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.