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.

The Debate

The presidential debate took place on Tuesday.  How did it go and what will the impact be? 

Kamala Harris had the more important assignment.  Her job was to seem commanding, confident, and competent in the face of Trump for 90 minutes.  29% of Americans prior to the debate said that they still didn’t have enough information about her to have an opinion.  Kamala’s goal was to make it natural for millions of Americans to imagine her as commander-in-chief.

Kamala cleared the bar.  And in that respect, Tuesday was a huge victory for her.  She was sharp, composed and on message throughout.  She got an enormous number of digs in and seemed completely unintimidated by Trump, even bemused.

Trump on the other hand wanted to come across as in control and non-contemptuous while tying Kamala Harris to a very unpopular Joe Biden.  His message definitely meandered.  He went down numerous blind alleys.  He got more airtime but it didn’t necessarily help him. 

Kamala was thoroughly prepared and it showed.  Her performance reassured many.  63% of viewers in one poll deemed her the victor, not too far off from Trump’s margin over Joe Biden in the last debate in June.  I think Kamala’s performance will win over a sliver of wavering swing voters in the swing states who wanted to make sure she was up to the challenge before committing to vote for her.  Taylor Swift’s endorsement may be a sign for those waiting for this kind of performance. 

What impact will it have on the race?  It probably keeps it neck-and-neck.  The polling had started to shift to Trump in the days leading up to the debate.  Trump’s following is locked in and the debate will have no impact on his voters.  His ‘the country is going to hell’ message works for his audience.  Remember, about 75% of Americans think we’re on the wrong track.  This race is going to come down to a relative handful of voters in the swing districts. 

The single biggest thing that Kamala could do to drive her momentum is to start doing interviews, not just with major national press but with local outlets in the swing states and unconventional shows with major reach (e.g. “Hot Ones” with Harris would do a ton of views).  Given that she now has answers to most every major topic memorized and prepared, they should get her out there.  The most important asset every campaign has is candidate time, and doing press is one of the highest-leverage ways to utilize that time. 

There may not even be another presidential debate.  The time for risk aversion has passed.  Now is the time to try and win by putting your top player on the field as much as possible.  Don’t play not to lose.  Play to win. 

Will Kamala Harris be the next President?  The odds went up after Tuesday night.  She did the most important thing – she was presidential.  Less than 8 weeks to go. 

If you’d like to support some local candidates, check out who Forward is endorsing!  One of them might represent you.  

I Debated Kamala Harris 5 Times in 2020. Here is What I Would Tell Her Team

I wrote another op-ed for Newsweek - and here it is. Hope you enjoy it.

I Debated Kamala Harris 5 Times in 2020. Here is What I Would Tell Her Team

Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump debate for the first time on September 10. It is the highest-stakes event to date for both candidates. In a race this close, it's not an exaggeration to say that the outcome in November could rest on how this 90-minute debate goes. Traditionally the viewership is the highest for the first debate between opponents as well, so this is the big one.

I debated Harris five times during the primary season of 2020, literally standing next to her several of those evenings. To say that I debated her is a little bit misleading though — she and I never got into a direct argument as it never made sense for either of us to be attacking the other. We had a good, friendly relationship on the campaign trail, and Harris was generally focused on the candidates above her, most notably Joe Biden in the first debate. I was focused on trying to get my message out and keep the campaign going; I tended to get less airtime than other candidates because I got fewer questions and generally played nice.

So, what would I say about Harris as a debater? She gets high marks for poise and being able to recall and deliver messages. She prefers to use notes, which makes sense given her legal background — she used the time before the moderators got started to reproduce notes on the notepaper we were given. (Note: I did the exact same thing.) She certainly has the stamina for a 90-minute debate. She'll expect hostility from Trump, and I expect her to be steady and strong. She was taken by surprise by Tulsi Gabbard's pointed and persistent attacks four years ago but there will be no surprise here. Outside of the primaries, she debated former Vice President Mike Pence four years ago, and I thought that she was clear and composed throughout.

Trump's debate style, on the other hand, is based on appearance and attacks — he'll stand there and run down his opponent. He's pugnacious, spontaneous and not overly substantive; some of what he says won't necessarily make sense or be true. He's a performer. The main way to prepare to face him is to load up with substance to be able to confidently call out his record and his misrepresentations and to match his energy. It's particularly important to come in strong at the beginning when viewership is highest, and the tone is set. I would literally be playing pump-up music and have Harris prepare for a prizefight. I'd also give her a bit of time away from the trail to make sure that her energy is high.

A lot of debate prep is memorizing 90-second responses to questions on different subject areas: foreign policy, economy, immigration, health care, education, etc. Harris' team has been preparing her for the debate for weeks, including mock debates with an experienced Trump stand-in. I'm sure she's had talking points accompanying her on the campaign trail to study and that recalling them won't be an issue. The truth is that when you're campaigning, you're often on a bus or a plane and either calling people or studying notes. She's had plenty of opportunity to get the substance down.

That said, I was a little bit surprised that some of these talking points weren't more clearly evident in her recent CNN interview. You can often pick up on debate prep in interviews, because if someone has been memorizing paragraphs in response to various cues they will naturally utilize them when asked any related question.

Harris will benefit from the visual — she is 19 years younger than Trump and looks like it. She is almost always clearer and more coherent. For her, the main issue is to come across as presidential and commanding for 90 minutes. If she does this, she'll have a good night.

Trump, on the other hand, could stand to demonstrate some self-control and that he's still sharp. President Joe Biden's performance in June was so abysmal that Trump benefited from the contrast. He won't have that advantage against Harris.

Which candidate has more to gain or lose? It's clearly Harris. Trump is a known quantity, while for many Americans Harris is still new and introducing herself. Can people see her as president? Are the memes of her delivering faulty responses simply internet fodder that she can dismiss with a strong performance? If she is resolute, confident and unflappable for 90 minutes against Trump she'll be in a much stronger position.

Some debates don't change a race that much; viewers simply think that the candidate they prefer did great. This race remains neck-and-neck, and the debate is the most important night for both campaigns. The last debate knocked a candidate out. Will history be made on Tuesday night?

If I were advising Harris' team, the main thing I would emphasize is to give her the chance to do whatever she finds most rejuvenating the day before and the day of the debate to make sure she is feeling good, energized, and ready to go. Make it so she's happy to be there to take it to Trump.

Campaigns have a tendency to overwork candidates — Biden showed up to the first debate under the weather and overprepared, and was reduced to grasping for factoids that were clearly eluding him.

I had a bad night my first debate, so my team switched gears from having me do interviews the day before to me shooting hoops with friends. My performance went up, so we stuck with that as a new routine for debate day for the next five debates. It made me happier to be on the stage because I would have had a good, invigorating day the day before.

Harris struck me as a bit worn down during her CNN interview. And she has never met Trump face-to-face, so it will feel awkward and uncomfortable. I have the sense that her team is treating everything as a sprint given the compressed time frame and her relative youth. That would be a mistake. Harris will have to bring a much higher level of energy next Tuesday than she did for the joint interview with her vice-presidential pick, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. After all, Joe Biden didn't get a second debate this season. Harris and her team should approach this as if it's the only debate of the year, because it might as well be.

Want to support independent candidates who are making a positive impact?  Check out the Forward Party. We are working on local races around the country. 

The Mechanic

Hello, I hope that your summer has ended on a high!  Labor Day means back to school. 

The next 64 days are going to be busy as Election Day is just about two months away.  The top of the ticket gets all of the attention but there are many other races under the radar that could be pivotal. 

What would you say if I told you that an Independent is running for Senate against an Incumbent in Nebraska and is now virtually tied?  That is the case for Dan Osborn, a Navy veteran, mechanic and labor leader who is running against Deb Fischer, a Republican incumbent who is not terribly popular.  “People in Nebraska are tired of politics as usual.  There’s no love lost for our current leaders.  Anytime I talk to someone in person they get excited as soon as they hear about me and the campaign.  That’s why I spend every day driving around the state talking to voters.  We are growing every day.  If we get the resources to get the message out, we are going to win.” 

I’ve met with Dan and he’s the real deal; a fed-up 49-year-old military veteran who wants to change things for the better.  Imagine a real-life mechanic as a U.S. Senator.  “Every day, I roll up my sleeves to fix something.  No institution in America needs fixing more than the United States Senate.”  It’s a very appealing message. 

Can Dan win?  His opponent, Deb Fischer, is 73 years old, not terribly popular and hasn’t been meaningfully opposed in 12 years.  There is no Democrat in the race.  The usual playbook in this situation is to try and paint the Independent as the minority party.  But Dan doesn’t feel like a conventional Democrat given his military background and man-of-the-people profile.

Dan’s race reminds me of Evan McMullin’s race in Utah two years ago.  If you recall, Evan was an Independent military veteran running against the incumbent Mike Lee.  The Democrats wisely decided not to run a candidate because in Utah the Democrat is something of a sacrificial lamb. 

Evan got 43% of the vote in 2022, losing to Mike Lee who got 53%.  Still, that 10 point margin was 10 percent closer than the margin Trump beat Biden by in Utah.  That’s a big difference.  Running an Independent is the recipe for introducing competition where there seems to be none possible. 

It’s a similar situation in Nebraska, a state Trump won by 19 points.  It turns out that Utah and Nebraska are typical in that 36 of the 50 states are essentially dominated by one party.  Hence, the general elections in those states tend to be formalities. 

That makes for bad incentives and unmotivated leadership.  Why rock the boat if you’re going to coast to re-election? 

In Nebraska, the Democrats are also wisely stepping aside and ceding the field to Dan.

Will the outcome be different this time?  Every race is different, and at some point the Independent candidate will break through.  Dan happens to be pro-choice, which is going to help in November. 

If Dan were to win it would be a political earthquake.  I’ve donated to Dan’s campaign and hope that you’ll consider doing so as well. 

He’s right that politics as usual won’t cure what ails us. An independent in Nebraska becoming a U.S. Senator would help.  Let's help make it happen.  

Want to support candidates like Dan?  Check out the Forward Party. We are working on local races around the country. 

An Honest DNC Speech

Newsweek asked me to write another Op-Ed after the DNC - and here it is. Hope you enjoy it.

I Left the Democratic Party to Start a Third Party. I'm Still Voting for Kamala and You Should Too

I spoke at the DNC four years ago (it was virtual because of COVID so I beamed my remarks from a studio in Manhattan). Two years later, I left the Democratic Party; I'd come to believe that the two-party system could not meaningfully address the problems of our time. To fix the problem, I co-founded the Forward party, a much needed third American political party, so I was obviously not invited to speak in Chicago. But if I had been invited to give a DNC speech, it would have started like this: My name is Andrew Yang, and I'm here to make the case that you should vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the fall.

Why? Those of you attending the DNC probably already have a sense of why. 57 percent of Democrats think the country is on the right track, and yet, you are in the minority. Among Independents—about half of voters—only 17 percent agree, and for Republicans, it's a tiny 7.7 percent. Only 18 percent of Americans total are satisfied with how things are going in the United States according to Gallup.

That's the real struggle: Most Americans don't think things are going well. They feel anxious about their family's future. Time does not feel like it's on their side, so they naturally want a change at the top. This is particularly true for Americans who don't have a college degree—and it's they who will decide who the next president is.

This election will not be determined by you and me; it will be determined by the welder in Wisconsin, the waitress in Michigan, the blackjack dealer in Nevada. These are folks who voted for Obama, then Trump, then Biden, and are now unhappy but unsure what to do next. They will be among the 50,000 to 100,000 independent voters in the swing states who choose the next President.

So the question is, what do these voters or potential voters want to see in November?

They want their lives to be a little bit easier. They want some breathing room—not sticker shock—when they head to the grocery store to pick up food for their families. They want to feel like maybe tomorrow will be better than today. But they've been burnt. They are skeptical that their votes will matter. Many of them naturally mistrust both the government and Democrats. They dislike anyone who seems to be telling them what to do, how to think, or how to feel.

I know this firsthand. When I ran for President four years ago, 42 percent of my supporters were not Democrats. One of them was asked by a Fox News anchor, "Why Yang?"

"He does not seem to be judging me," she said.

That's how Harris and Walz can begin the process of wooing these voters: Start with no judgment. Let's not pretend or tell voters how they should feel. They know their circumstances best.

As for the voters, here's my argument for why they should choose Kamala Harris over Donald Trump:

First, if you think things are getting worse not better in your life and in your families' lives, you're probably right. The American way of life has been deteriorating in terms of the affordability of housing, health care, a college education, and childcare for a generation or more. And both parties share responsibility for that.

So let's stipulate that things are indeed getting worse. What are you going to do? It's tempting to side with Donald Trump, because he seems like a change from the status quo, and you might remember the economy of four years ago fondly. The problem is, he's the wrong guy.

Trump is out for himself. He's a bad leader. He's not going to improve your family's circumstances. The vast majority of the people who worked for him four years ago are against him today. Think of the worst boss you've ever had, the person who no one wanted to work for, who churned through employees left and right. That's Donald Trump. Now he's 78, with his best days behind him, and he's more impulsive than ever. For any good idea he has, he'll have five bad ones, and some of them will actually do harm.

Not sold on Kamala Harris? That's all right. You don't have to be. It's not about her; it's about you and your family. I believe under a Harris administration, the federal government will do a few things that will actually lighten your load.

Remember in 2021 when you were getting some extra money for your kids? That will come back. The Democrats also seem ready to tackle medical debt, which they should have done in the first place, and people will have more freedom to make their own medical decisions. More of the drugs you use will become a little bit more affordable, and you might get more paid time off from work if you have a child. And in some parts of the country, there may be a construction project or highway getting built.

Some of what Kamala Harris and the Democrats are talking about won't happen, of course. But I believe a few of the costs that are pinning you down and choking you will lighten and you will breathe a tiny bit easier if Harris wins.

Will it reverse the decay of the past number of decades? No it won't. Will some of the people involved be irritating and sanctimonious? Yes. Will you occasionally roll your eyes at the condescension and posturing? Sure. Will it remedy the bureaucracy and dysfunction that make us fear for the future? No.

But is it the right choice in this election? Yes, it is.

Trump is the guy who will make you feel better for a minute but lead you to regret it later. He's like junk food: You don't want that for four years every day. He's driven by grievance. He has the wrong character and motivation.

Supporting Kamala will be, in my view, the better vote for your family's prospects for a brighter, or a slightly less forbidding future. Kamala Harris is the vote to live to fight another day. There's always tomorrow. Let's keep the country intact and capable of improvement. That's the way I'll be voting and I hope you do too.

Want to create an alternative to the two parties one local election at a time?  Check out Forward Party and consider making a donation today – we have candidates at every level all across the country!

RFK Endorsing Trump

RFK Jr. dropped out of the race today and endorsed Donald Trump. 

This turn of events saddens me.  As you probably know I’m someone who thinks that Donald Trump has the wrong character and makeup to be a good President.  I know multiple people who worked for him and regard him as immoral and destructive, and these were people who saw him every day. 

RFK started his campaign as a Democrat and seemed to have a similar outlook.  He switched to an Independent when he didn’t see a path in the Democratic primaries in part because there were no debates. 

RFK’s campaign raised about $50 million directly and another $50 million through outside groups.  But running as an Independent meant having to get ballot access in state after state, which is costly, difficult and fraught with legal challenges.  His polling peaked around 19% but more recently has been closer to 4 or 5%. 

RFK’s vote share decreased when Joe Biden dropped out and was replaced by Kamala Harris.  His remaining voters overlap more with Trump’s support.  If RFK had remained in the race, it probably would have helped Kamala at the margins. 

So, what does RFK’s endorsement mean?  It depends on what his voters do.  Some of them will follow him to Trump.  Some of them won’t vote. Some of them will go to other third party candidates.  A handful may even go to Kamala Harris. 

I think that RFK’s endorsement is worth about .5% to 1% of the vote for Donald Trump in the all-important swing states, maybe even more if RFK joins Trump on the trail.  Recent polling has RFK at 7% in Nevada, 6% in Wisconsin, 5% in Arizona and Michigan, 4% in Georgia and 3% in Pennsylvania.  The margin between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump is well below those numbers in all of those states.

I’m the co-chair of a third party myself – the Forward Party - so I have a sense of what motivates voters who don’t like the two parties.  Indeed, 50% of Americans now identify as Independents, though some of them lean one way or the other. 

RFK’s voters tend to be people who feel unspoken for and left out by the current system.  Many are low propensity voters who have given up on politics as usual.  If RFK campaigns in the swing states, he could actually expand the electorate by a crucial margin – getting an extra 10,000 anti-institutional voters showing up in each swing state is a big deal. 

Why is RFK endorsing Trump?  I think much of it is that he has felt respected by Trump and his team, while the Democrats refused to even take a meeting and often sued him to keep him off ballots.  Of course, it’s difficult to trash someone as an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist and then say now “We welcome him into the fold!” 

For the record, I think this is a mistake.  If you’re serious about reaching out to Americans with different viewpoints, RFK Jr. and his followers qualify.  And his voters genuinely may comprise the difference-makers in a tight election.  If you want to win, you should at least have the conversation. 

I also think that RFK Jr. endorsing Donald Trump is the wrong decision.  Okay, the Dems have been jerks to you.  And there may be a plum role for you in the Trump administration, as they don’t particularly care about who runs various agencies.  But if you thought Donald Trump was the answer, why run in the first place? 

There are many who will dismiss this turn of events as marginal to the race.  I disagree, as in a race this tight any significant factor could matter.  RFK Jr. kindled a genuine political movement that is now backing Trump.  Trump’s odds of victory just went up and the most significant independent presidential candidate of the last twenty years just joined his team.  If that doesn’t make you pause, it should.     

Want to create an alternative to the two parties one local election at a time?  Check out Forward Party and consider making a donation today – we have candidates at every level all across the country!