The Identity Trap

Hello, I hope all is great on your end!  I visited Pittsburgh and Houston this week for Forward, including endorsing a local candidate and visiting a night market in Houston.  I also continued doing interviews for my new novel “The Last Election” with Stephen Marche, which we’ve been getting great feedback on. 

This week on the podcast I interview professor and writer for the Atlantic Yascha Mounk on his new book, “The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power In Our Time.”  For those of you who have been following me for a while, Yascha’s book tackles similar ideas as John McWhorter’s “Woke Racism” and Tim Urban’s “What’s Our Problem?” both of whom I’ve had on the podcast.  
 
Yascha describes what he calls “The Identity Synthesis,” a worldview that puts race, gender and sexual orientation above other considerations. “In this view, even situations that seemingly have nothing to do with identity, like a run-of-the-mill dispute between two friends, need to be analyzed through the lens of the relative social power each of them enjoys by virtue of the respective identity groups to which they belong.  Because of this focus on identity as a way of interpreting social reality, parts of the left are now more likely to invoke new concepts like ‘microaggressions’ and ‘implicit bias’ than they are to invoke older concepts like social class.”

The recommendation of the identity synthesis is to treat people differently based on which group they belong to.  “Because neutral rules like nondiscrimination laws are supposedly insufficient to make a difference, the advocates of the identity synthesis insist that we need social norms and public policies that explicitly make how the state treats its citizens— and how we all treat each other— depend on the identity group to which they belong.”  
 
Yascha describes this approach as very alluring and often well-intended.  “The identity synthesis calls attention to real injustices. It gives people who feel marginalized or mistreated a language in which to express their experiences. And it affords its followers the sense of being part of a grand historical movement that will make the world a better place. All of this helps to explain why it is so alluring, especially to the young and idealistic.” 
 
Unfortunately, Yascha writes that the identity synthesis will “ultimately prove counterproductive . . . it undermines progress toward genuine equality between members of different groups. In the process, it also subverts other goals we all have reasons to care about, like the stability of diverse democracies. Despite its allure, the identity synthesis turns out to be a trap.”  
 
He goes on:  “The identity synthesis is a political trap, making it harder to sustain diverse societies whose citizens trust and respect each other.  It is also a personal trap, one that makes misleading promises about how to gain the sense of belonging and social recognition that most humans naturally seek,” Yascha writes.  “Progressive separatism is a dead end.  Its vision of the future is neither realistic nor attractive.  And partial success – a world in which whites do come to define themselves by their ethnic identity yet fail to dismantle the advantages that have historically flowed from it – may transport us into the worst of all possible timelines.”  In other words, we should be very careful about getting everyone in America to think of themselves along racial lines, because the results could be disastrous. 
 
So what’s a better approach?  According to Yascha, numerous studies have shown that intergroup interaction can diminish bias if a number of elements are in place: 

1. Equal status.  Members of different groups are regarded as in the same boat, as for example teammates or colleagues. 

2. Common goals.  The groups have a goal in common, such as a project or winning a competition.  

3. Intergroup cooperation.  Members of different groups work together, as in passing the ball to each other or dividing up responsibilities.  

4. Support from authorities and customs.  Members are encouraged to get along by the leadership, such as a supervisor or coach or authority figure.  

In these environments, people start to feel better about people from different groups.  Well-run companies, teams or military units are examples of places where bias diminishes because you work alongside someone every day toward a common goal.  
 
These are the kinds of organizing principles that give us a better chance as a society.  Yascha writes of universalist goals, e.g., “everyone should be treated fairly, equally and free of discrimination” as the kind of unifying message that bore real results during the Civil Rights Movement, even if the progress hasn’t been as complete as many would like.  
 
I agree with Yascha on making universal appeals.  When I ran for President, I talked about giving everyone a certain amount of money as a foundation.  Poverty afflicts every community.  I thought that it was the kind of unifying vision that would give us a chance at a better future.  
 
Can we form common, unifying goals that span our differences, including the political divide that threatens to tear our society apart?  The future of the country rests on our answering that question positively by bringing different groups together.  We’re all American, whatever our background.  Let’s start there.  
 
For Yascha’s book “The Identity Trap” click here and for my interview with him click here.  To check out what Forward is doing to overcome divisions in your area, click here.

Launch Week

Hello, I hope that all has been great!  

I had a busy week launching “The Last Election,” the new novel I wrote with Stephen Marche about a campaign manager of an independent presidential candidate, a journalist with a big story and how American democracy’s last days unfold. 

First I went down to D.C. for a book talk, a launch party and a flurry of press.  Then I came back to New York for another set of events and interviews.  CBS, CNN, ABC, FOX, TMZ – it’s been quite the media tour.  

The best part has been getting feedback from people who have already read the book.  Some of my favorite quotes:  

“I couldn’t put it down.” 

“It scared me, but in a way that made me feel more prepared.”  

“I was surprised by it, in a very good way.” 

“I do politics for a living and I learned a lot.”  

It’s also heartwarming to see so many people come out to support the book.  Having your Mom at your book launch party is a wonderful feeling.

I’ve written 3 non-fiction books and each of them represented years of work.  This has been different on several levels because it’s a story with a message.  It’s also my first collaboration, which I enjoyed more than I’d expected.   

I’ll admit that my mind has started to move to what could happen next in the world depicted in “The Last Election,” so close to our own.  Could we visit these characters again?  I’d like to, and I have some ideas for what happens next.  Maybe there's room for optimism.  

I’m excited to have “The Last Election” out in the world – get your copy today!  Click here for an excerpt.  And thank you to those of you who have bought the book or spread the word – it means the world to me.  

The Last Election

When I was running for President, my team would often say to me “Bio” before I spoke at a rally or did a press appearance.  What they were saying to me was “Use your biography” because people didn’t know who I was and your trust and interest goes up if you feel like you can relate to someone. 

Human beings tend to operate in stories: stories that political figures tell about themselves or stories that include us.  Narratives are very powerful, more naturally powerful with most audiences than, for example, facts or statistics.  It’s a lesson that I need to constantly relearn. 
 
A while ago I interviewed Stephen Marche, the author of “The Next Civil War,” and we connected on our shared concerns for the future of American politics.  How could we get people to see, and perhaps do something about, the dangers that lie ahead?
 
We needed a story. 
 
We decided to write a novel about the next election, or the last election, which could be the same thing.  And we wanted it to be entertainment, to engross people who aren’t likely to care about the latest Op-Ed.  In many ways, the book is meant to answer the question, “What happens if a major independent presidential candidate decides to run?” 
 
The writing process was a lot of fun.  Stephen would interview me, my campaign manager Zach Graumann and others for hours on end.  He would draft pages based on interviews that delved into painstaking detail.  I would read what he produced, edit, respond and suggest changes or additions.  We would repeat this process until the pages felt like a version of the future I recognized. 
 
“I’d say this book is the most accurate depiction possible of the inside of a campaign during the last election, where American democracy actually collapses under the weight of distrust and the weight of a collapsing electoral system.  It’s a paranoid political thriller that’s accurate,” says Stephen.  “It’s a very unusual book.  I don’t think there’s another book like this one.  It’s a straight thriller that also contains intimate information about political life, and that’s a fun read.” 
 
I’ve run for President, written three non-fiction books, put out countless social media posts, interviewed dozens of thinkers and write a weekly newsletter that you’re reading right now.  Will a novel – a story -  get a message out to people who wouldn’t understand it any other way? 
 
“The Last Election” is my attempt to find out. 
 
To buy the Last Election from the publisher click here – the code LASTELECTION will get you 30% off.  For my interview of Stephen Marche click here. 
 
Never forget. 

The Rally

Hello, I hope that you are doing great on Labor Day! 

The novel that I wrote with Stephen Marche – The Last Election - arrives next week!  It’s about the campaign manager of a third-party presidential candidate, a journalist hunting a massive story, and the near future of American democracy.  Here’s an excerpt below describing a campaign rally for Cooper Sherman, the Maverick Party presidential candidate.  Hope you enjoy it! 

---

February 7th, 7:43 pm, Target Center, 600 First Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

“Topeka bodega topeka bodega topeka bodega topeka bodega,” Cooper is saying over and over again. Mikey and Cooper have been chasing each other around the green room throwing and catching whiffle balls. Cooper just imbibed a cocktail of Nyquil, sugar and nutrients.  Cooper is shirtless and Mikey can’t stop giggling. Above them, as random as thunder, comes the boom of twenty-five thousand strangers cheering.

The opening act was Stipe Miocic, UFC fighter and Cleveland firefighter. Now Jesse Ventura is talking about independents and Minnesota and Minnesota as a state for independents. The laughter is huge. The applause is even huger. Ventura is killing. He always does. 

Nellie has been watching Mikey and Cooper roughhouse like an amused au pair. The message comes to her headset and she passes it on: “Showtime.” 

Mikey towels down Cooper’s sweaty chest, and they throw on his shirt and jacket, pin the mic to his lapel and then tuck the cord into his jacket pocket, and they head up through the backstage area. 

Cooper stops Mikey on the stairs. They embrace. Then there’s the hot first staccato beats of Call Ticketron from Run the Jewels, and the crowd is howling wildly by “Kumbaya” as Cooper strolls up beaming into the spotlight. Mikey goes down, underground, to the control center. Above him the roar of the crowd fills the air, the stomping of tens of thousands of feet. Just before Mikey plunges down the corridor, he hears the opening line: “They told me I’m not supposed to swear.” There’s a huge laugh, then he is alone. He makes his way underneath the stadium as secretive and determined as a Jesuit on a mission. The sounds of the wider world, the muffled ecstasies of the crowd, are distant. He is too far underground to hear them, climbing back and forth up stairs used to the heavy treads of tens of thousands of Minnesotans. 

Sarah Ren is monitoring a bank of screens in the control booth. “How we doing?” Mikey asks. 

“Look at this drone shot,” she says. Sarah is happy; Mikey’s never seen her happy.

The shot passes over a massive crowd all waving Maverick party signs towards Cooper’s beaming face. The cold made the air clearer, emptier, and he looks defined, imperturbable, feeding off and feeding into the great wave of mass love. It’s going to look great in ads.  

Cooper’s speech is majestic, rapturous. “The reason I started down this path,” he is saying, “the reason we began the crazy adventure that is this campaign is that I see what you see. The system isn’t working. The country works but the system doesn’t. This great country, the most productive country in the world, a country built on openness and frankness, is turning into a country where only guys like me have a shot, where everyone wants to close down the other guy, where our words have been caged in shame. Enough. Enough. It’s time to take a risk, because in politics, just like in life, the real risk is not taking a risk.”

Thirty-six seconds of applause by Mikey’s watch.

“And let’s be real honest here. OK, we got one party that has stopped believing in democracy, and you got another party that will be pointing at the rulebook as the world burns. And you know as I used to say on television ‘Do the math.’” 

The crowd begins to chat “Do the math. Do. The. Math. Do. The. Math.” 

“This won’t do anymore, man. This isn’t going to work out.”

Sarah is holding Mikey’s hand, gripping it, twisting it.

“You feel it?” she asks.

“I feel it,” Mikey answers. 

They are feeling the rush of the crowd’s ecstasy overtaking them, spreading through them from this stadium to the world. They can feel their reach extending. They can feel the onset of power. 

“We need to be clear. We need to be clear about our successes as much as our failures. The problem isn’t the American people. The problem isn’t the American spirit. We are, today, as much as we ever were, a nation of strivers, a nation of liberty-lovers, of fighters for a cause. We’re the country of innovators. Why can’t we innovate our system of government? We’re riding into the twenty-first century on a dying horse-drawn carriage.”

The crowd laughs at this lame joke. They now await his cues.

“And I’m going to tell you something. The moment we get a system that works, we will be unstoppable.”

Cooper coughs. Somebody from the crowd shouts out: “Say it!” And Cooper looks at him, smiles. There’s enough time to throw a whiffle ball. 

“You want me to say it?”

There are a few more shouts. “Nah, I can’t. There’s a fine.” He’s smiling now. The crowd is calling for him to say it. “All right, you know what? I’m going to say it. The time has come to unfuck America.”

The roar overtakes them all, and it overtakes Mikey and Ren in their booth. Maybe they’re going to win. Maybe the Republic isn’t going to end. Maybe they’re going to build a new America out of the Maverick Party. And there is nothing like American politics for a rush of tribalism, a crowd overwhelmed by a vision of themselves and their country, and by its neverending dream that a new world is possible.

---

I hope you enjoyed this – you can pre-order your copy today!  If you use the code LASTELECTION you can get a pre-signed copy directly from the publisher! 

Recoding America

I talked this week to a military veteran who was frustrated by the level of service she receives for a health condition.  
 
How are we going to solve our problems and make government work better for us?  One of the foremost experts on this subject is Jennifer Pahlka, the founder of Code for America and former deputy CTO of the US.  Jen wrote an excellent new book: “Recoding America:  Why Government is Failing in the Digital Age and How We Can Do Better.”  I interview her on the podcast this week.  If you want to understand why many of us find government to be so ridiculous and frustrating, you should read her book. 

Jen has spent over a decade trying to speed up our government, both among cities and states and in DC.  “For a long time I thought of our government’s lack of digital competence as an unhappy mishap, a mistake to be corrected . . . I eventually realized that many others inside the Beltway regarded it more as the natural order of things – inevitable and immutable.”  
 
Jen shares the story of improving the intake form for veterans to apply to the Veterans Administration (VA) for healthcare benefits.  The catalyst was a video of a military veteran, Dominic, trying and failing to use the webform which only worked on Internet Explorer and Adobe Reader.  A senior official upon seeing the video said, “This is unacceptable, let’s update the form so it’s more usable.”  They replaced the form, and applications for services shot up to 10 times the previous levels.  People within the VA started saying, “Bring back the old form!” because they weren’t used to getting such high volumes.  Happily, the leadership stuck with the new form.  
 
In another story, a VA web page struggled with latency in loading – it took up to two minutes to load a document or new web page.  So they defined latency to mean anything less than two minutes instead of the more standard few seconds; they solved the problem simply by changing the definition. 
 
Jennifer catalogues a number of reasons why government struggles with technology.  First, all of the energy and focus is on crafting or arguing about policy; actually delivering the policy to citizens is considered implementation and not deserving of attention.  “We want to talk policy and leave implementation to the mechanicals.  That didn’t work out well for the White House [rolling out healthcare.gov] and it’s not going to work out for the American public.”  Meanwhile, the website, whether it works or not, becomes the policy to Americans.  “No one reads the legal code, they just go to the website to apply for benefits.”  
 
Second, there are layers of policy that get added, but never subtracted.  “It takes 25 years for someone to become expert in processing unemployment benefits in California because they have added rules and workarounds and never taken anything away.  Someone after 17 years said that they were only partially expert.  It’s like archaeology how some of these systems work; it’s layers and layers of legal code causing complexity, before you even get to the software code.”  
 
Third, the policies tend to err on the side of completeness rather than user-friendliness.  Jen cites a foodstamp questionnaire of 212 questions that included questions like “Do you own a burial plot?”  When Jen explored the rationale behind that question’s inclusion, the drafter said, “Congress asked for a list of assets, and a burial plot is an asset.”  It’s safer to follow the letter of the law rather than to use common sense. 
 
Fourth, career civil servants and bureaucrats operate in a culture that makes sticking to process safer for their career – if they deviate from the rules, they could be punished.  If they stick to them they’re fine, whether or not the service works or ‘makes sense to people.’  “They’re in a job for twenty years and see taking criticism as simply part of the job.”  Jen describes many well-intended people in government that feel constrained by a thicket of rules and bad incentives.    
 
Fifth, tech products are designed using a waterfall development process – you figure out what it’s supposed to do from the policy down and then can’t go backwards/upwards to make changes.  Everything flows down from policy.  “This results in building something over ten or more years that no longer makes sense at very high expense,” Jen observes.  Most companies now use something called agile software development where you get feedback from users and iterate and improve.  Jen’s colleague coined a new law – “Byrne’s Law” - that most government tech products could be developed at 85% efficacy at 10% of the current cost; unfortunately no one has the authority to determine which 15% you could leave by the wayside.  
 
Sixth, there are major actors that prefer the current mode because they can bill the government enormous amounts of money with little accountability.  A VP at Oracle wrote that “Government’s expertise should be procurement, not technology itself,” in part because Oracle has become expert in government procurement practices and delivering an effective technology product becomes secondary.  Jen writes, “When I told her I thought the [new $600 million IT project] would likely fail, she replied, ‘Do you think I don’t know that?  The last seven IT projects in this state have all failed.’” 
 
Seventh, there is a cultural attitude that government is bad at tech and techies should head to private industry to solve the real problems, make money and develop their careers.  Meanwhile, Jen helped form the US Digital Service, which employs hundreds of coders and engineers to help modernize government.  “Victories aren’t always easy to come by, but when they do they are immensely satisfying because you know your work impacts millions of people in a very important way.” 
 
Jen’s book is a compelling insider account of why government often doesn’t work as well as it should.  Unlike others, she doesn’t just throw up her hands – she is grinding away to change things.  “It’s easy to complain about government but more satisfying to help fix it.”  She also thinks that the mission is critical as Americans are losing faith in our own ability to solve problems.    
 
“When systems or organizations don’t work the way you think they should, it is generally not because the people in them are stupid or evil.  It is because they are operating according to structures and incentives that aren’t obvious from the outside,” Jen writes.  “The bewildering assumption is that more of what came before will get us different results.”  
 
Truer words are hard to find.  
 
For Jen’s book click here and for my podcast interview of her click here.  To join Forward to help improve our government’s incentives to deliver for us, click here.  For my upcoming book, “The Last Election” about how the next election could turn out, click here – it comes out in two weeks!

How Trump Wins

Hello, I hope that your summer is going great in the home stretch!    
 
A couple weeks ago I looked at the Republican Field, which is yet dominated by Donald Trump, the odds-on favorite to be the Republican nominee despite all of his legal troubles.  I named Vivek Ramaswamy as the most likely candidate to breakout, potentially at the Republican debate this week. 

But let’s say Trump gets the nomination, which is still the most likely outcome.  What are Trump’s prospects in the general election, should he make it there? 
 
Recent polling has Trump and Biden tied at about 43% apiece nationally.  In other words, neck-and-neck. 
 
But it’s not likely to be just the two of them.   
 
Cornel West is running on the Green Party ticket. Will he be a factor? 
 
Howie Hawkins of the Green Party got only .3% with ballot access in 30 states in 2020.  That seems very low. 
 
However, Jill Stein got 1.1% in 45 states in 2016, and is now running Cornel West’s campaign. I think that West is a stronger candidate than either Hawkins or Stein were, and 2/3rds of Americans are not excited about either Biden or Trump.  Cornel West is polling at 4 – 5%.  I’d project Cornel West at somewhere between 1 to 3% in the general election, with the vast majority – maybe 70% - coming from Joe Biden and the Democrats. 
 
Keep in mind the tiny margin of victory in the key swing states of Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Wisconsin in particular.  The race is likely to be determined by tens of thousands of voters with a difference of less than 1% in these 4 states.
 
Cornel West could easily swing any and all of these states. 
 
Will there be other candidates?  RFK Jr. has been polling at about 13% of the Democratic electorate in what passes for the Democratic primary.  In my view, it’s quite likely he says, “Look, the Democrats did not give me a fair shake.  My campaign will continue to the general election!”  His choices will be to run as an Independent or as a Libertarian, with the latter being much easier because they have ballot access in all 50 states. 
 
What would be in it for the Libertarian Party?  If a minor party gets 5% in a presidential election, that party gets federal funds of approximately $10 million to use for party building infrastructure in the next election cycle.  This is one reason why the Reform Party was a viable vehicle in 1996 after Perot ran.  So the Libertarian Party would likely welcome RFK Jr. with open arms in an attempt to get 5%. 
 
I’d put RFK Jr. at a similar level as Cornel West of 1 – 4%, with a slight majority of his voters coming from Joe Biden – his last name is Kennedy after all and a lot of Democrats remain reverential of the family. 
 
There are also consistent rumors that Joe Manchin of West Virginia is considering a presidential run on the No Labels Unity Ticket.  I take this very seriously, as his alternative is to run for Senate re-election against a popular GOP governor in West Virginia, a state that Trump took by 38 points in a cycle Trump is on the ballot, on behalf of a party that barely tolerates him.  Or he could make his swansong a country-unifying Lincoln-type presidential run alongside a Republican like Larry Hogan.  If you were 75 years old looking for a final act, which would you choose? 
 
You could easily have 5 presidential candidates on the ballot, with each being a significant factor:  Biden, Trump, West, Kennedy, and Manchin.
 
I think Joe Biden manages to eke out a narrow win against Trump one-on-one if he doesn’t have a health/age problem and there isn’t an economic setback.  But with West, Kennedy and/or Manchin on the ballot, he probably loses to Trump. 
 
I view Trump winning as a catastrophe.  Someone asked me what the smartest thing to do in this situation – I answered “Run the craziest person you can think of to weaken Trump.”  That’s what this system is giving us. 
 
Another plan would be to rally hundreds of thousands of independent swing voters in Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan and Nevada to vote for whichever candidate offers real reforms of the dysfunctional political system.  Changing the primary system to allow all voters to vote for all candidates could actually be on the ballot in both Nevada and Arizona in 2024.  This will be the Forward Party’s plan – I hope that you will be a part of it. 
 
In 1860, there were 4 presidential candidates that got 39.8%, 29.5%, 18.1%, and 12.6% respectively.  The winner?  Abraham Lincoln.  That time, the right person won even as the country was fragmenting.  We are heading back in that general direction, with the two parties losing credibility at breakneck speed.  Will it be for good, or the opposite? 
 
Check the Math.  What a ridiculous system.  Let’s modernize it as quickly as we can. 
 
If you want to build a new direction in politics, check out Forward today.  For a fictionalized account of a third-party presidential campaign and where it leads, check out “The Last Election” my new book with Stephen Marche that comes out September 12th!  

Visiting the Picket Line

Hello, I hope that you are having a great summer!  August is a phenomenal time to get some rest and family time.  
 
This past week I visited the SAG-AFTRA picket line in Los Angeles.  The actors have been on strike since May fighting for a fair deal, joining the writers who were already on strike.  Actors and writers are trying to make sure they don’t get displaced by AI among other things. 

I met Bryan Cranston on the picket line – he made an impassioned speech recently on behalf of the actors.  But the vast majority of the people on the line and in the union are anonymous and often holding part-time jobs in order to be free to audition for roles.  87% don’t work enough to have health care through their work in the entertainment industry – which means they earn $26,000 or less.  
 
Actors and writers are among the approximately 10% of U.S. workers who are in a union – chances are that you’re in the other 90%.  The fact is that the vast majority of workers will simply feel the effects of automation without having a negotiation or conversation.  They will just show up to their place of work and find a smaller team and a new process that requires fewer people.    
 
The actors and writers are thus in an unusual position where they may be able to beat back these changes.  I suggested two tacks to them.  First, they should start their own studio with fair work and rules regarding AI.  This would in some ways be history repeating itself, as United Artists got started similarly about 100 years ago. In this era, the studio is much easier to replace than the talent, as financing, production, marketing and distribution are easier to procure. 
 
Second, they should head to Sacramento and agitate for rules regarding use of AI in movie and TV production.  The actors and writers are much more sympathetic to politicians and the public than the studios, who have done a great job alienating people.  Every major Democratic Senate candidate in CA has already sided with the actors and writers and the state legislators are 75% Democrats.  California already is leading the country in privacy and data rights regulations; it could take the lead here too.  
 
I posted a video from the picket line with a couple of the actors: one of them said, “We just want a fair deal, we’re not trying to ask for the world here . . . most of us are part-time, we have a passion that we’re working part-time on . . . we’re like the working class and something has got to give.”  
 
A lot of Americans feel the same way.  

My new book ‘the Last Election’ arrives in September – check out the first review and pre-order today!  And click here to see what Forward is doing in your area.  

Campaigning in California

Hello, I hope that your summer is going great! 
 
I’ve spent the past month or so campaigning in California.  People love it here.  But there are consistent concerns. Some have left the state because of housing costs.  Folks have to commute for hours to get to work.  Families are afraid to go to certain neighborhoods because of homeless people struggling with drug addiction.  Cars are routinely broken into in San Francisco.  Public schools are underperforming.  It’s expensive and getting harder to justify. 

How will these problems turn around?  One thing that could help is real competition and choice in our politics. 
 
California is a state where Democrats run just about everything – 75% of state legislators are Democrats.  In most of the state, there isn’t any question as to which party is going to win.  Special interests know what they need to do. 
 
Yet even Democrats I talk to are getting fed up and frustrated, much less Independents and Republicans.  It’s more and more the people vs. the machine. 
 
If this sounds like you, here is our way forward – change your party registration to Common Sense Party of California, who we are partnered with here in CA. 
 
It’s easy to do, and thanks to the California top two primary system it doesn’t affect your ability to vote in anything but the presidential primaries (which are unlikely to be meaningful in CA). 
 
After we get to 73,000 registrants, Common Sense will be a recognized party in California and will be able to support candidates at every level.  You even get a membership card from the Secretary of State.  It’s the pragmatic party most Californians want to see in office and a break from the machine. 
 
This is how to make it clear to the political class that you want real change, and that you’re not going to settle for politics as usual where the money keeps flowing but the problems don’t get solved. 
 
Common Sense in politics in CA?  It’s within our grasp if enough of us simply choose it.  Register today and let’s make it happen!   
 
I’ll be in San Diego on Saturday if you or friends are in the area.  Let’s move CA Forward with Common Sense!  See you soon,

Trump vs. the Field

Hello, I hope that your summer is going great!    

I get asked every day for my take on the ’24 presidential field.  Trump was indicted again last week by the Department of Justice.  Yet he remains the Republican frontrunner by a mile.  Will he become the nominee in March? 

The first Republican debate takes place on August 23rd.  Thus far 7 candidates have qualified:  Trump, DeSantis, Scott, Haley, Ramaswamy, Christie and Burgum.  Mike Pence and Asa Hutchinson have the polling of 1% but not the donations.  Francis Suarez is giving away $20 gift cards to donors; he and Will Hurd are currently on the outside looking in. 

The RNC has already announced that the polling threshold for the next debate in September will be 3%.  That will make it highly unlikely for anyone who misses the first debate to make the second one.

So realistically the Republican field looks increasingly set.  Who could potentially emerge as the Trump spoiler? 

The conventional wisdom was that Ron DeSantis was the best positioned to defeat Trump based on both polling and money raised; that has deflated a lot in the past month as voters have actually met DeSantis.  “Trump without the jokes,” is how one person put it.  Most of the money raised for DeSantis is actually with his PAC: $100 million vs. the $12 million his campaign has on hand. 

There are major limits to what PACs can do; traditionally most of the money has gone to advertising and events.  They’re not allowed to officially coordinate with campaigns. PACs also pay higher rates for advertising than candidates do.  Basically, PAC money is not nearly as valuable as money on hand for a campaign. 

When enthusiasm for a candidate wanes, PAC money is ordinarily not very helpful.  In 2016, Jeb Bush’s PAC had tons of money that it burnt on ineffective advertising down the stretch as Jeb faded. 

Can DeSantis turn around his campaign?  I’m dubious.  Their pivot hasn’t changed much, because it turns out the candidate is who he is.  And people aren't buying.  

So who is actually the most likely Trump spoiler?  In my opinion, it’s Vivek Ramaswamy. 

Vivek has genuine grassroots enthusiasm based on a distinct and - to Republicans - positive message.  He’s smart and quick on his feet.  He may be the best thinker and political athlete in the field.  He has energy for days.  When voters see him they like him.  And his wealth allows him to self-fund as a bridge.

Some people underestimate Vivek’s chances based on his being unconventional and not an elected official.  The thing is, Republicans don’t care about either of those things.  Only 15% of Republicans have a high trust in media, for example.  He’s reached 3rd or 4th in polling due primarily to his ability and message.  Donors chase momentum.  When he gets a wind at his back, which he will, Vivek is more likely to breakout and consolidate the field than any other candidate. 

Tim Scott is right behind Vivek.  He’s positive and appealing and has a very relatable set of experiences.  There is a set of very wealthy donors that are willing to pump money into Tim Scott’s PAC to the moon.  Scott will have every opportunity to make his case to both voters and donors.  I’m just not as confident about Tim’s ceiling as his message and appeal seem to be the wrong fit for this cycle; voters don't want to feel good about the institutions, they want to blow them up. 

Doug Burgum is actually a dark horse.  He’s steady and a billionaire; think Mike Bloomberg from North Dakota.  His campaign is competent - they got both the polling and the donors because of good execution.  I think the August debate will be great for him as an introduction to millions of voters who right now don’t know he exists.  He’s smart but not terribly exciting.  I think he breaks 3% and makes the September debate. 

Nikki Haley hasn’t made a mark and feels like a conventional politician among a base that doesn’t want one.  Chris Christie is running a very lean, effective campaign – I donated to help him impede Trump – but is well-defined amid Republican voters with very high negatives. 

And that’s the field. 

When I ran for President last cycle, candidates would dropout and it felt sudden, but then sensible and inevitable at the same time.  Beto.  Kamala.  Cory. 

The Republican Field will start shrinking as soon as Labor Day. 

Trump is the heavy favorite to be the Republican nominee, no matter his legal challenges.  If you want to reduce his odds, you want to help Vivek Ramaswamy, Tim Scott and/or Doug Burgum breakout among the Republican primary electorate in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. 

Does that seem like a tall order?  That just shows how rough this cycle looks to be. 

The first debate is in two weeks.  We’ll see if it moves the needle.    

If these choices don’t thrill you check out Forward today. I will be in Los Angeles tailgating on Tuesday and San Diego on Saturday – would be great to see you.  Also my new book ‘the Last Election’ arrives in September – check out the first review and pre-order today!  

—-

P.S. Mike Pence also made the debate but has a low ceiling as the Trump sidekick now running against his boss.

Year 2

Hello, I hope that your summer is going great! 
 
This past week we celebrated the 1-year anniversary of Forward Party joining forces with Renew America and Serve America Movement last summer.  600+ activists, volunteers and leaders celebrated via a webinar with special guests and speakers.  We raised $20k from grassroots supporters that was immediately matched by donors – it was an incredible event! 

We’ve accomplished a lot over the past year: hundreds of thousands of supporters, tens of thousands of volunteers, 48 states with leadership chapters, 12 states with executive committees, 6 states with legal recognition, and 20 elected officials affiliated with Forward including mayors and state legislators.  All of these numbers are set to grow quickly in the days ahead as dozens of candidates and current officials are poised to join us. 
 
It’s invigorating to talk to everyday Americans who sense that the status quo isn’t working and want to build a new approach.  These are passionate and optimistic Americans driven to do what’s right for the country and their community.  
 
If you want to see what Forward is doing, now would be a great time!  Click here to check out the Forward Party in your area or to stay updated. 
 
One of the newest members of the Forward Party is Kerry Healey, the former President of Babson College and Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, whom I interview on the podcast this week.  Kerry has had quite a journey – her last job was running the Milken Center for Advancing the American Dream. 
 
“I was motivated to improve things for families and children.  That’s what got me started in politics – issues around domestic violence and child abuse.  I ran for state representative in Massachusetts and lost but impressed some people.  Later, I was asked to join state leadership and became Lieutenant Governor with Mitt Romney.  We accomplished a lot together for families.” 
 
After leaving office, Kerry became President of Babson, one of the most entrepreneurial colleges in the country.  “We have a mandatory class on entrepreneurship that all of the students take their first year where they start a real business with real money in teams – and if they make money the get to keep it,” Kerry describes.  I ran an entrepreneurship organization for a number of years so I appreciate her work a great deal.  We’re going to need a lot more entrepreneurs in this era of economic transformation. 
 
Kerry recently joined the national board of Forward:  “It’s funny – for someone who has been in politics for a long time, I’ve always felt politically homeless.  It’s exciting to build a place for people like myself, and I know more and more Americans feel the same way I do.  I want to do this for the next 20 years.” 
 
It’s amazing to work with people like Kerry and volunteers around the country.  I personally think it will take us a lot less than 20 years to make an enormous mark on this country, especially if Year One is any indication.   
 
For my conversation with Kerry click here.  To check out the summer Forward gear click here – we sold $10k of it in its first day!   
 
I’m in San Francisco Monday night and then in Los Angeles the following week if you have friends in either place.  Enjoy the summer!