Humanity Lost

“Guys, defending or justifying shooting a man in the street is a path to hell.  Don’t do it.”  I posted that on social media and it touched a chord on both sides, getting millions of views and thousands of responses.

I obviously wrote it about the killing of Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealth.  Watching the video of his execution was jarring, like a dystopian scene come to life.  It’s stunning to me how many people have taken the side of the killer given how cold-blooded his actions were. 

Brian Thompson was the father of two children.  Those kids will never see their Dad again. 

I’m also sad for Luigi Mangione, a young man radicalized to commit murder who will spend the rest of his life behind bars.  A young person becoming a killer is tragic.

Beyond these two lives and families destroyed, I’m sad for what this killing and the reaction to it augur for our society.  Amazon has sold over 100,000 green “Luigi” knit hats and the jacket Mangione wore during the shooting has apparently sold out.  A demented young man is now an icon to those who feel that the system is rigged against them.

The first step toward violence is regarding others as less human than you are.  To some, a wealthy CEO of a health insurance company is no longer a human being worthy of consideration.

Some would make the argument that UnitedHealth prematurely ended thousands of lives through its business practices.  A Zoom was leaked that showed the new UnitedHealth CEO saying that his team should ‘ignore the noise’ and that the company’s practices were sound; one can only guess that it was leaked by an employee on the call.  But the practices of a company have nothing to do with the right and wrong of gunning a man down.  It’s only when people become figures in a morality play rather than flesh and blood humans that atrocities become subject to argument.

Is this killing a sign of things to come?  I fear it is.  I have looked into the eyes of a person radicalized by social media yelling obscenities on the street.  There was no reason or empathy in those eyes – only hatred.  They did not regard their ideological opponents as people, but as enemies to be defeated or conquered.

“The most ferocious fight is never good vs. evil,” someone once told me, “but good vs. good.”  People feel that their cause is righteous.  Righteousness bleeds into protest which in some cases leads to violence.  If you are on the side of justice, what side is your enemy on?  And what are you willing to do to ensure that your side wins?

I often think that the antidote to what ails us is to see everyone, including our enemies, as human beings with friends and families.  It seems obvious, but it’s becoming less and less the norm in American life.

Is it possible to lower the temperature and raise people’s awareness of our shared humanity?  We can only hope so, but the winds are blowing the other direction more and more strongly.  The answer is more humanity, not less.

Forward is having an end-of-year online event on Wednesday – come see what we’re up to including special announcements and guests!  For an in-depth conversation with an economist on the impact of online sports gambling, click on the podcast here.

Sports Betting Hurts American Men. Time To Rethink Its Regulation

Hello, I hope your December is off to a great start!  This week, I wrote a Newsweek op-ed about the growing dangers of online sports betting and its impact on American men.  I hope you’ll take a moment to read and reflect on this important issue.

Sports Betting Hurts American Men. Time To Rethink Its Regulation

I do something regularly that I wish I didn't. I bet on sports online.

Perhaps you've seen the advertisements for FanDuel, DraftKings, Fanatics, and the like. You definitely have if you've turned on any sports program recently, as the advertisements come in hot and heavy every few minutes, including on SportsCenter, which now has segments on what bets to make. Heck, ESPN has even gotten in on the action — literally — with ESPN Bet.

These apps are now enormous businesses. Estimates are that online sports betting companies are taking in around $15 billion in 2024, and that 37.6 million people bet online in the United States. About three in four betters are men. Broadcasts and sporting events are regularly sponsored by one of the online sportsbooks.

I'm one of their customers. I watch a lot of sports and started betting on various games and events a couple years ago. I was enticed in part by a promotion that would give me $250 if I made a couple of bets. Who would turn down free money? Not me.

This is all a relatively recent development, as in 2018 the Supreme Court ruled that it was up to each state to decide whether sports betting would be legal within its borders. New Jersey was first to declare betting legal and many others quickly followed; today we are up to 38 states that have legalized betting in some context.

So what are the problems?

The data are clear and compelling — and not good. As author Charles Fain Lehman put it, "The rise of sports gambling has caused a wave of financial and familial misery, one that falls disproportionately on the most economically precarious households."

First, households save less. One study showed that for every $1 spent on betting, households put $2 less into investment accounts. You see more families overdrafting a bank account or hitting the limit on a credit card. This makes sense to me; the money I bet remains either in the app or in a bank account to be recycled for the next bet.

Second, personal bankruptcies go up. Economists have found that legalizing sports betting increased the risk of a household going bankrupt by 25 to 30 percent, with the risk highest among young men living in low-income counties. Bad debt rates also went up.

Third, domestic violence increases. This is hard to say out loud but anyone who has bet on sports can see the connection. When you lose money on a bet, it puts you a terrible mood. It stresses you out. If you go home to a partner, it could be your partner that suffers. Researchers estimate that legalized sports betting leads to a 9 percent increase in domestic violence.

These are measurable phenomena, but addiction has been connected to feelings of anxiety and depression as well. I get it. I used to watch a sporting event and root for a team, or a player or outcome. The emotions are different when money is involved. It has transformed a sense of disappointment into calamity — and in my case the money I'm betting isn't going to keep me from putting food on the table. Imagine if it did?

Athletes now also report that fans bark at them for "ruining their parlay." It used to be that maybe the fan liked the athlete or identified with them. Now, the fan's bet is the dominant thing on his mind.

Betting on sports online is a perfect storm for men in that it combines things we enjoy at a visceral level: sports, money, speed, risk, and thinking that we know something that others don't. It's social, and it makes spending time on sports seem like a job that will pay you money. But what makes it such a powerful intoxicant also gives it the ability to ruin your financial life, your relationships, and your mental health.

I would love to see the regulation on this issue rethought. The main imperative right now is for the states that have not made sports betting legal — Alabama, Alaska, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, Missouri, Texas, and Utah — to keep it from reaching people's phones. I'm sure the companies are in your statehouses right now making their case. "It's easy tax revenue and everyone else is doing it! It's fun!" But the facts are clear. Online sports betting is the equivalent of a new tax on Americans that preys upon vulnerable, low-income men in particular. It increases financial stresses and emotional problems. It's not what your citizens need.

----

Struggling with gambling or know someone who is?  You're not alone — resources are available to help you and your loved ones.  This week on the podcast, Donté Stallworth shares his incredible journey from underdog to NFL superstar, offering a unique perspective on the impact of sports gambling on professional athletes.  Plus, I’m honored to have made the list of the top 10 most-viewed TED Talks of 2024 — check out my TED Talk here!

Being Thankful

Hello, I hope that you had a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday.  We spent it with family and friends.  My Mom did a great job of maintaining a Thanksgiving tradition for years, and now it's our turn.  

I sometimes get asked how I stay positive.  There are a few things I try to do.  Exercise.  Spend time outdoors.  Reading and writing. 

One other thing – which is very appropriate for the season – is being grateful.  “Science shows that expressing gratitude is one of the best things we can do for our own happiness,” says Rajiv Satyal, a comedian and public speaker I interview on the podcast this week. 

“Every day I jot down a few things I’m grateful for that day.  It could be something as simple as a free pizza I got.  And then I express it either in writing or as part of a dinner toast.”  Rajiv’s technique is a bit different than mine; I have a file on my phone with the big things:  my parents are still with us and healthy, my family is doing well, etc.  Rajiv goes with the little things instead of the big things.  It turns out they both work.

One reason I wanted to talk to Rajiv is that these are kind of depressing times.  Heck, even the holiday season is depressing for many as it gets colder and the sun isn’t out as much.  We can all use a little bit of happiness nudging. 

In addition to gratitude, Rajiv has a number of other techniques.  “Don’t try to measure your progress so often.  A lot of the time you’re in a plateau.  A plateau can last for a while and then you level up.  One day is definitely too short.  One week or one month might also be too short.  Now, if you don’t make progress in six months, that’s another story.” 

Rajiv also says to define yourself and your activity accurately.  “Look, I’m a comedian.  I can be a comedian whether a certain joke worked or not, or a certain concept worked, I’m still working it out.  If I define myself by what the market is saying or how much I made in a particular period, then I might think of myself a different way.  Define yourself in a way that gives you the ability to grow.” 

Rajiv is a very positive guy.  “Out of 64 people in that first comedy competition that I won, I might be the only one who is still onstage.”  But he also remembers giving someone some very unusual advice.  “There was another comedian, I told him to quit. And it wasn’t because he wasn’t funny.  The problem is he was getting less funny.  You could tell.  When that’s your trend, you should probably rethink your line of work.  I saw him years later and he pulled me aside and said, ‘Thank you, you’re the only one who would tell me.’”  Sometimes being positive means letting it go.  

For my convo with Rajiv, click here.  Find things to be grateful for.  Happy Holidays and let the people in your life know how much they mean to you!

What Are the Limits?

Hello, I hope that you and yours are doing well. 

Appetite for the news has gone down in the wake of the election, as many people find it depressing. 

That said, a few questions are on everyone’s minds in regards to the incoming administration: 

1.     Are they going to be able to confirm their announced Cabinet appointments? 

2.     Will the Department of Government Efficiency really be able to downsize the federal government? 

3.     Will they follow through with their announced plans, i.e. mass deportations?

To help answer these questions, I interviewed legal expert and ABC news contributor Sarah Isgur on the podcast this week.  “The Supreme Court has taken a dim view of the expansion of executive powers these past several years.  A few of the Justices who Trump appointed, for example, actually said in one opinion that recess appointments weren’t still a thing and were an anachronism based on a time when it was a lot harder for the Senate to get to D.C. from their hometowns via horse and carriage.”  This is one of the main workarounds that gets mentioned, which is that Trump would make his appointments when the Senate is in recess.  Sarah thinks this would run afoul of recent rulings. 

That said, Sarah noted that it’s possible that the Supreme Court could wait to hear the case for months during which time the appointed Cabinet member could serve in their role.  “The Court could say you can’t appoint the person while they’re waiting for the case to be heard, or they could say that they can serve in a temporary capacity.  But the temporary capacity could be 18 months, after which it could become moot.” 

A number of Republican Senators have already indicated that they don’t like a couple Cabinet picks. Gaetz likely dropped out for this reason. Sarah said that both the Supreme Court and the Senate could look to avoid a head-on confrontation with Donald Trump in order to preserve their power.  “It looks bad, obviously, if you say something and then Trump does another. So both the Senate and the Supreme Court will try and avoid that situation.” 

So it seems that the Senate will indeed wield clout in its traditional approval role. What about Trump’s stated desire to fire various federal employees and downsize the government?  

“There is actually a law called the anti-deficiency act that stipulates that the Executive Branch must spend the amount of money allocated by Congress to a particular agency,” Sarah observes.  “So you can’t just not spend the money, at least according to the statute.”  I don’t think this would constrain Trump and his allies.  Elon in particular is going to want to head down this road. His WSJ op-ed with Vivek lays out a clear plan to shrink the workforce by reducing the number of regulations they are responsible for.  In a battle between Elon and the bureaucracy, I’d bet on Elon.  I’d be very concerned if I was a rank-and-file federal employee. 

There’s a famous quote from President Andrew Jackson about the Supreme Court ruling against forced removal of Native Americans in 1832:  “John Marshall (the Chief Justice) has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.”  Andrew Jackson is not an admired President.  But Donald Trump is going to feel he has a popular mandate based on his sweeping electoral win.  His staff picks indicate that he was sincere in what he said he was going to do as President.  I think he follows through, and the Senate and the Supreme Court will find themselves increasingly challenged as to when to stand up to Trump and when to let him have his way.  The ongoing decline of our institutions will speed up in 2025. 

For my interview with Sarah Isgur, which is more positive, click here.  To help fuel the Forward political movement click here – new people are joining these days.  For a bottle of wine, click here.  Kidding!  

The Solution in Plain Sight

Hello, I hope that your weekend was great. 

Trump’s appointments are coming in every hour.  Some of them are better than others.  Of course, the most unprecedented is to see what Elon Musk can do as one of the co-efficiency czars. 

I’m in the school of thought that, yes, there are many extraneous expenses and employees in the massive federal government, but you don’t want to take a wrecking ball to it because you might need something or someone and there are a lot of legacy responsibilities, so you have to go in with a scalpel.  You also want to give everyone some notice and time to adjust, both within the government and among the many people that are touched by various programs.  But we are likely going to see the wrecking ball approach. 

This regime is going to seriously engage with its stated missions and will let very little stand in its way.  That’s how they won, after all. 

I’m particularly focused on whether they genuinely can deliver a better standard of living for working class voters.  The history of the Republican Party under Trump has been measures that exacerbate the plight of the have-nots combined with symbolic gestures that gin up energy. 

I’ve been trying to improve people’s circumstances since my presidential run started in 2018.  Right now Humanity Forward is lobbying for a return of the enhanced child tax credit, which is the biggest anti-poverty opportunity on the table.  There is an expressed openness among Republicans to doing something that their base would like; JD Vance for example was very bullish on the CTC during the campaign.  There is hope on this front. 

Bigger picture, I have been working on reforming the political system so that it can respond to people and solve problems.  Forward Party got many new members last week and helped elect 25 new office holders, bringing the national total to 65.  That’s not bad for a scrappy upstart party. 

I’ve been a big proponent of ballot initiatives for open primaries and ranked choice voting, most of which had a very tough Election Day.

This week on the podcast, a new front in the democracy reform movement has been opened up.  It’s allowing people to vote by phone. 

“Why are our politics so dysfunctional?  It’s because a small proportion of extreme voters vote in our primaries, making our politics more extreme,” says Bradley Tusk the founder of MobileVoting.org.  “One way of opening up the electorate is primary reform, which I’m all for.  But the other way is to allow people to vote on our phones.” 

“Fundamentally, how do we make the primary electorate bigger?” Bradley asks. “Make it easier to vote.  We all run our lives on our phones – we might be able to triple the number of people who vote in primaries if we can do it on our phones.”  That would indeed transform politics. 

Bradley explains, “We need a solution that can be advanced at the local level, without an act of Congress.  Individual towns and cities can decide to use mobile voting technology to complement their existing systems – we can make it so that each digital vote actually prints out a paper ballot and can integrate with existing ballots so no one is nervous about how it gets processed or counted.” 

Now, I know what you’re thinking.  Who’s going to build this?  Here’s the phenomenal thing:  Bradley already did it.  “We got started back in 2020 and I spent $20 million building it.  It’s already been used by servicemembers stationed at military bases and piloted in multiple states.  Now, any city or town can use it for free.”  Yes, free.  This is all a philanthropic venture. 

Why is he doing it?  “My family immigrated to this country for a better life, and it happened,” Bradley says.  “I spent years working in politics and technology and genuinely think this is the last and best hope we have for democracy.”  He may be right about that.

Forward is going to be helping to make mobile voting the norm – we already have Forward-affiliated mayors who are interested.  I love the idea of voting on your phone; the leaders who make it happen in America will have changed the system for good.  Plus, last I checked I’m the candidate from the future, and in the future we definitely vote on our phones, don’t we?  Bradley is leading the way to make it happen. 

For my interview with Bradley Tusk click here.  To check out mobilevoting.org click here.  To order Bradley’s new book ‘Vote With Your Phone’ click here.  To fuel the political movement that will be embracing mobile voting head to Forward – let’s go build the future. 

Tired of Being Right

Hello, I hope that your weekend was good. 

This week on the podcast, Zach Graumann and I unpack what happened on Election Day.  It got a little emotional.  Zach said, “Man, I’m tired of being right.” 

Coming from most people, that would seem a little bit self-aggrandizing.  But Zach hadn’t just opined; Zach moved to New Hampshire in January to help run Dean Phillips’ insurgent campaign against Joe Biden.  He put a ton into trying to get the Dems to do the right thing and hold a competitive primary. 

I was there too.  Dean’s campaign was real.  He put $5.8 million of his own in, raised another $1.8 million and got 19% of the vote in New Hampshire.  For those of you who supported our efforts for Dean, thank you – I hope you also feel good about that support now. Dean was running on the conviction that the Democratic Party was careening toward disaster in November with Joe Biden as the nominee.  The Dems fell all over themselves maligning Dean and protecting Biden, who would wind up dropping out less than 6 months later. 

Dean was proven right.  “We got 19% in New Hampshire and it could easily have been higher, but the press didn’t want to give Dean any credit,” Zach says.  “The Dems were much more concerned with keeping their place in line than listening to what we were saying.”

Zach and I had tried.  Then, months later after his disastrous June debate performance, Joe Biden pivoted to elevating Kamala Harris instead of allowing a hurried primary.  As we all now know, Kamala got swept in the swing states and lost the popular vote, failing to build on Biden’s vote total in any county in the United States.  The blame game is on. 

“From a comms perspective, it was malpractice.  What was the Dem message?” Zach comments.  “And the messenger couldn’t answer layup questions like ‘What would you do differently than Joe Biden?’”  We also discuss Kamala’s failure to go on Joe Rogan, which I described as madness given the size and nature of the audience.   

Zach has now run two presidential campaigns and written a book on one of them – that’s changed his perspective.  He’s left it out on the field.  Even for me, it’s a lot easier for me to say, “She should have gone on Joe Rogan” because I’ve actually done it myself and believe Joe would have been open-minded and fair.  Zach joked that he thought he’d feel better after unpacking the campaign, but it actually fired him up more to talk about it. 

One frustration that people have is that the Dems will learn very little from this loss.  If history is any indication, they’re in for a long road.  Meanwhile, Forward is growing quickly as people discover the need for a new approach.  Let’s speed up. 

For my interview with Zach, click here.  For my thoughts on what the Democrats should do, which they will ignore, click here.  To join Forward and build the new movement click here – there are a ton of new people joining right now. 

The Path Ahead

Hello, I hope that you and yours are doing well.

I wrote a piece in Newsweek about how the Dems lost and a POLITICO piece as to what the Democratic Party should do now. I don’t expect the latter to be heeded obviously.

25 Forward Party endorsed or affiliated candidates won their races, including John Curtis in Utah and Don Davis in North Carolina. The win rate of our candidates was 20%, which was about the best you can hope for.

People are taking different messages and lessons from Election Day. Here’s my take: The institutions are dying. People are losing faith right and left. Mistrust is a winner. If you try to sell me on your virtue, you’re probably full of it.

The Democratic Party has taken on the mantle of the institutions; things are working, nothing to see here, believe us and believe in us, the experts know best. The Republican Party has taken on the energy of Donald Trump; everyone is full of it, the institutions are lying to you, I may say things you disagree with but at least I talk like a human being, I don’t pretend to be good.

Not believing has become a lot easier than believing. Here’s how I put it in The War on Normal People:

“We have entered an age of transparency where we can see our institutions and leaders for all of their flaws. Trust is for the gullible. Everything now will be a fight. Appealing to common interests will be all the more difficult.”

That seems about right.

As the fabric frays and the institutions unravel, individuals rise to replace them. Trump is a movement leader who survived two assassination attempts. Elon Musk is the richest man in the world who owns a social media platform. Joe Rogan is a martial arts expert who is the most widely listened to media figure in America. They each represent avatars of individuality.

At our base, we prefer human beings to faceless corporations, change agents to the status quo in a time of widespread discontent.

So what now?

Do I think the Democratic Party will reform itself in some way? I’m not optimistic, even as I lay out the steps I would take here. The Party reminds me of a big company that has lost touch with its constituents, but has a big regulatory moat keeping it in place.

I’ve always thought that building new ways of doing things or companies or organizations is a lot more fun and positive way to spend time than hoping that an incumbent will all of a sudden have a culture change.

Not surprisingly, Forward has seen a surge of interest in the past number of days. People know we can’t do the same thing over and over again and hope for a different result.

I’ve feared Trump for a long time as an accelerant to the decline of institutions. He’ll be President again. It’s time to build, both a new political movement but also in our own lives closer to home. Families are institutions. So are schools and businesses and places of worship and even book clubs.

We always need great people in our lives. Start there. And yes, believe in them.

To see my piece in Newsweek click here and for my POLITICO piece click here. To join Forward to help build the new party click here – some phenomenal people are coming our way.

Abandon Policing Cultural Behaviors

Hello, POLITICO reached out to me to offer a candid take on how the Democratic Party can regain the public’s trust and revitalize American democracy. Here’s what I wrote:

Abandon Policing Cultural Behaviors

First, the Democrats should apologize for sandbagging Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary.

After, they should name Dean Phillips the new chair of the DNC, as the only Democrat with the character to sacrifice his own career for the good of the country.

Next, they should apologize for not having a competitive primary this year, which would have resulted in a vetted nominee and ticket with the buy-in of hundreds of thousands of voters. They will agree to always hold a primary no matter what, as it resulted in victories in 2008 and 2020, while not holding a competitive primary resulted in losses in 2016 and 2024. They should voluntarily adopt open primaries (and ranked choice voting) in all of their primaries, inviting independents to participate in their candidate selection process, as this group represents a plurality of Americans.

They should pledge never to back extremists in Republican primaries to boost a more beatable opponent in the general election, and they should agree never to keep minor parties or independent candidates off the ballot in states around the country. If you believe yourself to be the better option, you shouldn’t be scared of healthy competition.

They should back the Local Journalism Sustainability Act to provide a path for local journalism, increasing information going to the electorate. They should also back the Fair Representation Act as a way to fight gerrymandering and give voice to voters in the minority party of a district. Yes, they’ll lose some seats in Democratic gerrymandered states. What a message it would send to voters that they’d rather build a representative government than hold onto power at all costs.

Finally, they should adopt one central mission: improving Americans’ standard of living. They should abandon policing cultural behaviors, especially since many of their stances aren’t even popular with Democrats in real life. They should also create solutions for men and boys — who are struggling — instead of engaging in identity politics that excludes at least half of the country.

In many ways, these all boil down to one thing: The Democratic Party should act more democratically. But they will do none of these things. Instead, they will begin jockeying for position within the party to run in 2028. That is why more and more voters will look for options, like the Forward Party, or declare themselves independents as Trump returns to power. Institutions incapable of reform get replaced.

Why Did Kamala Lose? Blame Joe Biden and the Democratic Party

Hello, I hope you’re doing well after an intense election season. I just published a piece on Newsweek analyzing the factors behind Kamala Harris' loss and what it means for the Democratic Party moving forward — I thought you might find it insightful.

Why Did Kamala Lose? Blame Joe Biden and the Democratic Party

The election is over. Vice President Kamala Harris lost and former President Donald Trump won. How did this happen?

People are going to point fingers. Harris inherited President Biden's political team with some of former President Barack Obama's team bolted on, and they will all be very eager to divorce themselves from the loss. The less thoughtful will point to misogyny or racism or some combination. Yet while I'm sure the country's first woman president will experience a different kind of scrutiny, the real cause of the Dems' loss was their refusal to hold a nomination process.

President Biden's refusal to step down and allow a primary in January of this year is why the Democrats lost. If a primary had taken place, Josh Shapiro, Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, J.B. Pritzker, Wes Moore, Andy Beshear, and others would have run alongside Kamala. The result would have been a strong nominee chosen by voters in a competitive process. If it had been Kamala — which you'd have to consider unlikely, based on her 2019 run — she would have been a different candidate who would have done scores of interviews and been fully prepped and toughened.

Kamala had well-established weaknesses. One is that she was attached to the current administration with all of its drawbacks. Another is that she struggles with sit-down interviews. When asked a question, she seems to be thinking, "What should I say here?" instead of, "What do I think and believe?" That's a critical flaw. Her team managed to avoid this in the presidential race for a while by focusing on the DNC speech and the debate, but eventually she had no choice but to conduct interviews, and the results were uneven at best. If your candidate can't win people over by talking to them or in front of them, it's a major problem.

By the way, I don't think this is that big a deal ordinarily. Many politicians are kind of unmemorable and resort to talking points whenever they sit down. But in a presidential campaign, it's glaring. People expect the President to be a strong leader and communicator, and talking points seem scripted and inauthentic. This is one reason why Kamala's campaign in 2019 didn't go well. Again, that's what a nomination process is for.

President Biden insisting that he was running only to drop out belatedly after his disastrous June debate and then endorse Harris short-circuited any chance for the party to meaningfully vet a candidate and field the strongest ticket.

There was one member of Congress who tried to force a nomination contest: Dean Phillips of Minnesota. His reward was a premature end to his political career and endless stories maligning his character. Dean tried to save the party from itself, but it didn't want to be saved; instead, it chanted "four more years" at a visibly declining 81-year old Joe Biden, who would drop out six months later.

A genuine nomination process would have made the Democratic Party seem much more functional, because, well, it would have been. Voters would have spoken, and the best candidates would have emerged. That never happened.

Even after Kamala Harris was the nominee, they could have gone bolder. She could have shown daylight between herself and Joe Biden on multiple fronts. I would have considered accepting RFK Jr.'s endorsement and giving him a role in trying to clean up food additives. Many of his followers are sincere. The Dems refused to take his call. I would have named Mitt Romney Secretary of State. As far as I know they never had that conversation. I would have said, "Ordinary Americans are fed up with bureaucracy. Democrats should be trying to deliver services efficiently. I will name a task force to minimize waste and deliver results." Take some of Elon's thunder. Who likes bureaucracy? Accept some of the grievances Americans have as being in good faith, and make yourself someone who redefines party orthodoxy to build a bigger tent.

But to do these things it would take someone — either the candidate or the campaign manager — with a real vision. The candidate matters. If your candidate is a particular person with real strengths and weaknesses, you can't make them into a different person or swap them out (more than once).

There were also issues with Harris inheriting Biden's team and campaign; there wasn't a multi-year arc of trust built up. I don't think the campaign team had confidence in Kamala to take on certain tasks. And instead of figuring out how to grow to a win, the strategy became trying to eke out a narrow win that eventually turned into a loss, despite a massive fundraising advantage.

Tons of campaign time was spent on raising money for ads that never moved the needle. There's a lesson there too.

Now the Democratic Party will say, "It's okay, we'll come back in '28!" Consultants will burnish their resumés by throwing someone else under the bus. Profiles will be written about the next crop of candidates for what they hope will be the next election.

Will they learn? Why would you imagine so after witnessing this year?

Fundamentally, the party has become insular — more concerned about itself than the people and families it pretends to represent. Conformity ruled over courage or common sense. Enough Americans have lost faith to give the reins of power back to Donald Trump.

No one should walk away from this thinking that the situation is tenable. The question should not be "Who's next?" but instead "What is next?" Everything, including a new political party that gets us beyond the tedious us vs. them, should be on the table.

—

If you’re exhausted by a system that isn’t working, it’s time to look forward — join the Forward Party and be part of the change we need.

Well that was Rough

Hello, I hope that you are doing well as we process Election Day results.  
 
I’ve had a sinking feeling about Trump’s return for months.  And that’s what came to pass.  It was also a very bad night for the democracy reform movement, as open primaries and ranked choice voting ballot initiatives came up empty in states around the country.  

Americans are in a bad mood and lurched to the right.  The anti-institutional fervor is growing, and belief in things like the news media is shrinking.  Trump filled the void through his populist appeal – he began to represent the man vs. the machine.  
 
What good is there?  A handful of Forward-endorsed candidates won locally, adding to a growing roster.  Washington D.C. passed open primaries and ranked choice voting to let Independents vote.  
 
Perhaps the only major good thing is that people are waking up to the fact that the two-party system is broken, and that the Democratic Party has lost faith among the American people.  I got numerous texts and emails saying, “I’m done” and “where do I sign up?”  People realize that a different approach is needed.  
 
The Democrats raised and spent a billion dollars – much more including SuperPACS – and got swept in the swing states.  They lost to Donald Trump for the 2nd time in 8 years, this time decisively, providing a mandate to someone they have presented as an existential threat to democracy.  
 
I’m saddened by this.  But the truth is that the Democratic Party lost touch with the average American quite a while ago.  What is needed is a popular movement that restores that connection.  Is that possible?  
 
On Election Night, I had the opportunity to meet with Forward volunteers in Philadelphia along with other Board members.  It was a small but earnest group.  Everyone had a wonderful time because of the nature of the people gathered there – warm and dedicated - even as the sobering reality of the night settled in.  Difficult times are easier with the right people around you.  
 
A friend texted me saying that rough waters are ahead.  I didn’t disagree.  It’s time to build a boat.  
 
If you’re ticked off, join Forward today.  
 
This is a sad and difficult day.  Absorb it.  And then let’s get back to work.

Election Eve

Hello, I hope that you are gearing up for Election Day.  I voted early.    

What is going to happen on Tuesday?  The first thing to know is that there’s a good chance we won’t know who won by the end of the night, so try to be patient.   

Who is going to win?  What’s fascinating is that I’ve gotten reports of confidence from both sides.  Both sides think that they’re going to win.  The Republicans are in “who is going to take what job” mode.  And Democrats who are looking at the early votes cast are confident that they’re going to pull it out, albeit narrowly. 

Their strategies are somewhat different.  The Democrats are trying to get out their voters and leaning on field teams and organizers.  It’s sensible given their monetary advantage. 

Republicans are reaching out to low propensity voters who are Trump-aligned but haven’t participated recently – hunters are one example.  Trump won in 2016 largely by getting new voters to show up.  You might think that well has been drained but the Republicans are testing it out again. 

“If the usual voters show up, the Democrats are confident they’re going to win.  If new voters show up then Republicans think it’s going to be theirs,” is how one person put it. 

I was on CNN this week trying to prod the Harris campaign.  I thought that Trump was going to win for quite a while – Kamala’s main path is to win Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.  The sunbelt states of Arizona, Nevada, Georgia and North Carolina seem to be slightly tougher terrain for her and better for Trump. 

I thought that passing up Joe Rogan was a missed opportunity, personally.  It’s a massive audience that’s predominantly male – kind of a gold mine. 

The expectation is that the Republicans will win control of the Senate – they only need to pick up one seat aside from West Virginia – and the Democrats are slightly favored to win the House.  In addition to the results that most people will be watching, I’ll of course be seeing how the Forward-endorsed candidates fare as well as the ballot initiatives to open up the primaries across the country.  This year I’ll be heading to Forward Party’s Election Night event in Philadelphia – it should be a phenomenal gathering. 

Will it be festive or funereal?  We’ll all find out soon enough.  As always, do what you can. 

If you’d like to donate to Forward so we can have better choices in our politics, click here.  Try to keep a level head, we'll all still be here solving problems no matter how this week goes.  

I started a Third Party. Here's Why You Shouldn't Vote for One in 2024

Hello, this week I wrote about voting third-party for the 2024 presidential election in an op-ed for Newsweek.

I started a Third Party. Here's Why You Shouldn't Vote for One in 2024

I started a third party. And I don't think you should vote for one in the presidential race this November.

How can those two things be true? Let me explain.

Back in 2016, after Trump's victory, I became deeply concerned that our economy was evolving in ways that would kick more and more Americans to the curb. I believed Trump won because we had automated away millions of manufacturing jobs in the Midwest. This would get much worse when Artificial Intelligence arrived and eliminated many other jobs. We were going through the greatest economic transition in the history of the world and were not meaningfully responding. I ran for President in 2020 as a Democrat to make the case for Universal Basic Income and a human-centered economy. We participated in seven presidential primary debates and raised money from over 400,000 grassroots donors, mainstreaming UBI and leading to cash relief being piloted in communities around the country.

But after my campaign ended, I felt despondent about the direction of American politics. Problems were going to get worse, not better. Congress had a 17 percent approval rate and a 94 percent re-election rate.

I concluded that the two-party system is not going to solve our problems, including poverty, so I started what would become the Forward Party in 2021 to reform the way we vote and provide more choices for Independents.

At the time, people were convinced they knew why I had started a third party: "Oh, Andrew Yang wants to run for President." Then and now, people were asking me to run just about every day. And of course, I want to make positive change with good policy. But I'm a MATH guy, and in 2021, I believed that if I were to run for president, I'd be more likely to do harm than good. I was convinced Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee, and because my supporters lean young, I thought that if I were on the ballot in 2024, I'd increase the chances of Donald Trump winning, which is the opposite of what I wanted.

You want the world to be a certain way. But you also have to be mindful of the practical impact here and now of your actions. We're adults and this election is going to matter.

That's why the Forward Party is endorsing over 100 school board, state representative, City Council, and congressional candidates around the country. You can see them here.

But we are not running a presidential candidate.

That strikes us as the smart, savvy, and responsible approach. My co-chairs now include Christine Todd Whitman, the two-term governor of New Jersey and Kerry Healey, former Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, both of whom came to the need for reform from their time in office. Dozens of elected officials in Pennsylvania, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Colorado and around the country have affiliated with Forward. A party will not be built on any one person or during any one cycle; you need to be prepared to think and act long-term.

Yes, the country badly needs an upgrade from the dysfunction of our current political system. But it won't happen all at once.

On a personal level, I had to make a decision: What was the best thing for the country? I chose to stand down, and I'm 100 percent comfortable that this was the best decision. Each voter has the same decision.

Now, this could be endlessly frustrating to those of us who are fed up by both major parties and want an alternative. And a presidential campaign is a fantastic way to drum up interest and resources. I would know! Why vote for a candidate you are not excited about? Don't you deserve better?

Yes, you do. But here's the truth of it: Either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump will be the President of the United States in January. Your vote — especially if you live in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia or North Carolina — could determine which of those two individuals wins. You should make sure your vote goes to whichever of those two candidates you would prefer to see in office. If you're having trouble choosing between those two, hunker down until you've made a choice and then vote accordingly.

Now, this does not mean you can't express your dissatisfaction with the major parties in other ways. If you live in a state where it's a foreordained conclusion who is going to win, then you're more free to vote however you like. Nationally, you can support an Independent candidate like Dan Osborn, who is running for Senate in Nebraska and is tied with the incumbent. You can support the campaigns for open primaries and ranked choice voting in Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, Idaho, Oregon and Montana this November. You can join the Forward chapter in your state and make clear that you want to establish a voice for the 50 percent of Americans who are Independents and feel on the outside looking in at our current political system. Believe me, there's a lot to do. Americans deserve more choice and we are building the infrastructure to make it happen.

But you should not vote for a third party presidential candidate this cycle if you live in a swing state. It might make you feel like you are voting your conscience or voting for something different. In reality, you'll be voting for a lesser version of the status quo. And that's something that we should all be striving to avoid.

We deserve better. I don't think Donald Trump is the path to get there. Vote accordingly.

8 Days To Go

Hello, I hope that things are great on your end.  Halloween is a big holiday in my household because it’s also Evelyn’s birthday. 
 
It’s 8 days until Election Day.  If you think it’s been tough, imagine living in one of the swing states where political advertisements are constant.  I was in Pennsylvania and it was non-stop. 
 
This week I sit with columnist and commentator Rikki Schlott to talk what’s coming.  “Among the young people I talk to there’s a lot more excitement about Kamala than there was for Biden.  There’s a sense of relief that at least we have someone who’s not an old guy to vote for.” 
 
Rikki says that among the voters she talks to there’s a desire to move on.  “A lot of young people want to put the last few years behind us and act like things are normal again.  That’s likely good for Kamala.” 
 
I was on CNN this week and made the case that Kamala should name Mitt Romney as her Secretary of State.  Kamala Harris has already announced her desire to name a Republican to her Cabinet.  Mitt is no fan of Trump’s and got 61 million votes in 2012 among many of the voters that Kamala is now appealing to.  Think Nikki Haley voters, many of whom probably love Mitt. Mitt is leaving the Senate and could be open to a final act of statesmanship. 
 
I like this idea because it would make Kamala’s administration seem much more real and groundbreaking.  It would paint a picture and demonstrate leadership.  It would also represent a break from Democratic orthodoxy and make Kamala seem like her own person. 
 
You could go further too.  Folks like Jamie Dimon or Mark Cuban or Arnold Schwarzenegger could send a similar message, and you could balance them with some star Democrats. 
 
The more surprising the move the better.  No one will bat an eye if another Hollywood celebrity comes out for Kamala.  But Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs?  Tony Robbins?  Chris Christie?  Sitting with Joe Rogan?  That would get some people thinking.  
 
One senses that Kamala’s team knows it’s going to be extraordinarily close down the stretch.  They’re adopting higher risk moves like going on Fox, campaigning with Liz Cheney, etc.  They should be thinking, “What could we do in the final days that would move the needle?” 
 
Trump has the owner of a social media platform camped out in Pennsylvania giving voters $1 Million a day until recently.  The Democrats should be trying to stretch the boundary of what they’re capable of in the final days.  Otherwise, their commitment to democracy will be tested by a proud presidential candidate tradition they’re trying to avoid – a concession speech. 
 
For my interview with Rikki click here.  To check out the local candidates Forward is supporting including in PA, NV, and NC click here.  To join us for the Forward Election Night Watch Party in Philadelphia click here – it'll be historic and some great people will be there.  

What’s going to happen?

Election Day is only a couple weeks away.  What is going to happen? 
 
This week on the podcast I interview veteran pollster Frank Luntz to get his assessment.  “It’s going to come down to seven states, and each of them is essentially tied right now,” Frank says.  I asked him whether they all could wind up trending in one direction.  He said, “Each state is going to come down to different types of voters – Latinos in Nevada and Arizona for example – so they’re not necessarily correlated to each other.” 
 
The polls are very tight across the board.  “Kamala has raised and is spending $1 billion and it hasn’t broken the tie,” Frank observes.  After a surge as the nominee, Kamala Harris has settled into a point where it’s neck-and-neck.  Perhaps it’s not surprising that in such a divided country we are faced with a 50-50 race. 
 
“Trump is talking too much; he’s reminding everyone of why they wanted to move on from him.  And Kamala Harris is communicating too little for those who want to know what she’d do as President.  Whoever course corrects the most in the final days will have an advantage,” Frank says. 
 
I’ll confess that I’ve had a sense of foreboding regarding Trump’s return for quite some time.  If you’ve kept up with me, you know that I’ve been concerned about declining institutions and a general disintegration of the American way of life since I wrote The War on Normal People years ago during my presidential run.  I remember being surprised both by Trump’s victory in 2016 and by how close it was in 2020; each time he overperformed his polling.  It seemed that people either didn’t want to share they were voting for Trump or his voters weren’t being properly measured. 
 
I asked Frank whether the measurement errors of the past had been addressed.  He said that pollsters have tried to adjust their methods of gathering responses but there is no way to know until Election Day. 
 
Will Trump overperform the polls again in November?  If so, he almost certainly wins.  
 
I feel like the world has changed so much in the last number of years.  Trust and cohesion are down.  Alternate realities flourish on just about every social media platform.  Americans feel very ornery. 
 
I hope that Kamala edges it out.  Frank said, “I believe Harris very well could win at the margins, because the American people have never voted in someone who has a track record like Donald Trump in 2024.”  I spoke to someone who was around Donald Trump recently who shared that “his mental decline is evident.”  Yikes. 

On the other hand, Kamala’s recent media strategy suggests to me that they’re trying to change things up. 
 
It’s going to be close, that’s for sure.  We’re a deeply polarized country where 43 of the 50 states are already spoken for, and the voters in 7 states will decide which path we take as a nation.
 
I’ll be talking to my fair share of those voters.  The Forward Party Election Night Watch Party will be in Philadelphia.  If you know folks in PA, MI, WI, NV, AZ, GA, or NC feel free to gently reach out.  They’re in the driver’s seat.  I hope they choose wisely for the rest of us.    
 
For my interview with Frank click here.  To check out the local candidates Forward is supporting including in PA, NV, and NC click here.  To join us for the Forward Election Night Watch Party in Philadelphia click here.  In case you can't make it, I'll also be co-hosting a virtual rally with Open Primaries today at 6:00 PM EST to talk with campaigns around the country at the forefront of democracy reform.  History is being made in November one way or the other.  

The Path Forward

Hello.  I’m heading to Nebraska on Tuesday to campaign for Dan Osborn, who is running for Senate in Nebraska and is leading the incumbent in recent polls.  Dan is running as an Independent and represents one of the great opportunities in November. 

Forward has endorsed dozens of local candidates – we are running a fundraising campaign with a goal of $25,000 – if you are able to do so please donate $25 or whatever you can to Forward today.  It will help us do a lot of good. 

Thousands of people donate to Forward every year, which I’m immensely grateful for.  Imagine everyday Americans donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to improve democracy and present real choice.  We are doing the thing that others believe to be out-of-reach.  At some point in the future, people will look up and say, “Wow, they did what?” 

Dan Osborn is a huge overlooked opportunity, but there are others including Adam Frisch, John Avlon, Eric Settle and the other candidates that Forward has endorsed.  One candidate – John Curtis – is certain to be the next U.S. Senator representing Utah in Mitt Romney’s old seat. 

The two parties are spending billions beating each other up – I get multiple texts every day – while we are earnestly building the alternative on a shoestring. 

Still, we are not unmindful of the general election and all that is at stake.  Our activities in Pennsylvania, Nevada, North Carolina and other contested states could be the difference-maker speaking to different audiences. 

As I put in a recent post:  “I get the frustration.  I just don’t think Donald Trump is the answer.” 

There are also half-a-dozen states that are considering primary reform a la Alaska- the subject of my TED talk that is now over 2.1 million views - including Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, Montana, Idaho and South Dakota as well as Oregon considering Ranked Choice Voting.  These might not get the headlines on Election Night but they are very high-stakes. 

People ask what Forward is about all the time.  Forward is a positive independent movement to reform our politics by boosting reforms, supporting good candidates of any party, and creating a third party that can reduce the polarization, hostility and dysfunction that make our politics unresponsive to the problems of this age.  We have dozens of affiliated elected officials and our co-chairs include the two-term Governor of New Jersey, the former Lt. Governor of Massachusetts and a certain entrepreneur who wants good things for people.   

We’ve accomplished a lot over the last few years but we have a long way to go.  Thank you.  Let’s work for the best in November.  

To donate to Forward’s campaign click here.  You can also buy swag here.  And thank you again for your belief and support.

Adam Frisch

What was the closest Congressional race in the country in 2022? 

It was, to the surprise of many, Adam Frisch vs. Lauren Boebert in Colorado’s 3rd district. 

No one saw this coming, as the district is distinctly Republican-leaning and Lauren Boebert is a conservative celebrity, known for her guns and controversial statements.  But Adam saw something different. 

“People were fed up with the angertainment industry.  I heard it all the time,” Adam said to me on this week’s podcast.  “They just wanted someone normal.  I thought I could make a difference, as someone who’s been on city council and owned a small business.  I decided to run and drove all over the district saying I was the pro-normal candidate.  No one gave us a chance, but we could feel the energy among voters.  We ended up losing by 546 votes, the closest election in the country.” 

The near-upset was a stunner.  I’m proud to say that Forward backed Adam back in 2022 when no one thought anything of his race.  Afterwards, Adam became somewhat well-known as the guy who came within a hair’s breadth of ousting Lauren Boebert. 

In this situation, ordinarily the incumbent decides to rededicate herself to her constituents, raises some money, and turns the challenger back in the next race.  But Lauren Boebert apparently thought that she couldn’t win a rematch; she switched districts to increase her chances in November, a somewhat shocking turn for an incumbent with a national profile. 

Meanwhile, Adam barely stopped before running again this cycle.  “I’ve put 70,000 more miles on the truck driving around the district.  Most people want a pragmatic representative fighting for the interests of rural Colorado in terms of water rights and other things.  I’ll work with people of any party if it gets the job done.” 

Adam demonstrated his principle and judgment when he became one of the lone Congressional candidates to call for Joe Biden to pass the torch earlier this year.  “Only in politics can stating the obvious be considered courageous,” Adam says.  Still, his kind of leadership is exactly what the country needs.  Imagine what he could do in D.C. as a pivotal vote.   

Can Adam get over the hump and win in November?  I’ve donated to his campaign and hope you’ll consider doing so as well.  His race could wind up being crucial to the direction of the country in 2025 and beyond.  Let’s help him win. 

For my podcast interview with Adam click here.  For his campaign website click here.  To see other candidates Forward has endorsed in November click here. 

Americans Want More Choices for President. The Time for Ranked Choice Voting Is Now

Hello, I hope you had a great weekend.  I wrote an op-ed for Newsweek about the power of Ranked Choice Voting, and here it is.  I hope you enjoy it and spread the word with your friends in Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington D.C!

Americans Want More Choices for President. The Time for Ranked Choice Voting Is Now

We're just a month away from a presidential election that Americans seem eager to have in the rearview mirror. We are exhausted with politics, tired of the polarization, and increasingly skeptical that either party can fix what ails us or move the nation forward.

The stakes are high.

I helped found a third party, but will be supporting Kamala Harris this fall. My Forward Party decided not to field a candidate this year, fearful of playing spoiler and unwittingly helping the wrong candidate return to office.

But the majority of Americans feel real anxiety about the future. They worry that the nation is on the wrong track. They're concerned about the state of the economy and the prospects for their children. They have voted for Democrats and Republicans, and have plenty of reasons to feel used by both.

In short, they want more choices. They want new choices. But there's only one way to accommodate more choices for voters: modernizing our outdated system and bringing our elections into the 21st century with ranked choice voting. Maine and Alaska have already figured this out. They will use RCV for president this fall.

Here's the problem with our "choose-one" elections: The math doesn't work.

This year, despite telling pollsters for years that they dreaded a rematch between President Biden and former President Trump, voters got just that. Before Biden's surprise departure in August, more than 50 percent of voters hoped another candidate would enter the race.

Yet, several major names like Senator Joe Manchin and Governor Larry Hogan took a good look and passed; like us, they were fearful that they would end up playing the role of "spoiler." And they were right: Our two-party system turns any independent into a spoiler.

While most voters will hold their nose and choose either Trump or Harris this November, the desire for options and choices outside the duopoly hasn't gone anyway — not this cycle, and certainly not for a future where more and more voters identify as independents.

Americans are too smart, and too fed up, to back a lesser of two evils every four years. One of these elections, the pent-up demand for more choice and real voice is going to burst. The spoiler threat will seem like less of a big deal than another four years of the status quo.

With ranked choice voting, serious independents could actually step forward, without concerns that they'd irresponsibly elect a bad candidate with less than 50 percent of the vote.

Instead of picking just one candidate, voters in a ranked choice election have the power to rank the field: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and so on. Think of it as an insurance policy to protect your vote, and to ensure majority results. The vote-counting works like an instant runoff: If no one has 50 percent of voters first' choices, the candidates with the lowest totals are eliminated and second choices come into play.

Without RCV, we do not get the independent candidates or multifaceted debate that we deserve. Voters want more choices, but the political market has no incentive to meet that need. Instead, voters' very real concerns with our two-party system and its inability to deliver for the American people get laundered into the exact political gamesmanship they hate — major parties weaponizing third-party and independent candidates, seeing them as little more than a tool to try and steal votes from the other side.

Earlier this year, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s independent bid looked like it might be different. The hunger for a fresh face was so intense that Kennedy registered double-digit support in national polls, numbers no independent has reached since Ross Perot's 1992 bid.

Third parties often fade as the election gets closer, and as Kennedy's campaign diminished into single digits, he seemed to fall into the same thinking as his critics: He came to see his own campaign as little more than a "spoiler," and according to reports, tried to parlay it into jobs with both Trump and Harris. Ultimately, he suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump.

None of this makes sense, not for voters, not for political parties, not for independents, and not even for Kennedy's supporters. Kennedy explained that he was suspending his campaign to avoid playing spoiler in swing states; yet, weeks later, the margins in those states remain so tight that the presidency could be decided by an extra 0.5 percent of voters picking, say, the Green Party's Jill Stein in Michigan, or the Libertarian Party's Chase Oliver in Pennsylvania.

The solution shouldn't be limiting voters' choices. It's a voting system that makes room for everyone but still produces the result that pleases a majority of Americans. We should also work toward defeating divisiveness with open primaries that bring independents into the conversation.

It's too late to solve the spoiler problem for 2024, but we don't need to go down this same road in 2028. Amidst all of the rancor and negative polarization in our national politics, it's exciting to see four states and Washington, D.C. voting on adopting some combination of ranked choice voting and open primaries this fall. Voters in those states should say yes to much-needed reform, and more states should follow suit.

If they don't? Let's not find out the hard way.

Americans will not hold their noses forever.

With the growing and obvious demand for more choices, there may well be a stronger and more experienced candidate next time who bucks the spoiler problem and runs anyway. There is a market demand. Someone will meet it soon.

We can wish away this likelihood. We can keep doing nothing about spoilers and hoping for different results. Or we can make room for more serious candidates, protect majority winners, and give Americans real choices with ranked choice voting.

The Indictment of Eric Adams

Hello, I hope your week is going well.  Newsweek asked me to write another op-ed about the indictment of Mayor Eric Adams, and here it is.  I hope you enjoy it.

I Ran Against Eric Adams.  I Saw This Coming

Eric Adams was indicted on federal corruption charges on Thursday, the first sitting mayor in New York's history to be brought up on federal charges.  The indictment accused Adams of five counts of bribery, wire fraud, and solicitation of donations from foreign nationals.

I wish I could say I was surprised. But I saw this coming.

Back in 2021 at a mayoral debate, I said, "Eric, we all know you've been investigated for corruption everywhere you've gone, city state and federal.  You've achieved the rare trifecta of corruption investigations.  Is that really what we want in the next mayor?  [If] you enter City Hall it's going to be exactly the same."

This is someone who had managed to run afoul of the rules at every step of the political ladder.  Even the union he once belonged to, the police captains union, had chosen not to endorse him.  One reason I ran was that I thought I could run a good, clean, competent administration.

After Eric won, I hoped it would work out.  My son was in public school.  But when asked how I thought it would go, privately, I said, "When you put someone undisciplined and unprincipled in charge of a lot of people and resources, bad things generally happen."

Eric had a habit of hiring close friends, associates and confidantes for important roles that may or may not match up with their capacities or qualifications.  I thought it was quite likely that his administration would be dogged by corruption, cronyism and self-dealing.

Even with these expectations, the past several weeks have been stunning.  A police commissioner, school chancellor, chief lawyer, and the head of the department of health all resigning.  Numerous associates under a cloud of federal investigations and confiscated personal devices.

And now this historic indictment.

I read the indictment with a mixture of curiosity and incredulity.

Do I believe that Eric Adams accepted luxury flights and accommodations from the Turkish government and then tried to return the favor?  Sure.

More troublingly, do I think Eric Adams solicited donations from foreign nationals?  Yes I do.

When I was running against Eric in 2021, I was surprised by his fundraising hauls.  I had a national network and wound up getting the highest number of individual donors —21,960— in the history of New York City elections.  But at every turn, Eric kept pace.

Now it turns out that some of his campaign money may have been from foreign nationals.  New York City's donor matching program provides a powerful incentive for fraud—donations from city residents were matched eight to one, up to $250.  That means if someone donated $250, your campaign received $250 from them and another $2,000 from the City.

In this context, if someone ran a small company in NYC with 12 employees, the temptation would be to say, "Hey, we're going to say each of you donated $250, and that's going to get $24,000 for our candidate!"  If you were the head of this small company, you could put up the money for your employees—say $3,000—and then the candidate would walk away with $27,000, most of which was from taxpayers.

I like this matching system; it did what it was intended to do.  It gave candidates who were lesser fundraisers like Kathryn Garcia a chance to be competitive if they could activate small donors.  But bad actors could abuse it.  And it looks like Eric Adams did just that.  Yes, foreign actors probably used taxpayer money to boost their chosen candidate in the hopes that they would get their back scratched after the fact.

Over the past several years, my campaign has been audited by the New York City Campaign Finance Board to see whether all of the donations were properly documented.  The truth is that you don't always have visibility into the people who donate to your campaign; there are thousands of people who do so for different reasons.  But when I was campaigning, if I found out someone was a foreign national I would immediately say, "Oh, you can't donate.  But if you know any New York residents, tell them!"

The charges against Eric Adams are, on one level, depressingly simple: He liked fancy flights and hotels, and allegedly took them.  He saw a shortcut to raise money from his friends with foreign passports and allegedly took that too.  This wasn't a very sophisticated operation.  Instead, it's the story of a local politician who was used to favor trading who didn't realize that some of these things might speed his downfall when he got a bigger job and a bigger spotlight.  One of my friends joked, "He doesn't even do corruption well."

So what now?  First, Eric Adams should resign.  It's impossible for him now to be an effective mayor who can enlist and retain qualified leaders to move the city forward.  Who would join this administration now with him at the helm?

Reports are that City Hall personnel are almost understandably preoccupied with figuring out what comes next, and who might be coming or going.  I've spoken to rank-and-file employees who are deeply demoralized.  Meanwhile, life goes on for a bustling city of 8.3 million seeking the best for themselves and their families.

If Eric Adams truly wants what's best for the people of New York City, he should step down.

If Adams doesn't resign, he will lose his bid for re-election next year.  His approval rating was historically weak even before these charges were brought.  But that's a year of rudderless agencies and festering problems, a year that the people of New York can't afford.  Things don't stay the same; they get better or worse, and without leadership, they will almost certainly get worse.

Eric Adams' story is a sad one, of a police officer turned local official turned mayor and now federal defendant.  His political career is ending, and it's time for his city to move on.

If you're frustrated by the systemic flaws that enable this kind of misconduct, consider supporting the Forward Party. We’re committed to backing principled candidates in key local races nationwide to bring about real, meaningful change.

Eric Settle and Pennsylvania

Hello, I hope that your weekend was great. 

On Thursday I keynoted the Independent National Convention in Denver.  It was a blast being among so many people who have figured out that the two-party system could use an upgrade. 

Of course the main question on everyone’s mind right now is who is going to win in November and become the next President.  I had a grim sense of Trump’s return for months.  With Kamala Harris’s rise, I now see it as neck-and-neck.  Either candidate could win.  I hope it’s Kamala. 

There are 7 states that are being contested by both candidates.  They’re all important of course, but which of them is the most pivotal?  Pennsylvania.  Whoever wins Pennsylvania likely wins the election.    

Pennsylvania is just about as down the middle as it gets; even its state legislature is 50-50.  And who wins Pennsylvania could come down to a little-known candidate named Eric Settle. 

Who is Eric Settle you ask?  Eric Settle is an Independent candidate for Attorney General running in Pennsylvania as a Forwardist. 

Eric and I met months ago.  “I was a Tom Ridge Republican, the sort of thing that doesn’t really exist in Pennsylvania anymore.”  Indeed, Eric was a deputy general counsel for Governor Ridge and worked on Governor Shapiro’s Health and Human Services transition team before working as senior counsel for a healthcare company.  “When I was in the governor’s office, I had 150 lawyers that reported to me.”  Eric met up with me and a bunch of other Forwardists in Philadelphia and began to see that his state still needs him. 

“Wouldn’t it be amazing if the Attorney General – the one who is supposed to administer the laws on behalf of the state – didn’t have a partisan jersey on?  That’s the pitch I’m making to Pennsylvanians.  AGs are intended to be law enforcement, officials who are trying to call it the way they see it.  The parties have become too polarized – it’s too dangerous to compromise.  A handful of elected officials who are free to make the right call for PA can become a fulcrum of change.  My case to Pennsylvanians is that an independent attorney general is worth their vote.”

It’s a good pitch and Eric Settle is an outstanding candidate. 

Why could Eric’s campaign be so important?  There were about 6.9 million votes cast in Pennsylvania in 2020 and the gap between Biden and Trump was only 80,000 votes.  It may be even closer this time.  Let’s say that 10,000 to 20,000 voters vote for Eric Settle or State Treasurer Candidate Chris Foster, also running as a Forwardist.  These may be people discouraged with both major parties who enjoy the idea of an impartial referee. 

Could people voting for Eric or Chris be the difference-makers as to who wins Pennsylvania and the White House?  The math says yes.  The math also says that money sent to Eric Settle to make his pitch is going to be much higher impact than money sent to either major party, as they will already be spending gobs of money in the Keystone State.

I’ve donated to Eric Settle’s campaign and I hope you consider doing so as well.  His campaign could be crucial to the whole election.  “Don’t settle for less.”  The sensible independents of Pennsylvania showing up to the polls could make all the difference.  You can donate to Eric's campaign here and spread the word to your friends in Pennsylvania.

To see Forward Party’s endorsed candidates around the country click here – they could use your support! 

AI and the Rest of Us

Hello, I hope that your Fall is going great. 

4 years ago I ran for President in large part on the impending arrival of AI and what it would mean.  This week I spent time with Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin, the co-founders of the Center for Humane Technology.  You might know them from the Netflix documentary “The Social Dilemma.”  Said Tristan this week, “As a society we had a hands-off approach to social media, and there have been any number of negative effects.  Hopefully we’ve learned our lesson with AI, which will be an even more dramatic and transformative technology.”  They believe that government should be taking a greater role in mitigating the potential pitfalls of AI. 

Also in that camp is Gary Marcus, whom I interview on the podcast this week.  Gary is a professor and experienced technologist who started an AI company that was acquired by Uber.  “I think that AI could improve our way of life in many ways, making us healthier and unlocking major scientific breakthroughs.  But I also think there are real risks that are with us here and now.”  Gary breaks down these risks in his new book, “Taming Silicon Valley: How We Can Ensure AI Works for Us.” 

“AI could lead to a collapse in trust that could easily jeapordize democracy,” Gary says.  “Imagine if the cost of producing bullshit is zero.  And then apply that to all of the bad actors out in the world.  That’s what AI is going to enable.”  This is both personal and societal, as we can all be subject to audio calls and messages that sound like loved ones having an emergency but are really AI looking to scam us out of our money.  Meanwhile, one can imagine countries being misled into hostilities based on bad info propagated by foreign actors. 

Gary is concerned about bias baked into the algorithms.  “AI is increasingly being used for hiring decisions.  Imagine if certain classes or types of people are locked out of opportunities algorithmically and there’s nothing they can do.  Meanwhile people using the algorithms for hiring would barely understand how they work.” 

Of course, AI could change the very nature of work.  “Are there jobs that will be made obsolete by AI?  Yes there are,” Gary asserts.  “We need a different way for the public to benefit from AI than our current tax system and a new way for people to share in that value.”  Gary favors piloting income and cash transfer programs to help ease what will be an historic transition. 

I’m personally very confident that AI is going to eat through many American jobs; just the other day I spoke to someone who said they used to have 15 designers suggesting various ideas for graphics and clothing.  They recently fired them all because now they use AI for the same task.  A lot of creative work is being changed to utilize AI, which often means fewer workers.  What 4 years ago was hypothetical is now immediate. 

One thing I like about Gary is that he’s no bystander; he’s already testified to the Senate about AI and is agitating for better policy.  “That’s why I wrote this book, out of frustration and a deep desire to help us get this right.”  He proposes a number of policies, including data rights, layered AI oversight and meaningful tax reform that would help. 

It probably doesn’t surprise you that I agree with Gary’s call to action.  AI is here and changing the nature of our reality and how we interact with the world.  Left to its own devices there will be some major downsides.  If we want more of the good and less of the bad, it will be up to us and our leaders.  Time is of the essence.  AI gets smarter and more powerful every day, while we are lucky to stay about the same. 

To see Gary’s book click here.  For my interview with Gary click here.  To help advance our political system check out Forward – I will be in Denver this week at the Independent National Convention making the case for reform.  A modern political system would have a much better shot at addressing AI and other 21st century challenges.