that is that there is no moral high ground in politics, the vast majority of America doesn’t really love any party. The other problem with that, of course, is that we followed Michelle’s advise in 2016, and we lost to Donald Trump. For their efforts, the Democratic Party will get to defend not one, but two Senate seats in Minnesota in 2018, a state that really isn’t all that blue. Hillary won the state by 44,000 votes in 2016. The state legislature is narrowly divided. Franken’s predecessor was Republican, and Franken won by a margin so narrow that he wasn’t seated for months because of litigation and re-counts. If this state is “safely blue,” I’m not sure how. Democrats will have to spend millions of dollars on this defense that they asked for themselves, millions of dollars that will not go to races in Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and Tennessee- three difficult states where we need three pick-ups to win the U.S. Senate back and stop Trump from appointing dozens more of Federal Judges, or passing horrible tax bills, or selling off our public land (just to name this week’s offenses). Strategy should not be the only factor in making a decision such as the Franken one, but it should not be a forgotten one. The chances of Democrats winning back the Senate may have just went from slim to none with this decision. Meanwhile, the GOP will seat Roy Moore after his victory on Tuesday, and not lose an hour’s sleep because of it. You might say “I don’t want to be like them,” but that’s cold comfort to the sick child who just lost his health insurance under CHIP, or the graduate student facing a tax increase, or the DREAMer who is going to be deported by Donald Trump. Democrats could benefit from being a bit more cut-throat, for the sake of their constituents.

I get it- Al Franken did bad stuff, he made himself politically inconvenient. Some certain Senators who I won’t name here gained national exposure and look like a real “warrior for the cause” by being out in front of the microphone burying Al Franken, kind of like they did in burying Bill Clinton recently. Capitol Hill runs on the “herd mentality,” and once the calls for Franken’s resignation began, there was no going back. It was easier to just get him off stage, so Democrats could avoid hypocrisy charges when they start attacking Senate Republicans for seating Roy Moore next week, which they think is a winning strategy for 2018 (I am not sold on that). So, of course Al Franken had to go.

I think many Democrats hope that pushing Franken out the door will force Republicans to take a long, hard look at Donald Trump, Clarence Thomas, and Roy Moore- but it won’t. Republicans will throw the politically expedient ones to the wolves too, the Trent Franks types, but that will be the end of it. Perhaps that’s good enough for you, and if it is, have a great day. I’m very uncomfortable with the precedent, the morality, and the politics here though, and for that reason, I have to say that throwing Al Franken out of the Senate was a very bad thing- for the Democrats.

The Donald Trump Legacy Project

We need more tax brackets, not less. Someone making $1 million a year pays the same rate as someone paying $250,000- or a small business that is somewhere in between. Nevertheless, the worst experiment in modern state government history- Kansas horrible tax cut plan- is becoming very close to national policy. We’ve seen how terrible it went in Kansas, and of course Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell are about to make it happen for the rest of us. In their simpleton world where tax cuts for the rich and corporations will cause job creation, they argue that just giving more money to rich people will cause them to hire more employees- it will not. The CEOs who were asked all say the same thing- this will be passed on to shareholders and themselves, not to hiring more workers to make a product for whom demand will not rise. Even so, the Republicans will also take an ax to the inheritance tax- ending it for people who have money like Donald Trump. They’ll lower corporate tax rates- which would be a great idea, if anyone actually paid the real corporate tax rate, not the effective one. Worse yet, they’re raising taxes on the poor and middle class- those that could increase demand. The tax bill raises the debt by more than $1 trillion, after years of hearing about how bad deficits are from Republicans. Finally, the bill does not pay for itself- even under the Republican-backed “dynamic scoring” that takes into account their fairy tale beliefs about the effects of tax cuts. The bill is terrible. The bill is a giant giveaway of money for the rich, that leaves us with a huge deficit.

But that’s not the bad part.

The bill will kill the individual mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act, removing any requirement to insure yourself that was created under Obamacare. This change will cause a sizable portion of those insured under the program to drop their coverage. This will throw uncertainty into the insurance market, and cause insurers to raise rates. These rate increases will make health insurance too expensive for millions of those buying individual coverage, and cause millions of people to lose their health insurance. Some 13 million are estimated to lose their health care under this plan.

That’s not the worst part.

This tax bill will also make deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, under the cover of deficits, and harm millions of seniors, children, and the poor. Next year alone, Medicare would face a $25 billion cut, and that would continue- automatically- as long as there are deficits in excess of the allowed $1.5 trillion in the next decade. They would be automatic, and no one would even have to raise a finger to do them. The largest beneficiary of these programs are seniors, people who aren’t really in the workforce anymore. 

Now we’re getting to the bad part.

Under the guise of reigning in deficits, this bill will probably have automatic cuts triggered, beyond what already exists, to off-set revenue losses from the tax cut. What that means is pretty straight forward- yes, the tax cut will be unevenly distributed to the rich; yes, the tax cut will grow the deficit anyway. Yes, the tax cut bill will cause 13 million less people to have health insurance; Yes, the bill will cause cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, hurting seniors, children, and the poor; And yes, the bill will hamper the government’s ability to do anything. The Republican Congress and Donald Trump will reward their rich cronies, gut the government’s role in health care, slash what services the government can provide, and ultimately deny the revenue to future governments to do anything more. The long-term implications are more for the have’s and less for the have not’s. 

This is in line with what Donald Trump has done in his first year. 

While we have all derided his incompetency and lack of understanding of his job, his government has done lots of lasting damage. Net neutrality will soon die, changing the face of the internet forever, thanks to his appointment of Ajit Pai and a conservative FCC. He is packing the courts with very young, very inexperienced, very conservative judges, who will have lifetime appointments to the bench. He is not filling key positions in the State Department, and other departments, crippling their effectiveness and changing how they run. His conservative allies are consolidating the television, newspaper, and radio markets under fewer and fewer (conservative) owners. He’s shedding national park land and opening up more of our wild lands to drilling and other environmentally unfriendly things. He’s pulling out of things like the Paris Climate Agreement, which both hampers the human race’s ability to fight climate change, and kills our credibility abroad to work with our allies. He’s putting a Fed Chief in Janet Yellen’s place who will be far more friendly to his views on the economy. 

In short, Trump is doing his damage specifically in ways that will take years (if ever) to get out of the holes he is causing. Even if he were impeached tomorrow and replaced by a competent, progressive President (not possible), they wouldn’t even be able to start in on a progressive agenda for the country- they’d have to clean up the mess first.

Laugh as we may- the Trump legacy project is full-speed ahead.

Why Roy Moore Will Probably Win

The Alabama Senate race is the hottest political story in the country right now. Roy Moore was a lightning-rod of a candidate even before the accusations of child molestation became public, and is even more so now. He was twice removed from the Alabama Supreme Court for refusing to follow the law, as handed down from the Federal judiciary. He won his last race, in dark-red Alabama, 52-48%. His opponent, Doug Jones, is a former federal prosecutor who prosecuted the KKK for church bombings. The race is very compelling.

The race is very, very close. RCP shows Jones up by .8%. Huffington Post shows new polls putting Moore back ahead. It's clear that this isn't a normal Republican runaway in Alabama. It is likely to be more like Moore's tight 2012 win for Supreme Court. But- is he really going to lose?

The first thing you need to consider is the demographics. You should expect the African-American share of the Alabama electorate to at least hit 20%. Democrats want that number to be more in the 25-30% range. They also want Doug Jones to get at least 90% of that vote. Let's give them best case- Jones gets 90% of 30%- or 27% of the votes.

If Jones gets that, he will still need a chunk of white votes. He would need a bit more than 33% of the remaining 70% in this scenario. Barack Obama got 15% in 2012. Now, Jones is white, there is a Trump backlash, and his profile as a federal prosecutor isn't bad for this state- but is he going to more than double the Obama vote in Alabama? He was appointed by a Democratic President (Bill Clinton) and he is pro-choice- both of which should hurt him with Alabama white voters. It is possible that he will get just enough votes to win. It's not likely though.

To be clear, the accusations of child rape against Roy Moore have been public for several weeks now- everyone has heard them. Everyone in Alabama who might vote has heard the accusations now, and has had time to digest them. They clearly hurt Roy Moore's standing. He was solidly ahead before- the race is a coin-flip in the polls now. People are saying they are not voting for him now, but they are not saying they are voting for Jones either- at least not enough. Jones is not polling at 50% with any consistency, let alone on the average. If this seems familiar, it's essentially exactly where Hillary Clinton was after the "Access Hollywood" tapes in 2016- some people won't say they are voting for the disgraced Republican, but they haven't switched sides either.

Jones is essentially averaging 47% in the polls. Moore's 2012 opponent got 48%. It appears, from a distance admittedly, that the child rape accusations against Moore have consolidated all of the anti-Moore vote under Jones. If Jones is going to win, this means he will need something different to push him across the line. The accusations currently leveled against Moore aren't going to push Jones up to 50% on their own.

This doesn't mean Moore has won- in fact, there's still a huge variable in this equation called turnout. Could Moore's brand of crazy, combined with the disgrace he is causing the state, and combined with some anti-Trump feeling, push down Republican turnout? Yes it could. Again though, we are working off the best case scenario for Democrats above, African-American turnout surging to 30% of the total electorate- that is not a given. In fact, there are reports that Jones is having trouble motivating African-Americans. If that is the case, he can't win, period. African-American turnout at 20% would mean he has to get 40% of the white vote in Alabama to win this election. I'm sorry, that won't happen. Jones has to win the turnout battle to win this election, under any scenario, even if we are assuming Moore is being hurt already by the accusations against him.

This shocks a lot of people- how can this monster win? If he does, it will force us to confront a lot of ugly truths about the electorate. That's for a different article though. What I think we have to understand now is that a large segment of the population isn't moved by scandals in the press anymore, at least if those scandals are about their own party. Perhaps this is because of organized efforts to discredit the media, perhaps it's about just pure tribalism. I don't know. The reality is that it's more likely than not that Roy Moore will once again defy the media and play the victim card to victory.

A Story About a Committed Local Democrat, and an Operation That Insured Wins

Things were honestly a mess. There was lots of infighting, of which I was somewhat guilty too. We were at a local Democratic Executive Board meeting in Allentown, and Murat Guzel made a pronouncement- his priority, moving forward, was victory in both County Executive races, and the Allentown Mayoral race. The next day he summoned those of us involved to his office and put together a plan to coordinate our ticket, across county lines, at all levels of the ballot, to turn out our vote and win. He didn't just put resources behind it- he actually got out on the ground and knocked doors with the candidates and checked in on his work. He hired myself and Celeste Dee (of Advantage PEP) to do the management, and Josh Siegel (former Allentown Mayoral candidate) to be the field director. The order was to work with the whole ticket, to make sure any candidate that wanted to be a part of the effort was.

In Lehigh County, the main issue was coordinating across different level races, and getting out a county wide mailer to go with all of the district and local level ones. In Northampton County, it was literally just to cobble together a ground effort to turn out the voters we needed. Everything from running canvasses across several organizations, on down to making sure yard signs got out on the roads was a part of the task. Were there fights? Yes. Were there turf wars? Yes. Were there hard feelings? That goes without saying. The job got done though. The resources were there, pooled together from all levels of the ticket, and we mostly were able to silo off parts of the turnout operation to those best equipped to do it.

People can pontificate and grumble about who and what they didn't like, but let's look at the end results- a historic margin and turnout in Northampton County for Lamont McClure and the four council candidates entering with him, a shocking 5% win for Phil Armstrong in Lehigh County, and victories in townships like North Whitehall, Lower Saucon, South Whitehall, Palmer, Bethlehem Township, Upper Milford, and even Bangor. Winning is good, and while we certainly had a more favorable condition on the ground this year than last year, catching that wave and winning some of the tight races in these municipalities and counties takes organization.

Murat's model is one that should be copied and replicated in other places- it was inclusive and not restrictive to any of the partners involved. You could very equally apply credit to local Democratic Party clubs and candidates for what we did, to progressive groups and labor unions alike. Everybody played a part, and the labor was split up reasonably to make sure everyone could get it done. Republican strongholds were falling because Democrats were organized and did useful stuff. It was a well put together plan.

Everyone should thank him when you see him. We need to start thinking this way in the long term.

Our Broken State Government, and How to Fix It

I don't always watch WFMZ news, but I try to. Local news has a way of keeping political views grounded in reality (it's why I try to read the local paper, too). Tonight was one of those stories though that reminded me of how bad Harrisburg is right now, and how bad we need reform out of there.

East Stroudsburg University, a state higher-ed system school, is something around $5 million in the red for the next year (I didn't write down the exact number). That's terrible, but it's something you trust administrators to fix. What's beyond their control is the part they gave very little screen time to- the drop in state-share funding. At it's height, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania funded ESU at 75%. Today they fund ESU at 20%. This is a trend out of Harrisburg. Whether it's public education, infrastructure spending, the pension system, or anything else, the trend has been to drop the state's share of the funding over the years, because our tax system is too much of a mess to fix. We're failing to fund core government functions that they are supposed to be doing out there- and the legislature has coincidentally been largely Republican from 1994 through today.

What should they do? Constitutional reform to allow a progressive income tax, and therefore giving them a chance to create a system that does away with property taxes, but still funds our schools. In the meantime, they have lots of things they can do. End the Delaware Loophole. Create an extraction tax on natural gas that puts Pennsylvania on equal taxation footing with liberal hotbeds like Texas and Alaska. Legalize Marijuana and tax it. Consolidate the state and local governments and create savings through the a more efficient system. All of these are possible, but don't happen because of a lack of political will.

Harrisburg, do your job. We're watching.

The GOP Loses it's Damn Mind

If this is what winning looks like, sign up for losing. Following an eight year period that famously featured over 1,000 Republican pick-ups across every level of government, we are seeing what the end result is- a tax scam, Roy Moore, Jeff Sessions, and the Russian investigation. Perhaps winning contributes to mental disorders?

The tax bill is one of the more awful and grotesque pieces of legislation in a long time. In the name of cutting corporate taxes and lowering the upper level tax brackets, the GOP is willing to raise taxes on the poor and middle class, especially for people who live in high tax states- by eliminating the state and local tax credit. For millions of Americans, this is not tax reform, but a tax increase. The bill is so bad that they re-wrote the budget bill for 2018 to allow for $1.5 trillion in deficits- all caused by the tax bill. This bill was a failure by any measure, but yesterday they made it worse- now they are going to take away health insurance from 13 million people by eliminating the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act. The chaos that they will introduce into the health care market from this action will cause insurers to spike rates and make health care unaffordable for millions- including many not on "Obamacare" plans.

But if the tax bill is a joke, Roy Moore is a tragedy- he is the next logical step in the GOP's devolution after Trump. Here is a man who rejects modernity in all forms, in favor of Christian fundamentalist law and a return to a past that never actually existed- but that's not the worst thing about him. As a 30-something year old man, Moore was being banned from malls for pursuing teenage girls. His colleagues said it was "common knowledge" that he dated high school girls. Several accusers have come forward to accuse him of sexual assaults. To the credit of most of the national GOP leadership, they have called on him to just go away now- but that is not the unanimous Republican position. Breitbart has reporters down in Alabama trying to "discredit" the accusers. The Alabama GOP is defiantly threatening to bar anyone from the ballot who challenges Moore. Steve Bannon is sticking with his man. Over a third of Alabama voters are saying this scandal makes them more likely to vote for this man- I assume because he's the victim of "outsiders" trying to smear him, like the media, who "always lie." Even now, the GOP is trying to figure out a way around this man that their voters picked, rather than simply letting the public have their vote on December 5th. I guess accountability isn't a thing here.

Then there is Jeff Sessions, the sitting Attorney General of the United States, who put on a performance yesterday in a Congressional hearing that made it look like he needs mental help. He "can't recall" much of anything. Even though some of his answers to questions about the Russia probe have changed, he swears he's telling the truth- every time. He "doesn't remember" meetings with now convicted senior aides to the Trump campaign, aides that he seems to have had actual relationships to. He admitted under oath to not having a single African-American on his senior staff at the Department of Justice, and having just one African-American as a U.S. Attorney- anywhere in the country. It was a performance fit for an idiot- not an Attorney General.

Now we learn that Donald Trump Jr. was working with Wikileaks in the Fall of 2016. Putting aside everything else, a Presidential campaign was working with hackers- something that seems a little unsettling on the surface. When we realize that Wikileaks is perfectly happy to work with Russia (and that our intelligence agencies had said so weeks earlier), this becomes completely horrifying. It is increasingly clear that members of the Trump team worked with Russia to alter our election. There is a conviction, a rather large investigation by a special prosecutor, and ongoing questioning of his senior aides. The President of the United States remains under the cloud of allegations of Russian support a full year after his election. It seems like a spy novel.

This is what "winning" looks like for the Republican Party. I'm thinking the public may be tired of winning now.

Transitioning....

I was named today to Northampton County Executive-Elect Lamont McClure's Transition team. McClure won a historic victory over incumbent John Brown last Tuesday, capturing an eight point with record turnout. My official title with the Transition is Executive Director, which is mostly a staff role. I'm quite excited to take the role, and I hope to play a part in setting up an even better Northampton County Government. Given the literal centuries of government experience of the members of the transition, comparative to my two years as a Township Auditor and years of campaign experience, I hope and expect to learn a lot from these experienced statesmen. I hope to provide some positive ideas for the people as well.

"But We Changed Politics".... No, You Didn't

One of the wrong lessons that is going to be learned from this year's elections is that we somehow changed American politics- we did not. Democrats had a good election, and won a lot of seats back in local and state governments that they had been losing for the past eight or so years, but Democrats did not change politics. That can be really confusing and upsetting for people, particularly after the tumult of the past year- how can the existence of large scale marches and protests against the President, pre-dating an electoral victory for the opposition party, not mark a massive political change? How can you claim that the victory is not a result of all the new stuff that happened?

I'm going to stick locally here again for this article, to make a point that this was more of a solid shift than a political earthquake. I'll start with Lehigh County, where 46,831 people voted for County Executive. In 2013, 45,275 people voted for County Executive. Tom Muller got 23,413 votes, good for 51.71% of the vote on his way to victory. Phil Armstrong got 24,675 votes, good for 52.69% of the vote. Yes, turnout went up a little under 1,600 votes, and Phil got a little more than 1,200 more votes than Tom did. It's also true that Brad Osborne got more votes than Scott Ott though too. What Democrats did very well was they motivated a few more voters to turn out than they did a year ago- but not in such massive, ground-breaking numbers that we start talking differently about American politics. Call it a nice, healthy bump. Don't give it too much more credit than that.

Of course, there are some claiming that I am wrong. They say that my analysis of what happened on Tuesday was "not an inclusive list." I am talking about a certain new County Commissioner, one who ran a very different campaign than Armstrong, and to her credit, made history on Tuesday night. She ran a very grassroots driven campaign, and had lots and lots of events. She did not coordinate mailers with the rest of the ticket, and instead did her own, and largely ran her own Get-Out-The-Vote that mostly ignored the top of the ticket. She did a fine job, and deserves to be happy with her campaign, but did she break some new ground? No. She got 15 more votes than Phil in her district. That is, of course, a negligible difference. She got 108 more votes than the previous holder of that district seat, who ran un-opposed and without a major mayoral race four years ago. I guess it would be fair to say that she did a fine job, but we didn't wake up in a whole new world on Wednesday in that County Commissioner District. Perhaps for all the differences in tactics and message, the reality is that Democratic performance was virtually identical.

Let's move over to Northampton County for a moment, a place that Donald Trump won in 2016, but Democrats dominated in 2017. Did the world change here? Well, numbers definitely improved. A whopping 46,463 voters turned out in this election, compared to a paltry 39,029 votes in 2013. A difference of 7,434 is significant. John Callahan got 17,675 votes in that race, falling to Republican John Brown's 18,969 in that race. Lamont McClure rolled up 22,477, an increase of 4,802 over 2013. Brown saw an increase in his vote as well, getting 19,278, an increase of 309 votes. It would be fair to suggest turnout moved substantially in this race. This race was far more contentious than the 2013 race, and this time the candidates engaged each other in negative campaigning. This election also was held one year after Trump carried the county. Can we say that this is a "change" election?

It might be tempting to, but hang on. Turnout in 2015, the county's "mid-term" year was 41,288- a number that makes a little more sense than the 2013 numbers, comparable to 2017. Still though, the bounce seems to be a bit large- so what was different? A write-in race in Bethlehem, for one thing, probably helped turnout in both counties- especially when compared to the non-competitive general elections of 2013 and 2015 in the city. Turnout approached the 25% mark in much of Palmer Township, which had a very competitive election for Supervisor- something it did not have in 2013 or 2015. Turnout was very high throughout the Nazareth area, and the Democrats rolled in Nazareth and Upper Nazareth- precisely where Gracedale, and the entire ruckus about the prison was going on. Bethlehem Township had campaigns. Wilson, Bangor, Nazareth, and other boroughs have campaigns. Again here, there was a very animated campaign for Executive going on. These numbers are more reminiscent of the 2005 race, a year in which John Stoffa won 21,288 to 19,218- and also a year in which Democrats came out in force after a Presidential election loss. In other words, while this was a new high in turnout, we can find a similar election, and plenty of reasons for the high turnout.

None of this is to say that there were not some new methods that were tried this year that were good. None of this is to say that Democrats didn't do a really damn good job on turnout- we very clearly did. We do need to apply them to the future. What we cannot do though is start to think that the future is made for us looking forward to 2018. Senator Casey and Governor Wolf both ran virtually 50-50 in the 15th Congressional District. Nothing in these results suggests that Democrats can nominate someone crazy in that district and win next year, the ground did not change that much. Nothing in these results suggests Matt Cartwright can sleep through 2018, or that we're going to go pick up insane state house seats. It's going to be really, really hard.

I stand by my very inclusive initial analysis. We did a great job in 2017. We didn't alter the playing field for future generations though.

Why I'm Open to Uncle Joe in 2020

He's old. He's white. He's straight. He's a male. He didn't do well in 2008. He had issues in 1988. He wasn't nice to Hillary after 2016.

All of these are reasons being given for why we shouldn't back Joe Biden in 2020, and I've already dismissed every single one of them. I voted for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but I didn't vote for either one because of their race or gender. I voted for both because of their positions, and their qualifications, and the plans they were bringing forward for the country. While I liked Hillary enough to work for her twice, I have absolutely no issue with people who want to run in 2020 making a critique of her campaign in 2016, because she lost. If we're going to hold past losses against any potential candidates in 2020, don't we have to credit him for being on two national winning tickets too?

I like Joe Biden, and I could see him having a broader societal appeal, even if his appeal isn't as deep with some sectors of the Democratic Party. He's likable, he's a human being, and frankly that's something that has usually been lacking for Democrats over the past 30-40 years. He could and would campaign in Wisconsin, and in Wilkes-Barre, PA, and in Toledo, OH, and Dubuque, IA. A Democrat cannot win an election by just campaigning in the largest population centers of the states we want to put in play, and ignore the rest of the country. Joe Biden would not need an algorithm to know where to campaign, and if he had one, the answers would not send him in a loop from Cleveland to Philadelphia, to Charlotte, to Miami.

This isn't an endorsement of Joe Biden though. A man in his late 70's running for President isn't the optimal pick. His record has blotches- from his defense of credit card companies, to his performance on the Anita Hill hearing, to his reliable gaffes- there's plenty of reasons to not marry one's self to Joe quite yet. While I'm not bothered by his critique of Clinton and her campaign (politics is a rough sport, and her operation did work hard to box him out of 2016), I'd like to actually know what the grounds are by which he thinks he's better positioned right now. He says he's the only Democrat to beat Trump- why should we believe him?

I'm not on the Joe train right now. I'm also not trying to stand in front of it either. The most important factor in picking a 2020 nominee should be their ability to win the damn election. That may mean nominating someone who doesn't make you feel excited and happy inside. I will not vote for the most liberal candidate, just because they're the most liberal. I will not vote for any candidate, just for their historical value. I'm not in this to take part in social engineering, because I don't see any value in that. If you care about the people the Democrats represent- women, minorities, the poor, religious minorities, the LGBT community, generally those facing the stiffest odds in life- it's more important to elect a President who will stand up for them than to elect a President who fits a desired profile.

So it's on Joe to show me he'll fight for our base, and that he'll win.

Remembering the Slights, the Doubters, and the Haters

It was four or five years ago, on a cool (but not freezing) day, and I was standing outside, talking to a Mayor who I wanted to work on his campaign. He was in the process of telling me I would not be the Manager, or now the Field Director, and he sought to explain why:

"There are some people around here who don't get the impression you care enough, or put in the effort. Perhaps you just can't be a prophet in your own land."

That stung- a lot. I would later find out the "people" referenced above were a current legislative chief-of-staff, and an activist-turned-Wolf Administration member. This was where I was from, and here I was getting slapped down by these people. I had worked on Presidential, Senate, and Congressional campaigns. I had been the Field Director for the PA HDCC on a statewide level, the last one who won a majority (by the way), at the ripe old age of 25. I had this amazing resume, I had achievements, I had wins- but my political reputation in early 2013 was being defined by these people.

I'm glad it happened though. In 2014, I was elected to the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee from my native Northampton County. In 2017, I played a leading role in orchestrating a blowout in the Lehigh Valley, winning both County Executives and wiping out the Northampton County Republican Party just a year after they had carried the county for Trump. Compare that to four years ago, when they won the Executive race (with less votes) and ALL FIVE council seats. Oh, and the Judges I was doing work for? They won here.

Challenge answered.
******************************************************************************
Six years ago, I moved to Washington, DC to work for SEIU on the "Our DC" campaign. I was very excited when I went there, but quickly found myself hating it. It was October of 2011, and I got a call that I needed to come have lunch with my supervisor. I knew this was a bad thing, and kind of expected it. Many of us who were hired into the campaign were hired on six month contracts, and as the contracts drug on, things would get increasingly worse for us. I was less than a month from my sixth month, and my boss had been absolutely torturing me for at least two or three weeks. I had seen him bring others into have lunch for "reviews," and if they didn't get fired, they often times left in tears, completely beaten down from the abuse. I vowed to myself that this would not happen to me, ever. So I prepared myself.

About five minutes into the lunch, he started airing his grievances to me. Then he cut to the chase- I was not getting a permanent contract. In fact, I was being terminated. My response?

"Good."

It shocked him. He stuttered, and then he had me escorted to clean out my desk, and then escorted out of the building. I had lunch with an aligned co-worker next door, and then I left DC within hours. It was awful and embarrassing, and really did a number on my career for a little bit, but I was glad that I had at least stood up to the bully, in his Armani Exchange belts, who belittled his employees at a union for God's sake. There was a group of six of us who worked under this individual that went out a couple times a week together to commiserate, drink, and forget about our sorrows, and we had all discussed how we wanted to show up this jerk of a boss. He got the better of me by firing me, but I was proud that I didn't give this piece of human excrement any pleasure.

About a week ago, one of my former co-workers tagged me in a Facebook status, an article that was on the internet. That former boss, who had moved on to lead the "Fight for $15" campaign nationally, was forced to resign amidst allegations of harassment. His career at the union, and hopefully in the movement, is over. Meanwhile, SEIU was a top donor to my Lehigh County Executive candidate, who won.

Karma.
******************************************************************************
I could go on. Politics is a rough sport- people will try to put you down to build themselves up. These are just two recent examples in which I feel vindicated by the end result. More so than many others, I probably do remember past slights and wrongs. Whether it was the examples above, or being run out in a power struggle on some other campaign, I tip my cap and wait for life to give me a chance to prove someone else wrong. I wanted to take a chance to spike the football on these two, because frankly it's too damn easy, and I do like doing a touchdown dance.

On to 2018...

Why Democrats Won the Lehigh Valley, for Real

Well, it was one great night- probably the best night for Lehigh Valley Democrats since the 2005 County Executive sweep. Now that the dust has settled, we realize that Lamont McClure won a historic blowout of the incumbent County Executive, an eight point win. We now see that Phil Armstrong won a surprisingly easy 5% win against a better funded candidate who started with a substantial name recognition advantage. The wins didn't stop there though. Northampton County Council went from 7-2 Republican to 6-3 Democrat in one night. Democrats won races in Upper Milford, North Whitehall, Palmer, Bethlehem Township, South Whitehall, Bangor, Lower Saucon, and all sorts of other communities that Donald Trump won last year, some substantially. County wide Democrats regularly rolled up numbers in excess of 20,000 in Northampton County, let alone Lehigh County. Ellen Ceisler won both counties in her race for Commonwealth Court, while Maria McLaughlin rolled to a big win in Lehigh County and a strong second place in Northampton. Democrats even got surprisingly easy wins they didn't expect- like the victory of Allentown Mayor Ed Pawlowski for a fourth term. How?

I've read many theories of what happened, and why we won, and many of them are insightful. I was actually a part of the County Executive campaigns though, and later in coordinating Get-Out-The-Vote efforts in both counties, so I might have a few insights to add here. Here are a few thoughts on what actually happened and why we won.

1. In Northampton County, it's the suburbs, stupid. Palmer Township and Bethlehem Township are the Ohio and Florida of Northampton County- if you win them, you probably win the county. If you lose them? Have a nice day. Lamont McClure won the key areas, and John Brown had a chance. Unions, activists, and candidates alike did a lot of door knocking and calling into Palmer in particular. It paid off.
2. Taxes aren't popular, and we didn't embrace them. Look at the campaigns of both Armstrong and McClure, and look specifically at what they put on those walk pieces and mailers. Neither guy ever voted for a tax increase in office. Both told the public so. Both won. Obviously Democrats are the party of government solving problems, as opposed to doing nothing like the GOP wants, but Democrats cannot be the party of higher taxes and win here. It just won't sell. Fiscal responsibility, being good stewards of the public bill, matters a lot to these voters.
3. Ed Pawlowski embraced "identity politics" in government, and the campaign, and it saved him. Look where Pawlowski won in Allentown. Look where he lost. He won wards with high numbers of Syrians, African-Americans, and Latinos. He lost white wards. Non-white voters stuck by him, despite the indictments, because they believe his agenda and re-development of downtown has been good for them, and they want to see it continue. Had Pawlowski rejected identity politics, and not cultivated the relationships he has with these communities, he would have lost. Period.
4. Negative and Comparative ads work, if you have the money to drive them. Much was made in some "inside ball" circles about the difference in tone between the two County Executive races, and a lot of people in Northampton County were nervous at it. There was no reason to be. Lamont McClure was challenging an incumbent Executive, and he stuck his record to him. He did so repeatedly, in mailer after mailer, and in his TV ad. It worked- he won a commanding 8% win in a county that Donald Trump won in 2016. By comparison, Phil Armstrong never dropped a single negative campaign mailer or ad against Brad Osborne in Lehigh County, nor did Osborne in return. Armstrong won the open-seat race by a surprising 5%. Armstrong did not have the same size campaign war chest, and had he dropped one negative mailer, with no follow-up, it would have backfired. Open races are different than challenge races, and Osborne is a different candidate than Brown. The big key here was that McClure was able to drive a narrative of negative, so it worked. Armstrong had the resources to drive a narrative based on his own common sense record, and since his opponent never went negative at him, it also worked.
5. Women. Dr. Paige Van Wirt (sp?) got about 1,700 write-in votes in Bethlehem. Democratic women lead the way in the judicial races in both counties. Three women won brand new Council/Commissioner races in the two counties. Women did a lot of winning in the Lehigh Valley on Tuesday, because women voters came out and made their voices heard. If you're a male candidate for public office in 2018, my suggestion is that you talk to women- tell them why they should support you. If not, you'll lose.
6. Activism. If I had to pick two groups as MVP's of the election, I'd have to pick Lehigh Valley for All and the East Penn Democrats. These two clubs, both of which not officially the party, but mostly supportive of it, knocked on thousands of doors, staffed polls, and actively engaged up and down the ballot- maximizing the victories. As a manager, sometimes outside groups drive you nuts, because you can't really "control" them, but the work these groups did was critical.
7. Labor. Bodies on the street, financial contributions, sign distribution, and just advising the candidates- they did it all. The Lehigh Valley Labor Council, the Building Trades, and so many of their members took an active role in these campaigns. We would not have won without them, in fact we would have been crushed.
8. Turnout Matters, so does Persuasion. Now for the thing that many people aren't going to want to believe, but need to- Republicans got more votes than they did in 2013. John Brown received more votes in 2017 than he did in 2013, even though he lost this time. Brad Osborne received more votes than Scott Ott four years ago, and he still lost. I would not blow my entire campaign budget on field, for obvious reasons, but I don't think a Democrat can win in this area without some investment in turning out voters- in the right places. In neither county did we just go knock everywhere our hearts desired. We hit the communities we knew could swing either way for weeks. We hit the communities we knew we would win very hard at the end of the election. We won the swing voters, and we won the turnout battle. We won the elections too. Last year, the biggest mistake the Hillary Clinton campaign made was assuming the only thing that mattered was turning out our base vote. You can't win that way, I don't care what your algorithm tells you.
9. Coordination matters. DNC member and Lehigh County resident Murat Guzel pulled together a meeting, about a month before the election, and charged several of us with coordinating the Democratic ticket's "GOTV" efforts. It was a little bit like herding cats, but we managed to basically divide up the turf for each group in the coalition, and the efforts won us a lot of elections. Left all on our own, I don't believe we would have won as much as we did. 
10. Talk about things they care about. Both Democratic County Executive-Elects talked about open space, human services, and elder care- and they won. These are things that fit well within our Democratic values, and we made our case to the public and won. Here's the truth- Democrats shouldn't abandon our values, per se, but we should talk about the values we hold that are relevant to the people voting in the election. Green space is relevant to suburban voters, it's part of why they're there. Schools are relevant to suburban voters, it's part of why they're there. Retirement security and caring for our seniors is relevant to suburban voters, it's part of why they're there. We can and should hold our values dear, but we should also not get caught up in a one-size-fits-all trap, where we aren't addressing the relevant needs of voters in any given area. 
11. Run the tough races. Democrats beat four people who have been on Northampton County Council on Tuesday, and very nearly beat the fifth (we should have). We won races in places we lost substantially last year. Shoaib Chaudhary and Bob Elbich took on very well known, well liked individuals in Lehigh County District races, and while they didn't win, they improved Democratic performance in those areas, which greatly helped the rest of the ticket. If no one ran in Upper Milford, South Whitehall, or North Whitehall, we wouldn't have won those races. Same in Lower Saucon and Bangor. Run the tough races, people appreciate guts.

That's my take on what happened, and what we should learn from this. We did not run a perfect election this year, not by any stretch of the imagination. We should have hit Peg Ferraro for her Electoral College vote for Donald Trump, we may have swept Northampton County Council. If some Democrats wanted Ed Pawlowski out so badly, they should have talked to each other more, and not allowed such large fields to challenge him in both the primary and the general elections. The political tenor in Bethlehem right now is appalling on many levels, and needs to be addressed. The condition of the county parties could certainly use some addressing as well, even if that doesn't mean absolute overhaul. 

But hey, what do I know. 

What a Campaign Manager Actually Does...

For those of you who read me, you may have guessed that I run campaigns- and you guessed right. I am running several campaigns right now, and it's quite the job. One part of the job that is difficult is dealing with the "armchair quarterbacks" in the local party who have other ideas about what you should be doing. They want you to knock on every door, buy more yard signs, send more mail, put on fun events, and generally do the things they want you to do- which is a natural reaction from the outside looking in. Any manager worth their weight in pony loaf doesn't do those things though, and takes criticisms from the peanut gallery as a result. The manager is almost always right for not biting the apple, but rarely do we tell you why.

The point of elections is to get more votes, not build a party, "change the country," or any of the other things that many activists want to do. Your chief job as a manager is to marshal the available resources and choral them together in the stretch run. This means saying no a lot, and telling people to scale back their grand plans. It means knocking on the doors of people who are actually going to vote, not wasting precious volunteer hours chasing people who vote once every four years. It means not buying more yard signs, just because your opponent has more. It means sending mail to the voters you need to win over, not as many people as you humanly, possibly can. It means making sure your allies and running mates are on message, and not off talking about crazy things that are not a part of your campaign message. It means not getting involved in ballot initiatives that aren't a part of your campaign. It means being selective about what other campaigns you coordinate with, even if it hurts some feelings. In other words, you're not "Mr. Yes." That is not what this job is.

To be clear, this makes campaign staffers, especially managers, different from candidates, activists, and party leaders. You have different needs, different outcomes, and different goals. It means not worrying about always getting credit, because you know chasing credit isn't your job. It means not being everybody's friend all the time.

That's my entire response to what some newcomers to the process have had to say this week.

Trump is More Likely to be Re-Elected Than Have His Election Invalidated

Basically from November 9th of last year on, there has a been a feeling from some on the left that Donald Trump's Presidency is illegitimate, and is not likely to last four years. I can somewhat understand that, as I am fairly certain foul play was a part of his victory in 2016 too, but the outcome we seem to believe will happen, probably will not. In fact, the odds are better that Donald Trump is re-elected and serves eight years than that his election is somehow nullified.

Let me start this by saying what I actually believe will happen- I believe Trump will lose his re-election, losing Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona in 2020. That's the most likely outcome for a President who's approval has fallen into the low 30%'s in some polls- he'll lose all the states he won close in 2016. It's also possible that he'll win though, winning the states he won in 2016 again, and defeating the Democrats a second time. Now, I don't believe it, but hear me out here- the front-runners in any polls that include them right now are Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. I believe Trump would be highly likely to defeat Sanders, and would be a coin-flip to beat Hillary again. I think he'd be an underdog against Joe Biden, but not hopeless. In short, the Democrats haven't found their next generation superstar yet to bring the party back to the promised land. I'm fairly skeptical about a lot of the names out there too, at the moment. My guess is that the Democrats will find someone solid, or one of the current front-running names will move the needle a bit, but it's plausible that we mess this up and lose again.

I can tell you what will not happen though- Trump's election will not be nullified. That ship sailed when the Electoral College was counted and certified in a joint session of Congress. We have no mechanism by which to do this, so there's very little chance of it happening. If a crime was committed, and the President was removed by Congress, we would go into line of succession, which is terrible right now for Democrats- Pence, Ryan, Hatch, and Tillerson are the next four people in line right now. Congress is run by Republicans, and is highly unlikely to impeach Trump in the House, or remove him with a 67 vote majority in the Senate. It's highly unlikely that they will even have any articles or impeachment or charges from Bob Mueller with which to work before the 2018 mid-terms- special prosecutors take time. Besides, if you're a Democrat, you should want it to take time- a Democratic Speaker of the House could be in place in 2019, if you are removing Trump and Pence. The reality is that this will take a while, and may not come to fruition before the 2020 Election anyway.

In other words, don't get  your hopes up too much.

I Didn't Watch SNL, Despite Jay Z's Performance

For many, many years, Jay Z was my favorite rapper. Many a positive, and negative, personal time in my life was survived on his music. I went and saw him and Beyonce in the run of "first" shows at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn. Jay Z is my favorite rapper ever. Or he was at least. I can't even claim that anymore.

I did not watch Jay on Saturday Night Live's season premiere on Saturday. Why? Well, there's two reasons to be honest:

1. I just didn't love this new album he put out. "4:44" just wasn't my favorite Jay Z album. Gone is the guy from Marcy, and in his place is someone apologizing for being Jay Z. I get it: rappers out grow the persona they start out with. They have to, if they are successful. The evolution of Jay Z was inevitable, as was the complaints of cranks like myself.
2. I'm tired of the soap opera that is him, Beyonce, and her sister, and he brought it up on this album. The minute he "co-apologized" for Solange's physical attack on him in the elevator at the Met, I was just kind of not there as a fan anymore. There's no justification for it, regardless of what he did before hand. Then Beyonce had to put out an album about their marriage issues, followed up by this album of his, also addressing the situation. Enough already. Terrible as this is, if I were him, I would have sent divorce papers over the next day and filed charges on Solange, so there's that. I just lost respect for them both after that. 

So, I skipped watching the SNL season premiere, and his performance on Saturday night. I feel kind of weird about that, and I know a lot of folks probably would disagree with me about the situation. I just didn't find much interest here.

Stop Elevating These Clowns

A few months ago I found out who Caitlin Johnstone who was. I promptly blocked her on Twitter. Why? She's a clown. She was still crowing about how Hillary was as bad as Trump, and how Assad wasn't really that bad for the people of Syria. Someone who is this twisted and lost isn't someone I should put much time into. Besides, you're not going to move this person's opinion, so why waste time and intellectual capital on them?

One of the best things about being put on the Berner's "hit list" of "neoliberal shills" was that it brought all the crazies out into the open. Once I got over the "thrill" of arguing with these people, I realized the best thing to do was block them. Block them all. Don't engage them in long conversations. Just block. Some aren't even real people (they're bots), some are just looking to argue with you, and others yet are just convinced you're the devil anyway. You'll end up way down the rabbit hole, with hours gone from your life. They're not worth it.

Of course, Caitlin Johnstone and her ilk don't go away- why you ask? Because too many people do engage them, and social media runs on engagement. So every morning when I read my emails, I see her name and articles in my email from Medium suggesting things to read. Are they anything I want to read? No, unless the headline is so crazy that I want to read it for a laugh. Clearly people that read and interact with me also interact with her too though- so I get her headlines.

My request? Please stop engaging these people. I wish I could tell Medium to stop sending me this garbage, but since that's not plausible, I just need you to not waste your time. Please? Trust me, it'll be good for you too.