washingtonmonthly--2020-12-04--The Overwrought Opposition to Brian Deese

In a development as predictable as the sunrise , The Hill reports that congressional Republicans will greet President Biden by re-embracing their inner deficit hawks and focusing “ on curbing the nation ’ s debt and reforming entitlement programs starting in 2021.
” It ’ s a pattern established with Ronald Reagan—Republican administrations run massive deficits .
Then Republicans in Congress demand incoming Democratic administrations make unpopular cuts to solve the fiscal crises they ’ ve created .
Progressives don ’ t want to watch another episode , which is why they ’ re on the lookout for any Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other kinds of deficit hawkery in prior iterations of this drama .
Near the top of their list is Brian Deese , reportedly Biden ’ s selection for director of the National Economic Council , a 42-year-old with a resume that would make any parent proud .
He graduated from Middlebury College and Yale Law School .
He started as a Hillary Clinton supporter in the 2008 campaign cycle and when Barack Obama won the nomination , Deese moved over to his campaign .
He was so impressive that he was given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In a profile for the New York Times , Deese revealed that “ There was a time between Nov. 4 [ 2008 ] and mid-February [ 2009 ] when I was the only full-time member of the auto task force.
” In that role , he successfully negotiated the merger of Fiat and Chrysler .
From there , he just kept moving up .
He was appointed to the National Economic Council and promoted to deputy director working under Gene Sperling .
He took the deputy director role at the Office of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there as the interim director .
Obama made him Senior Advisor to the President for climate and energy issues , and he was instrumental in negotiating the Paris Climate Agreement .
In February 2016 , after the death of Antonin Scalia , Deese was put in charge of ushering his replacement through the Senate confirmation process which proved to be a fruitless task since Mitch McConnell blocked the ascension of Merrick Garland .
There ’ s something about Deese that inspires confidence which is why Obama gave him such disparate and vital roles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on issues like the economy and climate for which he had no formal training .
Why , then , is he on a hit list , as David Dayen of American Prospect describes it , of people progressives do not want to see serving on Biden ’ s economic team ?
It ’ s mainly because he was hired by the gigantic investment firm Blackrock to serve as their Global Head of Sustainable Investing , a job “ focused on identifying drivers of long-term return associated with environmental , social and governance issues.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s been under pressure to divest from industries that contribute to climate change .
And , while he ’ s been responsive to these concerns , ruling out investments in mining companies that generate 25 % or more of their revenues from coal , Blackrock remains heavily invested in fossil fuels .
It ’ s easy to identify areas where his record is being distorted .
He ’ s been criticized for defending Hillary Clinton ’ s proposal in 2007 to push Congress to adopt the Pay-As-You-Go rule .
At the time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expected to support the candidate ’ s position .
Beyond that , the PAYGO rule was adopted by Nancy Pelosi in 2019 after she began her second stint as Speaker of the House .
It forces Congress to identify cuts to match any new spending .
However inadvisable it may be , it ’ s currently a mainstream Democratic position that any increase in appropriations needs to be offset to make them deficit-neutral .
Deese has at times sounded like a deficit hawk .
Still , any veteran of the Obama economic team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2011 is probably guilty of advocating for some kind of austerity to meet the Republicans ’ halfway in their reckless push to force spending cuts .
Likewise , it seems unfair to blame Deese for supporting the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal , a major priority for the Obama administration which Biden and Hillary favored until they didn ’ t .
In retrospect , progressive complaints about the agreement seem overblown .
With China just completing the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership with 14 nations , it ’ s clear that America lost its chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pacific region and is still losing jobs .
This is precisely the result the TPP was intended to avoid .
The directorship of the National Economic Council is an important position , previously held by heavyweights like Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers , but it ’ s still just an advisory , broker position .
It ’ s understandable that progressives , anticipating another battle against austerity , would prefer to see a like-minded individual in the role , but the opposition to Deese is overwrought .
You ’ ve got liberals at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yellen will not be an austerity Treasury Secretary .
She favored the elaborate expansion of Fed power when Ben Bernanke was chair .
One thing everyone can agree on is that Deese is not an idiot and only an idiot would try to impose an austerity agenda on a president and administration that doesn ’ t want one .
Like Clinton and Obama before him , Biden trusts him to provide solid advice , and I think there are more productive areas for progressive pushback .

In a development as predictable as the sunrise, The Hill reports that congressional Republicans will greet President Biden by re-embracing their inner deficit hawks and focusing “on curbing the nation’s debt and reforming entitlement programs starting in 2021.” It’s a pattern established with Ronald Reagan—Republican administrations run massive deficits. Then Republicans in Congress demand incoming Democratic administrations make unpopular cuts to solve the fiscal crises they’ve created.
Progressives don’t want to watch another episode, which is why they’re on the lookout for any Biden appointments who may have advocated entitlement reform and other kinds of deficit hawkery in prior iterations of this drama.
Near the top of their list is Brian Deese, reportedly Biden’s selection for director of the National Economic Council, a 42-year-old with a resume that would make any parent proud.
He graduated from Middlebury College and Yale Law School. He started as a Hillary Clinton supporter in the 2008 campaign cycle and when Barack Obama won the nomination, Deese moved over to his campaign. He was so impressive that he was given responsibility for working on the auto bailout. In a profile for the New York Times, Deese revealed that “There was a time between Nov. 4 [2008] and mid-February [2009] when I was the only full-time member of the auto task force.” In that role, he successfully negotiated the merger of Fiat and Chrysler.
From there, he just kept moving up. He was appointed to the National Economic Council and promoted to deputy director working under Gene Sperling. He took the deputy director role at the Office of Management and Budget and even served briefly there as the interim director. Obama made him Senior Advisor to the President for climate and energy issues, and he was instrumental in negotiating the Paris Climate Agreement. In February 2016, after the death of Antonin Scalia, Deese was put in charge of ushering his replacement through the Senate confirmation process which proved to be a fruitless task since Mitch McConnell blocked the ascension of Merrick Garland.
There’s something about Deese that inspires confidence which is why Obama gave him such disparate and vital roles at such a young age, including on issues like the economy and climate for which he had no formal training.
Why, then, is he on a hit list, as David Dayen of American Prospect describes it, of people progressives do not want to see serving on Biden’s economic team?
It’s mainly because he was hired by the gigantic investment firm Blackrock to serve as their Global Head of Sustainable Investing, a job “focused on identifying drivers of long-term return associated with environmental, social and governance issues.”
In that position, he’s been under pressure to divest from industries that contribute to climate change. And, while he’s been responsive to these concerns, ruling out investments in mining companies that generate 25% or more of their revenues from coal, Blackrock remains heavily invested in fossil fuels.
It’s easy to identify areas where his record is being distorted. He’s been criticized for defending Hillary Clinton’s proposal in 2007 to push Congress to adopt the Pay-As-You-Go rule. At the time, he was a 29-year-old advisor who was expected to support the candidate’s position.
Beyond that, the PAYGO rule was adopted by Nancy Pelosi in 2019 after she began her second stint as Speaker of the House. It forces Congress to identify cuts to match any new spending. However inadvisable it may be, it’s currently a mainstream Democratic position that any increase in appropriations needs to be offset to make them deficit-neutral.
Deese has at times sounded like a deficit hawk. Still, any veteran of the Obama economic team who lived through the debt-ceiling crisis of 2011 is probably guilty of advocating for some kind of austerity to meet the Republicans’ halfway in their reckless push to force spending cuts.
Likewise, it seems unfair to blame Deese for supporting the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, a major priority for the Obama administration which Biden and Hillary favored until they didn’t. In retrospect, progressive complaints about the agreement seem overblown. With China just completing the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership with 14 nations, it’s clear that America lost its chance to be the economic leader in the Pacific region and is still losing jobs. This is precisely the result the TPP was intended to avoid.
The directorship of the National Economic Council is an important position, previously held by heavyweights like Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, but it’s still just an advisory, broker position. It’s understandable that progressives, anticipating another battle against austerity, would prefer to see a like-minded individual in the role, but the opposition to Deese is overwrought. You’ve got liberals at the Council of Economic Advisors. Janet Yellen will not be an austerity Treasury Secretary. She favored the elaborate expansion of Fed power when Ben Bernanke was chair. One thing everyone can agree on is that Deese is not an idiot and only an idiot would try to impose an austerity agenda on a president and administration that doesn’t want one. Like Clinton and Obama before him, Biden trusts him to provide solid advice, and I think there are more productive areas for progressive pushback.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-05--Democrats Should Tell the Hard, Partisan Truths About COVID Stimulus

Yesterday , House Majority Leader got in some hot water for her answers to questions about a potential lame duck COVID stimulus .
This quote was singled out in particular , in response to a question about why she is now willing to accept a smaller stimulus bill than before : It ’ s for a shorter period of time , but that ’ s okay now , because we have a new President – a President who recognizes that we need to depend on science to stop the virus , a President who understands that America ’ s working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pockets in a way that takes them into the future , without any of the contraptions of any of the other bills that the Administration was associating itself with before .
We feel very excited about the prospect that there ’ s a bipartisan bill .
Because I told Members , I am not bringing any more bills that are not bipartisan .
We wanted to show what needs to be done in the interest of negotiation .
They ’ re negotiating .
It ’ s a good product .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t get me wrong .
I don ’ t want the Republicans to think that this is a dream come true .
It is not .
But it is a path forward .
When asked if it was a mistake to reject a “ half-loaf ” stimulus prior to the election , she answered : Look , I ’ m going to tell you something .
Don ’ t characterize what we did before as a mistake as a preface to your question , if you want an answer .
That was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And it has taken us to a place where we can do the right thing without other , shall we say , considerations in the legislation that we don ’ t want .
No .
That was it .
Now , the fact is , I ’ m very proud of where we are .
My chairs – my chairs have worked very hard on all of this .
They were not even happy with our proposal that we made the other day before we saw this proposal .
They thought we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , right wing ( and some leftist ) media pounced on the quotes to say that Pelosi scuttled COVID stimulus in order to submarine Trump ’ s election chances .
That ’ s not entirely true .
But the tendency by many Democratic leaders to speak in layers of talking-point obfuscation and paint inadequate things as objectively good causes a host of problems here .
One of the things that allows Republicans to continue to hold power despite having incredibly unpopular policies is that you never doubt what they believe or what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and more partisan in their prevarications than Democrats are in their truth-telling , and as such voters tend to give them greater credit for moral clarity .
The reality is that Democrats tried to give the American people a real COVID stimulus before the election .
Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell , who both have a history of doing less than nothing to help regular Americans as opposed to wealthy executives , both had a strong incentive to uncharacteristically benefit their constituents in order to help Trump ’ s presidential chances .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use that leverage to try to force Trump and McConnell to do the right thing .
So in late September Democrats passed a $ 2.2 trillion stimulus bill .
Even that was too small and inadequate to the task .
But in a world where Republicans held a Senate and White House veto over decent policy , it was a best-case offer .
Trump blinked slightly and raised its offer to a $ 1.8 trillion package instead .
But the president ’ s plan had some fatal flaws : it didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tackle the virus .
It shortchanged a number of necessary programs .
And crucially , it lacked any support for state and local governments facing horrific budget crunches from the loss of sales tax and other revenues .
But Senate Leader McConnell , notably , refused to go even as far as Trump .
McConnell pooh-poohed the notion of any stimulus happening prior to the election , focusing his gaze almost entirely on locking down his theft of the Supreme Court via the nomination of Justice Barrett .
Not content with destroying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell also made himself the Grim Reaper of COVID stimulus talks .
Trump knew he was in a bind , and pretended to be the glorious populist frustrated with both political parties and wanting even more aid than Democrats were offering : In the end , though , this was the story : Democrats passed a reasonable bill and tried to get Trump on board , knowing he wanted the political boost .
Trump offered far less than Democrats , including several dealbreakers .
Republicans in the Senate were happy to let the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Supreme Court Justice for an entire election if need be .
So the talks fell apart .
Now , in the days after the election , House Democrats have no leverage over Trump–but people still need help .
So it makes sense to pass something now , and then take a another crack at the matter when Biden sits in the Oval Office with a mandate , and Democrats either hold the Senate or are closer to doing so than they are today .
Instead of putting lipstick on a pig and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now because Biden will be president and vaccines are coming soon—a response that practically invites accusations of October sabotage in refusing a similar deal—Democratic leaders should just tell the truth : “ The smaller package is inadequate .
We tried to pass a more robust package when Trump wanted to get something done before the election , but he still refused to help Americans in blue states—and Grim Reaper McConnell wouldn ’ t even go as far as Trump .
So we ’ ll get what we can now to help the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when we have a real president .
And if you ’ re listening , Georgia—we want to help get you and everyone else through this pandemic , but we need a Senate Majority to do it.
” Clear , simple , partisan language will do the trick .
It also has the benefit of being brutally and appropriately honest .

Yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi got in some hot water for her answers to questions about a potential lame duck COVID stimulus. This quote was singled out in particular, in response to a question about why she is now willing to accept a smaller stimulus bill than before:
It’s for a shorter period of time, but that’s okay now, because we have a new President – a President who recognizes that we need to depend on science to stop the virus, a President who understands that America’s working families need to have money in their pockets in a way that takes them into the future, without any of the contraptions of any of the other bills that the Administration was associating itself with before. We feel very excited about the prospect that there’s a bipartisan bill. Because I told Members, I am not bringing any more bills that are not bipartisan. We wanted to show what needs to be done in the interest of negotiation. They’re negotiating. It’s a good product. It’s not everything we want; don’t get me wrong. I don’t want the Republicans to think that this is a dream come true. It is not. But it is a path forward.
When asked if it was a mistake to reject a “half-loaf” stimulus prior to the election, she answered:
Look, I’m going to tell you something. Don’t characterize what we did before as a mistake as a preface to your question, if you want an answer. That was not a mistake, it was a decision. And it has taken us to a place where we can do the right thing without other, shall we say, considerations in the legislation that we don’t want. No. That was it. Now, the fact is, I’m very proud of where we are. My chairs – my chairs have worked very hard on all of this. They were not even happy with our proposal that we made the other day before we saw this proposal. They thought we had come back too small.
Predictably, right wing (and some leftist) media pounced on the quotes to say that Pelosi scuttled COVID stimulus in order to submarine Trump’s election chances.
That’s not entirely true. But the tendency by many Democratic leaders to speak in layers of talking-point obfuscation and paint inadequate things as objectively good causes a host of problems here. One of the things that allows Republicans to continue to hold power despite having incredibly unpopular policies is that you never doubt what they believe or what they want to do. Republicans tend clearer and more partisan in their prevarications than Democrats are in their truth-telling, and as such voters tend to give them greater credit for moral clarity.
The reality is that Democrats tried to give the American people a real COVID stimulus before the election. Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell, who both have a history of doing less than nothing to help regular Americans as opposed to wealthy executives, both had a strong incentive to uncharacteristically benefit their constituents in order to help Trump’s presidential chances. It may sound unappetizing at first to admit it, but Democrats were right to use that leverage to try to force Trump and McConnell to do the right thing.
So in late September Democrats passed a $2.2 trillion stimulus bill. Even that was too small and inadequate to the task. But in a world where Republicans held a Senate and White House veto over decent policy, it was a best-case offer.
Trump blinked slightly and raised his offer to a $1.8 trillion package instead. But the president’s plan had some fatal flaws: it didn’t contain funding for a direct plan to tackle the virus. It shortchanged a number of necessary programs. And crucially, it lacked any support for state and local governments facing horrific budget crunches from the loss of sales tax and other revenues.
But Senate Leader McConnell, notably, refused to go even as far as Trump. McConnell pooh-poohed the notion of any stimulus happening prior to the election, focusing his gaze almost entirely on locking down his theft of the Supreme Court via the nomination of Justice Barrett. Not content with destroying the Senate and delegitimizing the Court, McConnell also made himself the Grim Reaper of COVID stimulus talks.
Trump knew he was in a bind, and pretended to be the glorious populist frustrated with both political parties and wanting even more aid than Democrats were offering:
“I would like to see a bigger stimulus package frankly than either the Democrats or Republicans are offering,” he told radio host Rush Limbaugh, hours after apparently signing off on the offer that costs $400 billion less than the Democrats’ plan.
In the end, though, this was the story: Democrats passed a reasonable bill and tried to get Trump on board, knowing he wanted the political boost. Trump offered far less than Democrats, including several dealbreakers. Republicans in the Senate were happy to let the whole thing die, preferring to trade a Supreme Court Justice for an entire election if need be. So the talks fell apart.
Now, in the days after the election, House Democrats have no leverage over Trump–but people still need help. So it makes sense to pass something now, and then take a another crack at the matter when Biden sits in the Oval Office with a mandate, and Democrats either hold the Senate or are closer to doing so than they are today.
Instead of pretending that a smaller bill is OK now because Biden will be president and vaccines are coming soon—a response that practically invites accusations of October sabotage in refusing a similar deal—Democratic leaders should just tell the truth: “The smaller package is inadequate. We tried to pass a more robust package when Trump wanted to get something done before the election, but he still refused to help Americans in blue states—and Grim Reaper McConnell wouldn’t even go as far as Trump. So we’ll get what we can now to help the American people and then come back to this when we have a real president. And if you’re listening, Georgia—we want to help get you and everyone else through this pandemic, but we need a Senate Majority to do it.”
Clear, simple, partisan language will do the trick. It also has the benefit of being brutally and appropriately honest.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-06--Media Must Focus on Larger Truths During the Biden Presidency

It has been heartening to see the media take a more confrontational stance with the Trump Administration than it ever did during the Bush or Reagan years .
Journalistic organizations from the New York Times to the Washington Post to CNN all became almost explicitly hostile to the administration , especially over the last year .
Conservatives decry this as a form of bias , but it really isn ’ t .
Journalists have an obligation to serve truth to their readers .
When a president abuses his power , constantly lying and overtly threatening democracy and freedom of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and professional obligation to respond accordingly .
And even if their concerns were valid , conservatives have only themselves to blame .
By spending decades working the refs and building fact-free propaganda networks that drew conservative-leaning viewers away from traditional news sources , they both incentivized the left to work the refs equally strongly while increasing the incentives of traditional news sources to cater more to the left-leaning readers and viewers who remained .
But with Biden ascending to the presidency , journalists in the Big Mainstream will feel an implicit responsibility to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Administration .
Every little molehill of possible impropriety will be treated with the same concern as the mountains of Trump corruption .
Worse , even , because the avalanche of Trumpian malfeasance led to a desensitization to scandal , while the comparative rarity of Obama scandals turned even wearing a tan suit into a week-long news story .
So will it be with the Biden administration .
Meanwhile , most of the public still won ’ t understand that legislative gridlock and an inability to solve problems won ’ t be the fault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” but the utter intransigence of Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans .
And as conservative media splinters into its own civil war , major news organizations will be doing their utmost to bend over backward to conservatives to seem impartial , both as an attempt to regain audience and “ bring the country together.
” This is where medium-sized left-leaning organizations can and must step in to carry the torch of democracy–for two important reasons .
First , people with credibility must step in and continue to shed light on conservative malfeasance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American public about why their democracy is broken and what can be done to fix it .
Secondly , the Biden Administration will feel outsized pressure from the Right to constrain its vision of the possible .
There must be equal pressure from the other side to remind powerful players in the only remaining responsible political party of its obligations to the public regardless of the partisan pressures of the environment .
The Washington Monthly is one of the organizations best able to serve in this role .
But it lacks the organizational @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times , Washington Post , or CNN .
Our readership is more selective and less about passive consumption of generic news than using sophisticated insights to better serve their communities and inform their friends and families .
Please , if you can , help make a donation to keep our work going .
If you can give today , NewsMatch will match it with a generous challenge grant dedicated to helping nonprofit news organizations like the Monthly–which also means your donation is tax-deductible . )
Plus , if you give $ 50 or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free one-year subscription to the print edition of the Washington Monthly–an always welcome arrival to alleviate quarantine boredom and broaden horizons .
We ’ ll need your help as much or more during the Biden Administration as we have in the Trump era .
And so will the country .

It has been heartening to see the media take a more confrontational stance with the Trump Administration than it ever did during the Bush or Reagan years. Journalistic organizations from the New York Times to the Washington Post to CNN all became almost explicitly hostile to the administration, especially over the last year. Conservatives decry this as a form of bias, but it really isn’t. Journalists have an obligation to serve truth to their readers. When a president abuses his power, constantly lying and overtly threatening democracy and freedom of the press, the press has a moral and professional obligation to respond accordingly. And even if their concerns were valid, conservatives have only themselves to blame. By spending decades working the refs and building fact-free propaganda networks that drew conservative-leaning viewers away from traditional news sources, they both incentivized the left to work the refs equally strongly while increasing the incentives of traditional news sources to cater more to the left-leaning readers and viewers who remained.
But with Biden ascending to the presidency, journalists in the Big Mainstream will feel an implicit responsibility to take an adversarial approach to the Biden Administration. Every little molehill of possible impropriety will be treated with the same concern as the mountains of Trump corruption. Worse, even, because the avalanche of Trumpian malfeasance led to a desensitization to scandal, while the comparative rarity of Obama scandals turned even wearing a tan suit into a week-long news story. So will it be with the Biden administration. Meanwhile, most of the public still won’t understand that legislative gridlock and an inability to solve problems won’t be the fault of “Congress” or “polarization,” but the utter intransigence of Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans. And as conservative media splinters into its own civil war, major news organizations will be doing their utmost to bend over backward to conservatives to seem impartial, both as an attempt to regain audience and “bring the country together.”
This is where medium-sized left-leaning organizations can and must step in to carry the torch of democracy–for two important reasons. First, people with credibility must step in and continue to shed light on conservative malfeasance and do their best to inform the American public about why their democracy is broken and what can be done to fix it. Secondly, the Biden Administration will feel outsized pressure from the Right to constrain its vision of the possible. There must be equal pressure from the other side to remind powerful players in the only remaining responsible political party of its obligations to the public regardless of the partisan pressures of the environment.
The Washington Monthly is one of the organizations best able to serve in this role. But it lacks the organizational prowess and funding of a New York Times, Washington Post, or CNN. Our readership is more selective and less about passive consumption of generic news than using sophisticated insights to better serve their communities and inform their friends and families.
Please, if you can, help make a donation to keep our work going. If you can give today, NewsMatch will match it with a generous challenge grant dedicated to helping nonprofit news organizations like the Monthly–which also means your donation is tax-deductible.) Plus, if you give $50 or more, you’ll receive a free one-year subscription to the print edition of the Washington Monthly–an always welcome arrival to alleviate quarantine boredom and broaden horizons.
We’ll need your help as much or more during the Biden Administration as we have in the Trump era. And so will the country.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-07--Orange (County) is Still the New Blue

Orange (County) is Still the New Blue

When Melahat Rafiei took over the Orange County Democratic Party as executive director in 2007 , prospective candidates were not exactly lining up to launch campaigns .
“ In the past , I was going down to the drugstore , to the grocery store , the market , looking for people to run for office , ” Rafiei , now a political consultant and Democratic National Committee member , said .
“ Anyone !
We just needed Democrats to run for office.
” The vibrant party that Democratic organizers have built today , however , would be unrecognizable to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between Los Angeles and San Diego its reputation for being a hotbed of evangelical fervor , NIMBY politics , and the defense industry .
Now , the county is no longer red—it ’ s a purple suburb trending blue .
In 2016 , Hillary Clinton became the first Democrat to carry the county since Franklin Roosevelt did in 1936 .
In 2018 , Democrats flipped all four Republican-controlled congressional districts in the county , sending an entirely Democratic contingent of seven representatives to Congress .
In 2019 , the county registered more Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in decades .
Then , in the November 2020 election , two of those newly Democrat-held House seats flipped back to Republican control .
Gil Cisneros , the Democratic incumbent in California ’ s 39th district , and Harley Rouda , the Democrat representing the 48th district , lost their races by less than 10,000 votes .
Those two congressional losses have become important data points in post-mortem election analysis , as politicians , journalists , and voters try and understand why Democrats lost House seats .
It would be easy to learn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaigns did in Orange County , it didn ’ t work and shouldn ’ t be replicated .
A closer examination of results , however , reveals that Democrats made gains up and down the ballot in the OC .
At the top of the ticket , president-elect Joe Biden expanded on Clinton ’ s margin , carrying the county by nine points .
Democrats now outpace Republicans in voter registration by nearly 40,000 voters in the county .
They triumphed in down ballot races as well .
Democrats in Orange County flipped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local seats , and made massive inroads on city councils and school boards , where they either held or expanded their hold on every single board for which they fielded candidates .
More Democrats than Republicans will now sit on Orange County school boards for the first time in history .
The party added seats on 11 different city councils , taking new majorities in Irvine and Aliso Viejo , and expanded diversity in local government , such as with the election of the first majority-minority city council in Irvine and with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who will be the city ’ s first Muslim mayor .
The source of those successes , local Democratic leaders say , is a years-long investment in party building : recruiting volunteers , registering voters , hosting events , and increasing the number and strength of Democratic candidates running for office .
It ’ s not a flashy strategy , but it is one that Democrats in other districts trending purple could replicate .
“ Democrats historically , because it ’ s Orange County , haven ’ t had a bench , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we were trying to get anybody to run .
And now we ’ re building a bench.
” It ’ s that same commitment to party building that gives organizers confidence they will return Rouda and Cisneros ’ seats to Democratic hands in 2022 .
“ We ’ ve seen what doesn ’ t work , and we ’ ve seen what ’ s possible now twice , ” said Susie Shannon , a California progressive who serves as both a state delegate to the DNC and on the state party ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party building .
It ’ s building a bench of candidates—elected officials at the local level—who can rise up to the congressional seats.
” Ada Briceño , who is chairwoman of the Orange County Democratic Party , has seen dramatic shifts in local politics since she first arrived in the county as a teenager in the early 1990s .
“ I came to an Orange County where people like me weren ’ t very welcome , ” Briceño , who immigrated to the U.S. from Nicaragua as a child , said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and it ’ s rapidly changing.
” Once a hub for the defense and aerospace industries , 20th century Orange County was defined by its strong anti-communist sentiment , restrictive housing covenants , and conservative politics .
But as jobs at tech firms have increasingly replaced military jobs , and the county , particularly the Los Angeles-adjacent North OC , has diversified , its Republican character has diminished considerably .
Today , even “ The Real Housewives of Orange County ” —a reality television show created 15 years ago that centers on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , female friend group—features an outspoken Democrat in its cast .
While many of the region ’ s coastal towns remain overwhelmingly white and wealthy , an influx of Hispanic and Asian Americans , particularly people of Mexican , Korean , and Vietnamese descent , have shifted the balance of political power , though Asian Americans , and particularly Vietnamese Americans , can lean Republican .
But non-Republican voters are not necessarily reliable Democrats—and that ’ s where party-building comes in .
Briceño ’ s background is in unions .
As the co-president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leads the effort to organize tens of thousands of mostly Latinx hotel workers—and she brings an organizer ’ s mentality to registering voters and building clubs of Democrats organized around a locality or identity that plan and execute local campaigns .
There was an “ explosion ” of interest in the clubs after Trump ’ s election , Briceño said , and the momentum has continued .
Since 2016 , “ We have seen our clubs double—the amount of clubs and the amount of people who are in clubs , ” Briceño said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about building the structures of our party.
” Party membership has soared too .
According to Briceño , the number of due-paying members has increased four-fold since 2016 .
In practice , growing the party has come down to two critical steps—engaging in massive grassroots organizing and promoting collaboration between clubs and volunteers .
The party employs both a bottom-up and top-down approach .
The local club ’ s members will engage in postcard writing , door-knocking , making phone calls , and volunteering to help local candidates for each race .
Briceño @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to employ a successful collaborative approach from the water board race volunteers up to the congressional ones , so that anyone knocking on a door can discuss all of the Democratic candidates who will be on the ballot in any particular district .
“ It ’ s easier to knock on a door in Huntington Beach and talk about our three candidates , ” Briceño said as an example .
“ Every single club in that area , they were all talking about Harley Rouda [ the House candidate ] , about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate seat.
” While Rouda lost by less than 8,000 votes , Briceño credits the coordination among various campaigns with local successes , including Democratic wins in two of three open seats on the Huntington Beach City Council , and flipping the 37th state Senate district , where Huntington Beach is located , from a Republican incumbent to Democrat Dave Min .
Sandra Lowe , a political operative who coordinated Democrats ’ 2018 strategy in California , said she made a concerted effort to hire local people to run campaigns in Orange County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courting votes and canvassing neighborhoods rather than naively relying on changing demographics to work in their favor over the past four years .
“ There ’ s currently great leadership , and there has been a [ history ] of good , solid leaders of the Orange County Democratic Party , who have done party building , who have done registration , ” Lowe said .
In 2022 , Briceño says the goal is to recruit more volunteers and candidates—she said twice as many Democrats ran for local seats in 2020 than in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ big tent , ” she played down potential differences between moderates and progressives , saying that shared Democratic commitments on issues such as acquiring COVID-19 relief or tackling climate change—an important issue in coastal Orange County , even among Republicans—go a long way towards bringing voters in .
The party has also launched targeted outreach programs dedicated to training and supporting women and Black politicians .
“ It ’ s building our base , building our structures so we can attain those victories , ” Briceño said .
“ If we would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have taken another 3 other races ?
The loss of Rouda and Cisneros ’ congressional seats , while painful to organizers , is largely thanks to a perfect storm of circumstances that benefitted Democrats in 2018 and could not be replicated in 2020 .
Marcia Godwin , a professor of public administration at the University of La Verne , said growing anti-Trump sentiment , an influx of national cash and voter registration efforts and the presence of wildly unpopular incumbents such as Dana Rohrabacher in the 48th district and Darrell Issa in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats effectively capitalized on in 2018 , when Rouda and Cisneros won .
“ The Republicans really woke up and spent money , ” Godwin says .
The winning Republican challengers were armed with millions of dollars .
Young Kim , who beat Cisneros in the 39th district , raised $ 5.3 million to Cisneros ’ $ 3.78 million .
Michelle Steel , Rouda ’ s Republican challenger , raised $ 5.6 million , edging out Rouda ’ s $ 5.4 million .
Additionally , Cisneros and Rouda ’ s districts are truly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same time , Katie Porter and Mike Levin , the other two Democrats who flipped House seats in Orange County in 2018 , benefitted from the larger share of Democrats in their districts .
Rouda ’ s pro-mask stance , for example , was controversial in his district , and Steel campaigned against it .
On top of that , a number of hotly contested ballot measures and Trump ’ s presence on the ballot meant Republicans could more easily juice turnout .
Republicans also engaged in party-building that Democrats say their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Asian American voters .
Shannon , the DNC delegate , said the pandemic harmed Democrats ’ efforts to get out the vote , particularly among immigrant groups , where the most effective outreach tactics involve face-to-face conversations .
Democrats steered clear of in-person canvassing as COVID-19 rapidly spread this summer and fall , but Republicans continued to talk to voters in person .
“ Our model as Democrats does rely fairly heavily on canvassing , ” Shannon said .
“ And that was just lost in this .
It was kind of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Godwin suspect that Democrats won a smaller share of Asian American voters in 2020 than in 2018 .
Steel and Kim , the winning Republicans , are both Korean American women who ran in districts with significant Asian American populations .
The Republican Party of Orange County has spent decades making inroads with Asian American voters , recruiting at naturalization ceremonies with materials in Korean , Chinese , and Vietnamese .
Rafiei also believes Proposition 16 , which failed but would have restored affirmative action in hiring in California , convinced Asian Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action remains a divisive concept among Asian Americans , some of the strongest opposition comes from Chinese Americans and older Asian Americans .
Proponents of the proposition feel that insufficient outreach to Asian Americans may have sunk it .
A 2018 report found that 34 percent of Asian Americans in Orange County identify as independent .
With such a large share of undecided voters , each party ’ s appeal , if targeted enough , can yield votes .
Rafiei said Democratic outreach to Asian Americans has always been lacking , and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for 2022 .
She expects Democrats to highlight the anti-LGBTQ statements that Michelle Steel has made and engage Asian American communities between election cycles on the local issues that matter to them , from infrastructure to culturally-sensitive health care .
Despite noting areas for improvement , Democrats were confident that Rouda and Cisneros ’ seats can be won back .
“ Nothing ’ s really easy in Orange County , ” Rafiei said .
“ Other than the weather , nothing is easy.
” As national Democrats attempt to understand their House losses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest that , at least in Orange County , the losses are a cause for contemplation rather than panic .
By building on the party structures and bench that they have developed , Democrats can continue to expand their power—in this suburb and others .
“ We had a saying in 2018 that Orange is the new blue , and I think it still is , ” said Lowe , who coordinated the 2018 California Democratic strategy .
“ You ’ ve got to dust yourself off and get right back on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will happen .
That will strengthen them for the next go .
”

When Melahat Rafiei took over the Orange County Democratic Party as executive director in 2007, prospective candidates were not exactly lining up to launch campaigns.
“In the past, I was going down to the drugstore, to the grocery store, the market, looking for people to run for office,” Rafiei, now a political consultant and Democratic National Committee member, said. “Anyone! We just needed Democrats to run for office.”
The vibrant party that Democratic organizers have built today, however, would be unrecognizable to the Reagan acolytes who gave the sunny expanse between Los Angeles and San Diego its reputation for being a hotbed of evangelical fervor, NIMBY politics, and the defense industry. Now, the county is no longer red—it’s a purple suburb trending blue.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton became the first Democrat to carry the county since Franklin Roosevelt did in 1936. In 2018, Democrats flipped all four Republican-controlled congressional districts in the county, sending an entirely Democratic contingent of seven representatives to Congress. In 2019, the county registered more Democratic voters than Republicans for the first time in decades.
Then, in the November 2020 election, two of those newly Democrat-held House seats flipped back to Republican control. Gil Cisneros, the Democratic incumbent in California’s 39th district, and Harley Rouda, the Democrat representing the 48th district, lost their races by less than 10,000 votes. Those two congressional losses have become important data points in post-mortem election analysis, as politicians, journalists, and voters try and understand why Democrats lost House seats. It would be easy to learn the wrong lesson: That whatever the campaigns did in Orange County, it didn’t work and shouldn’t be replicated.
A closer examination of results, however, reveals that Democrats made gains up and down the ballot in the OC. At the top of the ticket, president-elect Joe Biden expanded on Clinton’s margin, carrying the county by nine points. Democrats now outpace Republicans in voter registration by nearly 40,000 voters in the county. They triumphed in down ballot races as well. Democrats in Orange County flipped two state Senate seats, nearly 20 local seats, and made massive inroads on city councils and school boards, where they either held or expanded their hold on every single board for which they fielded candidates. More Democrats than Republicans will now sit on Orange County school boards for the first time in history. The party added seats on 11 different city councils, taking new majorities in Irvine and Aliso Viejo, and expanded diversity in local government, such as with the election of the first majority-minority city council in Irvine and with the election of Farrah Khan, a Democrat who will be the city’s first Muslim mayor.
The source of those successes, local Democratic leaders say, is a years-long investment in party building: recruiting volunteers, registering voters, hosting events, and increasing the number and strength of Democratic candidates running for office. It’s not a flashy strategy, but it is one that Democrats in other districts trending purple could replicate.
“Democrats historically, because it’s Orange County, haven’t had a bench,” Rafiei said. “Before 2018, we were trying to get anybody to run. And now we’re building a bench.”
It’s that same commitment to party building that gives organizers confidence they will return Rouda and Cisneros’ seats to Democratic hands in 2022.
“We’ve seen what doesn’t work, and we’ve seen what’s possible now twice,” said Susie Shannon, a California progressive who serves as both a state delegate to the DNC and on the state party’s executive board. “It’s party building. It’s building a bench of candidates—elected officials at the local level—who can rise up to the congressional seats.”
Ada Briceño, who is chairwoman of the Orange County Democratic Party, has seen dramatic shifts in local politics since she first arrived in the county as a teenager in the early 1990s.
“I came to an Orange County where people like me weren’t very welcome,” Briceño, who immigrated to the U.S. from Nicaragua as a child, said. “It’s a different place today, and it’s rapidly changing.”
Once a hub for the defense and aerospace industries, 20th century Orange County was defined by its strong anti-communist sentiment, restrictive housing covenants, and conservative politics. But as jobs at tech firms have increasingly replaced military jobs, and the county, particularly the Los Angeles-adjacent North OC, has diversified, its Republican character has diminished considerably. Today, even “The Real Housewives of Orange County”—a reality television show created 15 years ago that centers on drama within a wealthy, mostly white, female friend group—features an outspoken Democrat in its cast.
While many of the region’s coastal towns remain overwhelmingly white and wealthy, an influx of Hispanic and Asian Americans, particularly people of Mexican, Korean, and Vietnamese descent, have shifted the balance of political power, though Asian Americans, and particularly Vietnamese Americans, can lean Republican. But non-Republican voters are not necessarily reliable Democrats—and that’s where party-building comes in.
Briceño’s background is in unions. As the co-president of Unite Here Local 11, she leads the effort to organize tens of thousands of mostly Latinx hotel workers—and she brings an organizer’s mentality to registering voters and building clubs of Democrats organized around a locality or identity that plan and execute local campaigns.
There was an “explosion” of interest in the clubs after Trump’s election, Briceño said, and the momentum has continued.
Since 2016, “We have seen our clubs double—the amount of clubs and the amount of people who are in clubs,” Briceño said. “We’re being thoughtful about building the structures of our party.”
Party membership has soared too. According to Briceño, the number of due-paying members has increased four-fold since 2016.
In practice, growing the party has come down to two critical steps—engaging in massive grassroots organizing and promoting collaboration between clubs and volunteers. The party employs both a bottom-up and top-down approach. The local club’s members will engage in postcard writing, door-knocking, making phone calls, and volunteering to help local candidates for each race. Briceño said the county party has been able to employ a successful collaborative approach from the water board race volunteers up to the congressional ones, so that anyone knocking on a door can discuss all of the Democratic candidates who will be on the ballot in any particular district.
“It’s easier to knock on a door in Huntington Beach and talk about our three candidates,” Briceño said as an example. “Every single club in that area, they were all talking about Harley Rouda [the House candidate], about the local candidates, and about the state Senate seat.”
While Rouda lost by less than 8,000 votes, Briceño credits the coordination among various campaigns with local successes, including Democratic wins in two of three open seats on the Huntington Beach City Council, and flipping the 37th state Senate district, where Huntington Beach is located, from a Republican incumbent to Democrat Dave Min.
Sandra Lowe, a political operative who coordinated Democrats’ 2018 strategy in California, said she made a concerted effort to hire local people to run campaigns in Orange County. She credited party leaders for actively courting votes and canvassing neighborhoods rather than naively relying on changing demographics to work in their favor over the past four years.
“There’s currently great leadership, and there has been a [history] of good, solid leaders of the Orange County Democratic Party, who have done party building, who have done registration,” Lowe said.
In 2022, Briceño says the goal is to recruit more volunteers and candidates—she said twice as many Democrats ran for local seats in 2020 than in 2018.
Describing the party as a “big tent,” she played down potential differences between moderates and progressives, saying that shared Democratic commitments on issues such as acquiring COVID-19 relief or tackling climate change—an important issue in coastal Orange County, even among Republicans—go a long way towards bringing voters in. The party has also launched targeted outreach programs dedicated to training and supporting women and Black politicians.
“It’s building our base, building our structures so we can attain those victories,” Briceño said. “If we would have had another 300 volunteers, could we have taken another 3 other races?
The loss of Rouda and Cisneros’ congressional seats, while painful to organizers, is largely thanks to a perfect storm of circumstances that benefitted Democrats in 2018 and could not be replicated in 2020.
Marcia Godwin, a professor of public administration at the University of La Verne, said growing anti-Trump sentiment, an influx of national cash and voter registration efforts and the presence of wildly unpopular incumbents such as Dana Rohrabacher in the 48th district and Darrell Issa in the 49th created a unique opportunity that Democrats effectively capitalized on in 2018, when Rouda and Cisneros won.
In 2020, circumstances changed.
“The Republicans really woke up and spent money,” Godwin says. The winning Republican challengers were armed with millions of dollars. Young Kim, who beat Cisneros in the 39th district, raised $5.3 million to Cisneros’ $3.78 million. Michelle Steel, Rouda’s Republican challenger, raised $5.6 million, edging out Rouda’s $5.4 million.
Additionally, Cisneros and Rouda’s districts are truly purple, if not red. At the same time, Katie Porter and Mike Levin, the other two Democrats who flipped House seats in Orange County in 2018, benefitted from the larger share of Democrats in their districts. Rouda’s pro-mask stance, for example, was controversial in his district, and Steel campaigned against it. On top of that, a number of hotly contested ballot measures and Trump’s presence on the ballot meant Republicans could more easily juice turnout.
Republicans also engaged in party-building that Democrats say their efforts were not strong enough on—outreach to Asian American voters.
Shannon, the DNC delegate, said the pandemic harmed Democrats’ efforts to get out the vote, particularly among immigrant groups, where the most effective outreach tactics involve face-to-face conversations. Democrats steered clear of in-person canvassing as COVID-19 rapidly spread this summer and fall, but Republicans continued to talk to voters in person.
“Our model as Democrats does rely fairly heavily on canvassing,” Shannon said. “And that was just lost in this. It was kind of a Republican playing field.”
Both Rafiei and Godwin suspect that Democrats won a smaller share of Asian American voters in 2020 than in 2018. Steel and Kim, the winning Republicans, are both Korean American women who ran in districts with significant Asian American populations. The Republican Party of Orange County has spent decades making inroads with Asian American voters, recruiting at naturalization ceremonies with materials in Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese. Rafiei also believes Proposition 16, which failed but would have restored affirmative action in hiring in California, convinced Asian Americans to vote—and vote Republican. While affirmative action remains a divisive concept among Asian Americans, some of the strongest opposition comes from Chinese Americans and older Asian Americans. Proponents of the proposition feel that insufficient outreach to Asian Americans may have sunk it.
A 2018 report found that 34 percent of Asian Americans in Orange County identify as independent. With such a large share of undecided voters, each party’s appeal, if targeted enough, can yield votes. Rafiei said Democratic outreach to Asian Americans has always been lacking, and a new strategy should be a top priority for 2022. She expects Democrats to highlight the anti-LGBTQ statements that Michelle Steel has made and engage Asian American communities between election cycles on the local issues that matter to them, from infrastructure to culturally-sensitive health care.
Despite noting areas for improvement, Democrats were confident that Rouda and Cisneros’ seats can be won back.
“Nothing’s really easy in Orange County,” Rafiei said. “Other than the weather, nothing is easy.”
As national Democrats attempt to understand their House losses, the down-ballot victories and 2020-specific challenges suggest that, at least in Orange County, the losses are a cause for contemplation rather than panic. By building on the party structures and bench that they have developed, Democrats can continue to expand their power—in this suburb and others.
“We had a saying in 2018 that Orange is the new blue, and I think it still is,” said Lowe, who coordinated the 2018 California Democratic strategy. “You’ve got to dust yourself off and get right back on the horse, and that’s what will happen. That will strengthen them for the next go.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-07--Dems Should Pay Less Attention To Issue Polling and More Attention to What Voters Actually Say

A new story in the Wall Street Journal blows open a debate that has been keeping some Democrats grumbling behind the scenes for months : that the party spent far too much time talking about healthcare and the Affordable Care Act , and far too little on other core economic issues .
As the piece explains : Health care was the most-mentioned issue across all Democratic presidential and Senate television ads , airing nearly 1.5 million times , in the 2020 election cycle , according to data from political ad tracker Kantar/CMAG .
Democrats made defending the Affordable Care Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearings weeks before the election and promised repeatedly on the campaign trail to protect the law .
Democrats took the House majority in 2018 after centering their campaigns on the Trump administration ’ s efforts to chip away at the health law .
But after the party lost multiple House seats and underperformed in several Senate races this year , some former candidates and strategists who worked on 2020 campaigns say Democrats should have focused more on people who were losing their jobs and struggling to pay rent during the pandemic .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shift more towards the economy , ” said Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell , who lost her race in November in a Miami-Dade County district that swung toward President Trump after voting overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
Concomitantly , for all the long and loud arguments between left and center-left over Medicare for All versus a public option addition to Obamacare , it turns out that voters didn ’ t see much difference between different kinds of Democrats on the issue : Briefly , there are two important lessons here : First , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for supporting socialist healthcare for all regardless , you might as well own it and tell people they deserve to have the same free-at-point-of-service healthcare most everyone else in the developed world gets .
You might as well lead with your values , instead of hedging your bets in the hope that a moderate conservative will take a close reading of your policy platform and decide you ’ re just reasonable to maybe vote for .
It doesn ’ t work .
Medicare for All doesn ’ t seem to have been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way , so why not push for the right and real thing ?
But second and more crucially , Democrats need to stop over-relying on quantitative polling .
On this particular topic a few things must be said : First , as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has said , the job of a politician is to lead the polls , not to follow them .
Voters may not always agree , but they will often reward moral clarity .
Second , Republicans prove that they can win elections despite having the unpopular position on nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ right ” side of polling is no guarantee of electoral success .
Something else is going on .
But third and most important , quantitative polling on issue batteries is just deeply unreliable in general as a predictor of voter opinion and behavior .
On healthcare , It is almost certainly true that in any quantitatively polled issue battery , “ healthcare costs ” will be near the top of the list , and “ protecting Obamacare ” will be near the top of a base Democratic voter ’ s issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : if you list eight issues and include healthcare costs as one of them , most people will say “ oh yeah , my health insurance bill sucks ” or “ my medication is too expensive ” and put that issue as a top priority .
But that doesn ’ t tell you two key things : first , it doesn ’ t tell what actually motivates people to vote or to select candidates when they do vote ; second , it doesn ’ t necessarily tell what a voter would want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
And even if you do include a range of options for solving their top problems , the voter ’ s actual nuances of motivation will almost never be reflected in the few blunt multiple choices offered in the polling .
As a qualitative research professional in my day job , I do have a bias here .
But what focus groups and interviews can tell you that quantitative surveys can not is both why people think what they do , and ( if conducted properly ) the intensity and passion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directly without constraining their answers or giving them a multiple choice format , you can get a much better understanding of what is burning in their hearts .
There is virtually no chance at all–no matter what the polling said–that in a year marked by a once-in-a-century pandemic , unprecedented anti-police-violence protests and riots , and the outsized transgressions of President Donald Trump , more than a handful of voters were deciding on politicians based on their PPO plans .
If the quant data was telling politicians that , the quant data was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advertising decisions on that–and they certainly were–then those consultants are bad at their jobs .
Which in turn might explain some of the downballot election results .
Republican focus group guru Frank Luntz described his methods in his book Words That Work .
Among his core lessons is that he would never recommend to his ( mostly conservative ) clients the approaches that respondents liked best .
He always recommended the ones that generated the most passion and enthusiasm .
That ’ s because passion was the best predictor of actual voter behavior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , either through activism or social media or just around the water cooler .
Democrats have never seemed to heed that lesson .
Every mainstream Democratic campaign seems tailored toward the most broadly likable messages designed to offend the fewest people .
Many might believe that ’ s just good politics .
But what it does in practice is motivate almost no one who wasn ’ t already driven by negative partisanship ( Democratic voters were voting far more against Trump than they were for Biden ) .
Worse , people tend to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians are speaking in talking points rather than from the heart .
The result is that Republicans manage to tell lies far more convincingly than most Democrats can tell the truth .
Everything Donald Trump says is a lie , but he tells those lies with a heartfelt conviction a moderate Democrat will never match .
Stephen Colbert in his Colbert Report character mocked this phenomenon as “ truthiness , ” but the mockery is misplaced .
Passionate conviction is a good thing in politics .
It ’ s less important for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you say , but it is important for the voter to believe that you believe it , and that your values align with theirs .
When conservatives listen to Trump , it ’ s not so much that they find his every word credible than that they know that he ’ s coming from the same emotional place they are .
Liberals and independents are not immune from this psychology , either .
The same goes for young leftists : they need to know that a politician understands the reality of boomer privilege @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vast gulf between their experience of housing , education and employment , and that of preceding generations .
It ’ s less important to call oneself a socialist ( admittedly an electoral problem in many states and districts ) than to communicate the same anger they feel at the way the capitalist system is broken for them .
In short , Democrats need to spend a lot less time reading the polls , and spend a lot more time speaking to voters directly about the things they are most passionate and angry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authentic voices in the effort .

A new story in the Wall Street Journal blows open a debate that has been keeping some Democrats grumbling behind the scenes for months: that the party spent far too much time talking about healthcare and the Affordable Care Act, and far too little on other core economic issues. As the piece explains:
Health care was the most-mentioned issue across all Democratic presidential and Senate television ads, airing nearly 1.5 million times, in the 2020 election cycle, according to data from political ad tracker Kantar/CMAG. Democrats made defending the Affordable Care Act a top issue in Supreme Court confirmation hearings weeks before the election and promised repeatedly on the campaign trail to protect the law. Democrats took the House majority in 2018 after centering their campaigns on the Trump administration’s efforts to chip away at the health law. But after the party lost multiple House seats and underperformed in several Senate races this year, some former candidates and strategists who worked on 2020 campaigns say Democrats should have focused more on people who were losing their jobs and struggling to pay rent during the pandemic. “I think that the message needs to shift more towards the economy,” said Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, who lost her race in November in a Miami-Dade County district that swung toward President Trump after voting overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Concomitantly, for all the long and loud arguments between left and center-left over Medicare for All versus a public option addition to Obamacare, it turns out that voters didn’t see much difference between different kinds of Democrats on the issue:
Health care was the top issue mentioned in Republican ads as well, as they criticized Democratic candidates for a push in the progressive wing of the party to end private insurance and extend Medicare to all Americans. Mr. Biden and many other Democrats didn’t support that, instead backing an expansion of Obamacare by adding a public-insurance option. Kansas state Sen. Barbara Bollier, a former anesthesiologist who lost her race for the U.S. Senate, said it didn’t matter that she opposes Medicare for All—people said she supported it anyway.
Briefly, there are two important lessons here:
First, if Republicans are going to attack you for supporting socialist healthcare for all regardless, you might as well own it and tell people they deserve to have the same free-at-point-of-service healthcare most everyone else in the developed world gets. You might as well lead with your values, instead of hedging your bets in the hope that a moderate conservative will take a close reading of your policy platform and decide you’re just reasonable to maybe vote for. It doesn’t work. Medicare for All doesn’t seem to have been a key determinant in victory or defeat either way, so why not push for the right and real thing?
But second and more crucially, Democrats need to stop over-relying on quantitative polling. On this particular topic a few things must be said:
First, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has said, the job of a politician is to lead the polls, not to follow them. Voters may not always agree, but they will often reward moral clarity.
Second, Republicans prove that they can win elections despite having the unpopular position on nearly every issue polled, so being on the “right” side of polling is no guarantee of electoral success. Something else is going on.
But third and most important, quantitative polling on issue batteries is just deeply unreliable in general as a predictor of voter opinion and behavior.
On healthcare, It is almost certainly true that in any quantitatively polled issue battery, “healthcare costs” will be near the top of the list, and “protecting Obamacare” will be near the top of a base Democratic voter’s issue pool. And it stands to reason: if you list eight issues and include healthcare costs as one of them, most people will say “oh yeah, my health insurance bill sucks” or “my medication is too expensive” and put that issue as a top priority.
But that doesn’t tell you two key things: first, it doesn’t tell what actually motivates people to vote or to select candidates when they do vote; second, it doesn’t necessarily tell what a voter would want to do about the issues that do motivate them. And even if you do include a range of options for solving their top problems, the voter’s actual nuances of motivation will almost never be reflected in the few blunt multiple choices offered in the polling.
As a qualitative research professional in my day job, I do have a bias here. But what focus groups and interviews can tell you that quantitative surveys cannot is both why people think what they do, and (if conducted properly) the intensity and passion of that feeling. If you ask voters directly without constraining their answers or giving them a multiple choice format, you can get a much better understanding of what is burning in their hearts.
There is virtually no chance at all–no matter what the polling said–that in a year marked by a once-in-a-century pandemic, unprecedented anti-police-violence protests and riots, and the outsized transgressions of President Donald Trump, more than a handful of voters were deciding on politicians based on their PPO plans.
If the quant data was telling politicians that, the quant data was wrong. If the consultants were basing advertising decisions on that–and they certainly were–then those consultants are bad at their jobs. Which in turn might explain some of the downballot election results.
Republican focus group guru Frank Luntz described his methods in his book Words That Work. Among his core lessons is that he would never recommend to his (mostly conservative) clients the approaches that respondents liked best. He always recommended the ones that generated the most passion and enthusiasm. That’s because passion was the best predictor of actual voter behavior and willingness to attempt to persuade others, either through activism or social media or just around the water cooler.
Democrats have never seemed to heed that lesson. Every mainstream Democratic campaign seems tailored toward the most broadly likable messages designed to offend the fewest people. Many might believe that’s just good politics. But what it does in practice is motivate almost no one who wasn’t already driven by negative partisanship (Democratic voters were voting far more against Trump than they were for Biden). Worse, people tend to see through it: they know when politicians are speaking in talking points rather than from the heart. The result is that Republicans manage to tell lies far more convincingly than most Democrats can tell the truth. Everything Donald Trump says is a lie, but he tells those lies with a heartfelt conviction a moderate Democrat will never match.
Stephen Colbert in his Colbert Report character mocked this phenomenon as “truthiness,” but the mockery is misplaced. Passionate conviction is a good thing in politics. It’s less important for a voter to understand or even believe everything you say, but it is important for the voter to believe that you believe it, and that your values align with theirs. When conservatives listen to Trump, it’s not so much that they find his every word credible than that they know that he’s coming from the same emotional place they are. Liberals and independents are not immune from this psychology, either. The same goes for young leftists: they need to know that a politician understands the reality of boomer privilege, and gets at a gut level the vast gulf between their experience of housing, education and employment, and that of preceding generations. It’s less important to call oneself a socialist (admittedly an electoral problem in many states and districts) than to communicate the same anger they feel at the way the capitalist system is broken for them.
In short, Democrats need to spend a lot less time reading the polls, and spend a lot more time speaking to voters directly about the things they are most passionate and angry about. They might just find their authentic voices in the effort.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-07--How Do You Deradicalize the Republican Party?

If the 2016 election shook the consciences of Americans who could not believe what their fellow citizens were capable of supporting , the 2020 election has been barely short of psychologically crushing .
Yes , Joe Biden won by over 7 million votes .
Yes , Democrats did hold the House and have an opportunity to take the Senate .
But the fact that Donald Trump ( ! )
was able to turn out an expectations-thwarting and poll-defying number of supporters despite a horrifically incompetent and willfully divisive presidency–combined with the fact that even many of those who rejected Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shaken many Americans .
The Republican Party , meanwhile , continues its lurch toward radicalism .
Its most prominent politicians now traffic in conspiracy theories from QAnon to widespread “ voter fraud.
” They encourage Americans to get infected by a deadly pandemic and mock the increasing numbers of cases across the country .
And the GOP base is worse .
As Ross Douthat notes , the Republican base is so desirous of maintaining its epistemic closure that not even Fox News is good enough now , nor are explicitly partisan conservative governors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not just that pied pipers are feeding misinformation to a blinkered , easily duped electorate .
Core Republican voters now inhabit a wholly alternate universe .
Instead of acknowledging the truth that they are a shrinking minority with illegitimate power maintained only by anti-majoritarian institutions like the Electoral College and Senate malapportionment originally designed to benefit slave states , conservatives imagine themselves to command a permanent silent majority .
Still , a conspiracy of shadowy global cabals and swamp creatures conspire to prevent them from achieving the power they are rightly owed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On everything from elections themselves ( blue city votes shouldn ’ t be counted because they ’ re inherently suspect ) to COVID stimulus ( blue states and cities shouldn ’ t get help because they ’ re “ irresponsible , ” although blue states overwhelmingly pay the bills of red states ) , the Republican Party is , in essence , on a civil war footing against Blue America .
Importantly , the reverse is not true .
Democrats spend an inordinate amount of time arguing about persuading rural and red-state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ designed to explicitly harm Republican voters physically or economically .
So what does the reality-based community do about this ?
How do you deradicalize a political party whose leadership and base simultaneously seem to be driving themselves off of an ideological cliff into a land of violent conspiracy theory ?
Any such project must begin by understanding the scope of the problem and the limits of traditional critical theory or economic determinist approaches to the question .
Yes , racism , sexism , and toxic masculinity remain at the core of Republican anxieties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump garnered even more voters in 2020 than 2016 , how he maintained his support among women voters , or how he managed to gain ground among non-whites while losing ground among white men .
A Marxist analysis would note that non-college rural Trump voters clearly have class issues compared to college-educated urban Biden voters , as the audience of Trump rally compared to that of a Democratic event can attest .
But that doesn ’ t explain the reality that , despite the divide between Trump and Biden voters , Biden still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than $ 50,000 a year , while Trump won those making over $ 100,000 a year .
Racial wealth disparities account for some but not all of this–and in any case , such a caveat only shows the dominance of race over class in the psychology of American voters , But it ’ s also true that a large number of non-college whites outside of urban areas are making fairly good money and not necessarily suffering from economic anxiety .
To the degree to which a traditionally Marxist analysis can account for all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ updates , such an analysis would be so bespoke as to stretch the credibility of its own foundational premises .
Fortunately , many social scientists and psychologists have accurately described the Republican Party as more resembling a self-organizing cult than a traditional party .
Most cult experts tend to agree .
It also has a personal salience for so many who have seen their loved ones functionally disappear into another universe , Almost everyone has a “ Fox News Uncle ” story or a “ QAnon Aunt ” story , and the stories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ones lost to Scientology or the Moonies .
This is not an unusual development for authoritarian parties in a faltering democracy .
But it is exacerbated by America ’ s peculiar penchant for outlandish religious belief and by new social media algorithms that incentivize extremist discourse while allowing radicalized individuals to support and reinforce one another rather than be forced to engage with “ normies.
” QAnon , in particular , thrives in this fetid water .
Its combination of religious extremism and hodgepodge conspiracy theory is part movement , part cult , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have so many joined this particular political cult ?
People tend to join cults for many reasons , but one of the most important is to establish or rediscover a sense of purpose alongside a community of fellow seekers .
Loss of purpose is extremely important here because it serves as the best connector between the bigotry- and class-based analyses of Trumpism .
Trump voters–particularly white , predominantly male voters in exurban areas–feel afflicted by a loss of purpose .
This is , of course , largely a product of feeling like they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cultural and economic heights as they did in the old days of “ Leave it To Beaver ” and “ Father Knows Best.
” Social critics rightly note that this dominance was enabled by Jim Crow laws , homophobia , and sexist norms ; as the old saying goes , “ when you ’ re accustomed to privilege , equality feels like oppression.
” The world ’ s tiniest violin plays for them , as it should .
But those feelings exist nonetheless .
And there are also more valid reasons more deserving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America is under assault principally caused by the monopolization of the economy .
Small farmers are increasingly indentured servants of big agribusiness like Monsanto .
The small-town corner store has been forced out of business by Walmart .
The globalized economy increasingly delivers outsize economic and social rewards to workers with college educations , centralizing them in cities .
Tradespeople can still make good money , but modern society accords such work with limited social prestige–and it ’ s typically the white-collar workers hiring the electricians , not the other way around .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities are suffering family breakup and opioid drug crises ( also exacerbated by monopolized corporations ! )
, which only serves to reinforce their social anxiety and scuttles what W.E.B .
DuBois called their “ psychological wage ” : the advantage derived from feeling innately superior to non-whites , as they now find themselves ravaged by social problems similar to those experienced by residents of economically oppressed and structurally disenfranchised inner cities .
So , what to do about this ?
Most modern liberal rhetoric doesn ’ t really have an answer for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their prejudices ( justified but not particularly useful ) or tells them liberals want to “ give them a fair shake to get ahead in America ” ( language that is both bloodless and lacking credibility ) , or promises to “ give them free healthcare , guaranteed jobs , and higher minimum wages “ ( which doesn ’ t give them a sense of purpose and makes them fear that those things will also be delivered to those people and that they ’ ll lose their place in line . )
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the conservative movement , however .
Here it ’ s probably important to distinguish between two types of Republicans : the wholly committed and the merely Trump-curious .
Each belongs to a different type of cult .
The wholly committed identify with Trumpism as a cult of power .
QAnon depends on the idea that Trump can never lose , that their allies “ have it all , ” and their enemies will suffer mass execution and incarceration at Gitmo .
More standard Republicanism assumes that Republicans constitute a permanent majority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men and will always really run society .
If any liberals get any ideas otherwise , the “ patriots with guns ” and their supposed allies in the police and military will step in to make namby-pamby liberals cry and set things right .
Mitch McConnell is a paragon because he does what it takes to keep the firmament of power : we blocked Merrick Garland , Barrett now sits on the Court , hypocrisy is a meaningless construct of the whining leftist mind , and wait until Trump takes the election to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the help of White Jesus .
Cry more , liberal !
The only way to destroy the cults of power is to smash their power .
This is one reason why it is so important to prosecute Trump and his family once they are forced out of office .
Not just to protect the rule of law but also to clarify the Trumpist cult that the Trump family and their enablers are not , in fact , above consequences .
The God Emperor can also go to prison .
Far from destabilizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the country ’ s long-term stability .
It ’ s also why it ’ s important to eliminate the filibuster , bypass the electoral college , end gerrymandering , and add states to the Senate .
It ’ s not just to allow beneficial legislation to pass , but also to destroy the conservative cult of power .
It ’ s why it ’ s important to go after conservative news networks and the algorithms that enable radicalism .
At every step , it ’ s important to take the wind out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their own power and the pain of their enemies .
As soon as they realize that they are outnumbered by the decent and have no God-given right to dominance , an actual conversation can begin .
Until then , there can only be posturing and trolling .
For the more Trump-curious , the left has to provide an alternate sense of purpose for those who are open to it .
This is the essence of good populism : to provide projects that people can become a part of , to engage with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are actual villains and need fighting .
Providing material benefits to Trumpist white working-class voters won ’ t cure them of their bigotries .
But if the left can communicate that their small towns can be saved , that there can be good jobs available at good wages in both the public and private sectors , and that the Monsanto and Walmart executive in suits can be brought to heel so that the small farmer and hardware store owner can thrive again , that could make the difference at the margins .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of GOP radicalization and alter much of the conversation .
As the conservative media environment fragments and the inevitability of Trump ’ s defeat become apparent , the left has a unique opportunity to reach out to many of these voters as well .
None of these are perfect solutions .
They will require enormous efforts and may not be possible .
But they are answers that comprehend the scope of the problem and the only answer to the increasing radicalization of the right .

If the 2016 election shook the consciences of Americans who could not believe what their fellow citizens were capable of supporting, the 2020 election has been barely short of psychologically crushing. Yes, Joe Biden won by over 7 million votes. Yes, Democrats did hold the House and have an opportunity to take the Senate. But the fact that Donald Trump (!) was able to turn out an expectations-thwarting and poll-defying number of supporters despite a horrifically incompetent and willfully divisive presidency–combined with the fact that even many of those who rejected Trump still supported the Trumpist Republican ticket downballot–has shocked many Americans.
The Republican Party, meanwhile, continues its lurch toward radicalism. Its most prominent politicians now traffic in conspiracy theories from QAnon to widespread “voter fraud.” They encourage Americans to get infected by a deadly pandemic and mock the increasing numbers of cases across the country. And the GOP base is worse. As Ross Douthat notes, the Republican base is so desirous of maintaining its epistemic closure that not even Fox News is good enough now, nor are explicitly partisan conservative governors and secretaries of state. It’s not just that pied pipers are feeding misinformation to a blinkered, easily duped electorate. Core Republican voters now inhabit a wholly alternate universe. Instead of acknowledging the truth that they are a shrinking minority with illegitimate power maintained only by anti-majoritarian institutions like the Electoral College and Senate malapportionment originally designed to benefit slave states, conservatives imagine themselves to command a permanent silent majority. Still, a conspiracy of shadowy global cabals and swamp creatures conspire to prevent them from achieving the power they are rightly owed.
And it’s getting worse. On everything from elections themselves (blue city votes shouldn’t be counted because they’re inherently suspect) to COVID stimulus (blue states and cities shouldn’t get help because they’re “irresponsible,” although blue states overwhelmingly pay the bills of red states), the Republican Party is, in essence, on a civil war footing against Blue America. Importantly, the reverse is not true. Democrats spend an inordinate amount of time arguing about persuading rural and red-state voters, and no Democratic legislation is designed to explicitly harm Republican voters physically or economically.
So what does the reality-based community do about this? How do you deradicalize a political party whose leadership and base simultaneously seem to be driving themselves off of an ideological cliff into a land of violent conspiracy theory?
Any such project must begin by understanding the scope of the problem and the limits of traditional critical theory or economic determinist approaches to the question.
Yes, racism, sexism, and toxic masculinity remain at the core of Republican anxieties. But they do not explain how Trump garnered even more voters in 2020 than 2016, how he maintained his support among women voters, or how he managed to gain ground among non-whites while losing ground among white men.
A Marxist analysis would note that non-college rural Trump voters clearly have class issues compared to college-educated urban Biden voters, as a brief glance at the audience of Trump rally compared to that of a Democratic event can attest. But that doesn’t explain the reality that, despite the divide between Trump and Biden voters, Biden still won the majority of those making less than $50,000 a year, while Trump won those making over $100,000 a year. Racial wealth disparities account for some but not all of this–and in any case, such a caveat only shows the dominance of race over class in the psychology of American voters, But it’s also true that a large number of non-college whites outside of urban areas are making fairly good money and not necessarily suffering from economic anxiety. To the degree to which a traditionally Marxist analysis can account for all of this with various intersectional footnotes and updates, such an analysis would be so bespoke as to stretch the credibility of its own foundational premises.
Fortunately, many social scientists and psychologists have accurately described the Republican Party as more resembling a self-organizing cult than a traditional party. Most cult experts tend to agree. It also has a personal salience for so many who have seen their loved ones functionally disappear into another universe, Almost everyone has a “Fox News Uncle” story or a “QAnon Aunt” story, and the stories are virtually indistinguishable from descriptions of loved ones lost to Scientology or the Moonies.
This is not an unusual development for authoritarian parties in a faltering democracy. But it is exacerbated by America’s peculiar penchant for outlandish religious belief and by new social media algorithms that incentivize extremist discourse while allowing radicalized individuals to support and reinforce one another rather than be forced to engage with “normies.” QAnon, in particular, thrives in this fetid water. Its combination of religious extremism and hodgepodge conspiracy theory is part movement, part cult, and part self-organized roleplaying.
So why have so many joined this particular political cult? People tend to join cults for many reasons, but one of the most important is to establish or rediscover a sense of purpose alongside a community of fellow seekers. Loss of purpose is extremely important here because it serves as the best connector between the bigotry- and class-based analyses of Trumpism.
Trump voters–particularly white, predominantly male voters in exurban areas–feel afflicted by a loss of purpose. This is, of course, largely a product of feeling like they no longer control the country’s cultural and economic heights as they did in the old days of “Leave it To Beaver” and “Father Knows Best.” Social critics rightly note that this dominance was enabled by Jim Crow laws, homophobia, and sexist norms; as the old saying goes, “when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” The world’s tiniest violin plays for them, as it should.
But those feelings exist nonetheless. And there are also more valid reasons more deserving of empathy. Small town and rural America is under assault principally caused by the monopolization of the economy. Small farmers are increasingly indentured servants of big agribusiness like Monsanto. The small-town corner store has been forced out of business by Walmart. The globalized economy increasingly delivers outsize economic and social rewards to workers with college educations, centralizing them in cities. Tradespeople can still make good money, but modern society accords such work with limited social prestige–and it’s typically the white-collar workers hiring the electricians, not the other way around.
Concomitantly, rural areas and white working-class communities are suffering family breakup and opioid drug crises (also exacerbated by monopolized corporations!), which only serves to reinforce their social anxiety and scuttles what W.E.B. DuBois called their “psychological wage”: the advantage derived from feeling innately superior to non-whites, as they now find themselves ravaged by social problems similar to those experienced by residents of economically oppressed and structurally disenfranchised inner cities.
So, what to do about this? Most modern liberal rhetoric doesn’t really have an answer for it. It either shames them for their prejudices (justified but not particularly useful) or tells them liberals want to “give them a fair shake to get ahead in America” (language that is both bloodless and lacking credibility), or promises to “give them free healthcare, guaranteed jobs, and higher minimum wages“ (which doesn’t give them a sense of purpose and makes them fear that those things will also be delivered to those people and that they’ll lose their place in line.)
Not all solutions will work for all members of the conservative movement, however. Here it’s probably important to distinguish between two types of Republicans: the wholly committed and the merely Trump-curious. Each belongs to a different type of cult.
The wholly committed identify with Trumpism as a cult of power. QAnon depends on the idea that Trump can never lose, that their allies “have it all,” and their enemies will suffer mass execution and incarceration at Gitmo. More standard Republicanism assumes that Republicans constitute a permanent majority of “real” men who act like men and will always really run society. If any liberals get any ideas otherwise, the “patriots with guns” and their supposed allies in the police and military will step in to make namby-pamby liberals cry and set things right. Mitch McConnell is a paragon because he does what it takes to keep the firmament of power: we blocked Merrick Garland, Barrett now sits on the Court, hypocrisy is a meaningless construct of the whining leftist mind, and wait until Trump takes the election to the Supreme Court that he righteously stacked with the help of White Jesus. Cry more, liberal!
The only way to destroy the cults of power is to smash their power. This is one reason why it is so important to prosecute Trump and his family once they are forced out of office. Not just to protect the rule of law but also to clarify the Trumpist cult that the Trump family and their enablers are not, in fact, above consequences. The God Emperor can also go to prison. Far from destabilizing the country, doing so is essential to the country’s long-term stability.
It’s also why it’s important to eliminate the filibuster, bypass the electoral college, end gerrymandering, and add states to the Senate. It’s not just to allow beneficial legislation to pass, but also to destroy the conservative cult of power. It’s why it’s important to go after conservative news networks and the algorithms that enable radicalism. At every step, it’s important to take the wind out of the sails of those who glory in their own power and the pain of their enemies. As soon as they realize that they are outnumbered by the decent and have no God-given right to dominance, an actual conversation can begin. Until then, there can only be posturing and trolling.
For the more Trump-curious, the left has to provide an alternate sense of purpose for those who are open to it. This is the essence of good populism: to provide projects that people can become a part of, to engage with their communities, and enemies to fight who are actual villains and need fighting.
Providing material benefits to Trumpist white working-class voters won’t cure them of their bigotries. But if the left can communicate that their small towns can be saved, that there can be good jobs available at good wages in both the public and private sectors, and that the Monsanto and Walmart executive in suits can be brought to heel so that the small farmer and hardware store owner can thrive again, that could make the difference at the margins. It could also take the edge off of GOP radicalization and alter much of the conversation.
As the conservative media environment fragments and the inevitability of Trump’s defeat become apparent, the left has a unique opportunity to reach out to many of these voters as well.
None of these are perfect solutions. They will require enormous efforts and may not be possible. But they are answers that comprehend the scope of the problem and the only answer to the increasing radicalization of the right.