Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays! We hope that you are enjoying the holiday season with friends and family.

This is a special time. I remember as a kid being thrilled when holiday lights went up in the neighborhood.  Evelyn and I now do our best to create those kinds of memories for our children.  A big part of that is spending time with their grandparents.  My father is now entering his mid-eighties and doesn’t travel very well, so we go visit him.

Occasionally my boys will quarrel or call each other annoying.  I try to tell them that family is the most important thing, and they are very lucky to have each other.  When you’re a kid, you see a ton of your sibling because you’re trapped in a car together for hours on end.  When you’re older, life gets busy and it’s easy to go a while without seeing family members unless you try.

I’ve always seen the Holiday Season as a time to commune with those closest to you.  Whether it’s friends or family or colleagues or neighbors, let the people in your life know how much they mean to you.  Sometimes hearing from you will make an enormous difference.

Happy Holidays!  Give your family a hug for us and see you in 2025!

With warmth and gratitude,

Andrew, Evelyn, Christopher and Damian

Humanity Lost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sports Betting Hurts American Men. Time To Rethink Its Regulation

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

Sports Betting Hurts American Men. Time To Rethink Its Regulation

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

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

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

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

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

So what are the problems?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

Being Thankful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Are the Limits?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Solution in Plain Sight

Hello, I hope that your weekend was great. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tired of Being Right

Hello, I hope that your weekend was good. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Path Ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That seems about right.

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

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

So what now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abandon Policing Cultural Behaviors

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

Abandon Policing Cultural Behaviors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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