

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
His victory proves that Democrats can not only win over Trump voters but perhaps even more importantly reach voters who are not normally part of the political process.
While it may be hard for Democrats to admit it, the fact of the matter is that over the past 10 years Donald Trump has been able to expand his political base in ways that seem inconceivable. In the immediate aftermath of the 2024 elections, Trump’s achievements were clear to Democratic pollster John Zogby who wrote in The Guardian a week after the 2024 election:
But 2024 exit polling has clearly shown that MAGA has expanded beyond its original base. Trump outperformed his previous runs by substantial numbers among men and women, particularly young men; Black people, Latinos, Asian/Pacific Islanders; and suburban voters. He grew his support among voters in every state.
Many Democratic pundits have been in denial about Trump’s 2024 achievement let alone trying to chart effectively how Democrats can expand their electorate. There is some good news here as the 2025 elections as Zohran Mamdani in his successful run for mayor of New York City has demonstrated that Democrats can also expand their electorate.
It is certainly true that New York City is not necessarily a model for political communications and organizing in the United States. Nonetheless, an analysis of the 2025 results offer the Democrats some lessons. Kabir Khanna, CBS’ director for election analytics, has broken down the 2025 results and come up with some very intriguing conclusions.
All parts of the Democratic Party should study Mamdani’s winning campaign and figure out how Democrats can reach Trump voters and nonvoters.
Khanna’s analysis finds that fully 14% of Mamdani voters either voted for Trump (5%), for a third-party candidate (3%), or did not vote for president (6%).
Mamdani non-Harris voters tend to be younger than the electorate as a whole (two-thirds were under age 45), less likely than Harris voters to have a college degree, and tend to be less affluent (44% under $50,000 annual income). Mamdani was clearly able to expand the Democratic electorate by bringing in more blue collar and younger voters.
To his credit, Khanna acknowledges that New York City is not representative of the country as a whole. However, he does find some interesting parallels in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races:
Democrats Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey and Abigail Spanberger in Virginia won in landslides, thanks both to high turnout in Democratic areas and some Trump voters flipping. And it was voters of color, specifically Latino voters, and younger voters who were the likeliest to flip. In New Jersey, for example, 18% of Latino Trump voters flipped to Sherrill this year, while only 5% of white Trump voters did so. Add to this group voters who backed this year's Democratic nominees but didn't turn out in 2024 and you see many of the same characteristics as we saw in New York: The Democrat-not-Harris voters tend to be younger, less partisan, less affluent, and more focused on the economy.
There is nothing in the CBS data that shows us how effective Mamdani was as a communicator. I do think we can infer that from Mamdani’s ability to reach voters in unexpected ways and maintain a consistent stance on his issue. Contrary to what many thought, after he won the Democratic primary, Mamdani stuck with his progressive platform and did not try to move to the center.
Mamdani’s victory shows that Democrats can not only win over Trump voters but perhaps even more importantly reach voters who are not normally part of the political process. A number of self-styled Democratic centrists are wary of what Mamdani’s win means for the future of the Democratic Party. I would point out to these centrists that future elections will determine the direction of the Democratic Party. In the meantime, all parts of the Democratic Party should study Mamdani’s winning campaign and figure out how Democrats can reach Trump voters and nonvoters. The outcome of the 2026 midterm and 2028 presidential elections will be determined by how effectively the Democrats can learn lessons from the 2025 election results.
For our democracies to function we need to repair the social contract between generations and work toward such a shared vision of the future.
On this day last year, I was at the United Nations Summit of the Future in New York where world leaders agreed a global Pact to “safeguard the future.”
The Pact for the Future, adopted by the UN General Assembly, lists 56 actions governments have committed to. These cover peace and security, sustainable development, science and technology, youth, and global governance—all with the ultimate goal of protecting the needs and interests of present and future generations.
The challenges are immense. As the preamble to the pact states, “If we do not change course, we risk tipping into a future of persistent crisis and breakdown.” But to start to confront the challenges, we need multilateral cooperation for the long term and the pact provides a foundation for this.
I left the US feeling hopeful.
We all must remind ourselves that someday we will be the past generations and it’s our decisions now that will shape the future.
A year on, it’s hard to hold on to that sense of hope. The world feels like a very different place this September compared with last.
Could such a summit even take place in 2025? Given US President Donald Trump’s "my way or the highway" approach to international diplomacy and his weaponization of tariffs in trade relation; and given the lack of progress toward negotiating a ceasefire in Ukraine and ending the genocide in Palestine, it’s hard to imagine a diplomatic consensus being found today on leaving a better world for future generations.
This downward spiral of the last 12 months makes the pact even more precious.
Amid all the chaos and conflict in the world, with war raging, famine, extreme weather events, and the very fabric of our democracies coming apart at the seams, these commitments provide a vision to hold on to.
For our democracies to function we need to repair the social contract between generations and work toward such a shared vision of the future. Participation in democracy is key across generations—for individuals to say what their priorities are and choose representatives to act on the things they care about. However, participation isn’t equal across generations, and thus nor is representation.
In the 2024 US presidential election, voter turnout was lowest for the 18-24 age group; less than half of citizens in this age bracket voted. By contrast, the highest turnout was among 65-74 year-olds, three-quarters of whom voted. Similar voting patterns can be observed internationally.
It is natural that younger people are reluctant to participate in democracy when they feel governments are not acting in their longer-term interests—the climate crisis being the prime example. To build trust, governments need to show that they are listening and find ways to bring the voices of young people and future generations into decision-making processes.
Creating common visions about a desired future gives governments a goal to work toward. Having a clear vision helps them design policies knowing what direction they want to move in. Having broad, diverse participation can give them the support of the people.
Future generations governance uses co-creative and participatory methods, as well as tools like strategic foresight, to drive toward shared visions.
While it might feel like it, it’s not all doom and gloom in the world today.
Away from the front pages and social media feeds work is being done in different places to strengthen long-term thinking and the consideration of future generations in decisions.
Wales continues to be a leader. Its independent Future Generations Commissioner has existed since 2015 to support and challenge the Welsh government to represent the interests of those not yet born. This role was a result of a participative visioning process with citizens which set out in a legal Act seven well-being goals to “create a Wales that we all want to live in, now and in the future.”
Here in Europe, we have high hopes for the European Union’s first ‘intergenerational fairness’ strategy. Last year the bloc appointed its first Commissioner for Intergenerational Fairness responsible for “making sure decisions taken today do not harm future generations.” Their work has the potential to provide a home for long-term thinking in the EU system and to ensure the interests of future generations are respected throughout EU policymaking.
Still under development, the strategy has had a huge amount of input from experts and citizens—myself included.
Another country setting a precedent is Norway. Earlier this year it convened a national citizens assembly to discuss how—as one of the richest countries in the world—it can use its wealth to benefit the world, Norwegians, and future generations. One of the resulting recommendations in as independent Commissioner to ensure that future generations have a voice in decision-making.
Outside Europe, the Australian parliament created a cross-party group for future generations, and Cameroon has created an Indigenous Commission for Future Generations.
Developments like these—at different levels, in different parts of the world—are how the long-term vision set out last year at the UN will be implemented on the ground.
We all must remind ourselves that someday we will be the past generations and it’s our decisions now that will shape the future.
A year ago today global leaders committed us to becoming good ancestors—future generations will be the judges of whether we succeed.
Believing the current style of door-knocking wins campaigns is the same as believing in Santa Claus.
Once upon a time, in a precinct long, long ago, there was a campaign that built voter contact programs solely from those who lived in the targeted neighborhood. The entire community shopped at the same grocery stores and even saw one another at the bank, gym, and library. In other words, this was totally different from today's "ground game," manned by people who drive from hours away, armed with clipboards, shiny new campaign t-shirts, and ready to tell residents exactly how they should vote.
While a ton of articles have been written about the importance of the "ground game" in the final days of the Harris campaign, no one is discussing the increasing problems and decreasing rate of return of this tactic. Time Magazine's October election article, "Democrats Bank on Ground Game Advantage in Pennsylvania," opens with the author observing that "most of the people on Elana Hunter's list weren't answering the door," but does not dig into the actual problem. The same is true with campaign analysis in hundreds of other news outlets. The New York Times wrote a lengthy piece comparing Vice President Kamala Harris' in-house door-knocking operation to the Trump campaign's outsourced field operation. The article highlights both sides bragging about how many doors they knocked on and how much paid staff was hired. But, neither side (nor the writers) discuss how few people answer their doors or even care what the stranger is selling.
This analysis misses the real problems of modern-day door knocking: Voters don't open their doors anymore, voters do not know their neighbors, and undecided voters are more skeptical than ever when it comes to talking about politics.
As Democrats, we should know that a last-minute paid "ground game" that gets dropped into the battleground days before an election hasn't worked in years.
Year-round precinct work with "local captains" who knew their "turf" and how each neighbor would vote disappeared as the campaign industry grew and political parties stopped building traditional ward systems. Instead, they were replaced with volunteers and paid voices that only knocked on doors during major elections. This transition from a known, trusted neighbor to an unknown door knocker has made modern campaigning a data-driven competition that ignores effectiveness as it optimizes toward knocking on the most doors.
Nonetheless, message and messenger still matter in all aspects of campaigns, especially in the field. Door-to-door salesmen are a relic of history (Even the legendary Fuller Brush company started transitioning out of door-to-door sales in 1985).
Public safety studies show neighborhoods are more responsive to community policing programs when public safety officers know the people they serve. Why would political campaigns be different?
Technology has also had a major impact on door knocking. It's now been a decade since the invention of video door camera technology. According to a 2024 Consumer Reports study, 30% of Americans use video door cameras. These changes in neighborhood dynamics and consumer behaviors are realities that must be faced.
The rite-of-passage, where a volunteer gets lost in below-freezing weather canvassing an unknown precinct or gets bitten by a dog while knocking on doors, needs to be relegated to history. While campaign war stories are fun, it's time to be honest about the changing times and begin a new chapter: These age-old tactics are neither sacred nor effective. If no one is home or no one is answering their door even if they are home, political campaigns need to change with the times.
To win more elections, target voters with appropriate messages and messengers. It's time to explore better ways to use scarce time, people, and money to achieve the desired victory. Are there better places to send volunteers to work more efficiently and rally potential voters?
This is not to say that field organizing should be discarded or that campaigns should go completely digital. (Lots of criticism is being written on the current problems with these newer tactics that will hopefully be fixed.) But, as the Democratic Party's messaging and mobilization are transformed, an honest assessment of all tactics is needed to understand what works and create better ways to win.
Remember, just because a tactic worked on one campaign, it will not always continue to work the same four years later. We have tried this with auto-calling and text messaging technologies and know they have diminishing returns each cycle. Now is the time to dig deep and have honest conversations with field organizers and volunteers to learn what tactics need to be retired and start adopting new approaches.
Let's stop pretending that more "fake neighbors" door-knocking is the solution to the Democrats' problems and focus on how to best reach targeted voters with a message that resonates, delivered by respected voices that matter, while we have time now to build a real organic field effort.
As Democrats, we should know that a last-minute paid "ground game" that gets dropped into the battleground days before an election hasn't worked in years. It didn't work on Howard Dean's well-funded 2004 campaign that flew tons of staff and volunteers to Iowa. It's now 20 years after the infamous Dean scream, and we continue to blindly follow the same failed "orange cap" tactics of these past campaigns: inserting last-minute volunteers and door-knocking teams instead of thinking about how to create long-term community-based approaches.
We all have to grow up at some point and face the truth. Or you could keep believing in Santa Claus and see what gift he brings you in the next election cycle.
The Poor People’s Campaign is organizing to push the concerns of poor and low-income people into the center of the 2024 political debate.
Amidst all the nail-biting uncertainty over the 2024 election, one thing’s for sure: Turnout will be key. This February, the Poor People’s Campaign announced plans to mobilize a powerful yet often overlooked voting bloc: the 85 million eligible voters who are poor or low-income.
The campaign crunched the numbers and determined that if this bloc voted at the same rate as higher-income voters, they could sway elections in every state. But most voting drives—and candidates—still ignore this segment of our society.
“The conventional wisdom—which isn’t very wise—is that the poor don’t care about voting,” said Poor People’s Campaign Policy Director Shailly Gupta Barnes at a February 5 press conference. “But that’s just not true.”
In Arizona, 40% of voters are low-wage—and in 2020 the margin of victory was just 0.03%.
What’s the biggest factor discouraging low-wage people from exercising this basic right?
“Political campaigns do not talk to them or speak to their issues,” explained campaign co-chair Bishop William J. Barber II. “In our election cycles sometimes we have 15, 20 debates for president. In 2020, not one of those—not 15 minutes—was given to raising questions about how the policies of that particular party or politician would impact poor and low-income people.”
The Poor People’s Campaign is organizing to push the concerns of poor and low-income people into the center of the 2024 political debate. Their goal is to mobilize 15 million “infrequent” poor and low-income voters.
Will politicians listen?
At the press conference, pollster Celinda Lake ticked off one battleground state after another where even a small increase in participation could determine the outcome. She pointed out that in Arizona, 40% of voters are low-wage—and in 2020 the margin of victory was just 0.03%. “You’d have to be a moron to not get this,” Lake said.
What are some of the most pressing issues on the Poor People’s Campaign agenda?
The campaign and the Institute for Policy Studies just co-published fact sheets for the nation and all 50 states on the interlocking problems that hit the poor hardest: poverty and inequality, systemic racism, ecological devastation, and militarism. Several speakers spoke about these problems from their own personal experiences.
“I’m tired of companies and billionaires buying politicians who are pushing people deeper into poverty and debt,” said Matthew Rosing of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. “I’ve put up with the thankless toll of minimum wage retail jobs and back-breaking construction jobs in a state that has 19 billionaires. And because of our flat tax, they pay the same state income tax rate as I do.”
Linda Burns, a former Amazon warehouse assembly line worker, has struggled for basic labor rights and decent healthcare benefits. Burns was a supporter of the valiant union drive at the Bessemer, Alabama, facility that Amazon eventually crushed through harsh intimidation tactics.
Burns says she was fired for her union activity, which led to the loss of her health benefits right before a needed surgery related to a workplace injury. Today she works 16 hours a day as a caregiver.
“I’ve worked too hard to have nothing,” said Burns. “We have to stand up for our rights.”
Veronica Burton spoke about the economic gulf in her community of Beloit, Wisconsin. A woman who lives “around the corner” from her is a billionaire while Burton is struggling to pay bills in the face of multiple rent increases and the low wages she earns at an understaffed child-care center.
On top of dealing with her own problems, Burton often finds herself trying to help parents of the children under her care. “We’ve had mothers unenroll their children because they can’t afford their asthma medicine,” she said.
These and other organizers in more than 30 states are ready to put on their door-knocking shoes in the lead-up to this year’s election and beyond. “We are not an insurrection,” Bishop Barber said. “But you better believe we are a resurrection—a resurrection of justice and love and righteousness.”
With only 11 months to go, this feels like the political crisis of our lifetimes. Where is the resistance we need?
I finally put up my Christmas lights on Saturday, in a T-shirt with no jacket on a warm December afternoon — a fitting finale to Earth’s hottest year on record. Meanwhile, the world’s life-or-death climate summit is presided over by an oil dictator who insists there is “no science” to support phasing out fossil fuels. For those who wonder if humankind is taking global warming seriously, the joke of holding COP28 in the United Arab Emirates is your answer.
Nearly seven years later, it’s easy to forget how remarkable the first Women’s March that occurred on Jan. 21, 2017, truly was. The most incredible thing was the size of the protest that occurred on the first full day of Donald Trump’s presidency. It’s believed that at least 470,000 people attended the main event in Washington, D.C., but satellite protests across the United States and globally drew an estimated 5 million, likely the largest one-day event in American history.
That success resonated for the next four years, as thousands went back to their hometowns and organized political groups that loosely were hailed as “the Trump resistance” — not only staging local protest events but ultimately knocking on doors and sending out postcards by the millions as Democrats reclaimed the House in 2018 and the White House and Senate in 2020.
But there’s also something else worth remembering about that initial Woman’s March and the early days of those resisters. Their movement was born in the early morning darkness and frustration of Nov. 9, 2016, amid the shock realization that a dangerous demagogue had somehow been elected the 45th president of the United States. The rage that flowered on a chilly January day in a field of pink “(p-word) hats” was in part regret that more had not been done to stop Trump before the election.
Today, Trump is back, and no one calls him a demagogue anymore — because that’s too polite. The 47th presidency he envisions is tyrannical, even dictatorial — siccing zealous MAGA prosecutors on his political enemies and the media, pardoning 2021′s insurrectionists, mass detention camps for deporting migrants, and calling out troops to put down protests, perhaps as early as his Inauguration Day. And yet he is all but guaranteed the GOP nomination, and an even-money bet against President Joe Biden next fall. Even a normally cautious mainstream media is starting to get it.
“Why a Second Trump Presidency May Be More Radical Than His First,” blared Monday’s headline across the New York Times homepage, describing how Team Trump has learned from the failures of its leader’s more outlandish ideas in 2017-21. A super-long Washington Post essay from neocon scholar Robert Kagan — “A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending.” — was that paper’s most-read article. Not to be outdone, The Atlantic dropped a special issue with 24 separate stories about the dangers of a Trump 47.
It’s great journalism, but will it make any more difference in 2024 than the supposedly fatal Access Hollywood tape did in 2016? What about the millions of casual voters who don’t know The Atlantic from Popular Mechanics, who’ve convinced themselves that America was better during Trump’s somewhat constrained first term than under Biden in a moment of global chaos?
Even more to the point: Where is “the Trump resistance,” now that we know how truly dangerous the man is — and that he can win again?
Few will argue that some groups have faded and some disappeared after the Democrats’ 2020 victories. Here in Philadelphia, for example, Tuesdays with Toomey is gone, its mission of flipping a Pennsylvania Senate seat accomplished. The American University sociologist Dana Fisher — author of 2019′s American Resistance: From the Women’s March to the Blue Wave — told me “I have been tracking many of the groups and some are shells of what they were” — such as the Women’s March organization — “and others are limping along trying to keep funding.”
But some groups are still going strong, three years after Trump left the White House. Vicki Miller, the group leader of Indivisible Philadelphia, told me her members still chat regularly on Zoom. Although there is the occasional protest — including a boisterous street-corner condemnation on the Jan. 6 insurrection anniversary — the focus is heavily on voter turnout, including postcards and phone banking around last month’s Pennsylvania Supreme Court race won by Democrats, as well as lobbying the state’s U.S. senators. Miller said members still sign up for Door 35, a pledge to knock on at least 35 neighbors’ doors to woo undecided voters.
“It’s sad,” Miller said of those early polls showing Trump tied or narrowly ahead, but she was quick to add, “it doesn’t change what we are doing, which is working our tails off to get Joe Biden and Senator [Bob] Casey elected.” She also believes talking to voters about the things that affect them personally, like reproductive rights or, if done the right way, the economy, is most important — more so than hyping the Trumpian threat to democracy.
Maybe. But with only 11 months to go, this feels like the political crisis of our lifetimes, and I can’t stop wondering if there is more to be done before Election Day. Voter turnout is indeed the most critical, but should there be protests or maybe teach-ins to raise awareness for that true sliver of undecideds? Should there be boycotts of companies whose CEOs support Trump (also known as the Yuengling spit-take)?
As I write this on Monday night, “dictator” is a trending topic on X/Twitter. It could be trending nightly if the too-silent majority of Americans who believe in democracy don’t take a more forceful stand. The moment for resisting Trump is right now, not waiting until Jan. 21, 2025.
Several states have attempted to implement automatic voter registration based on Medicare enrollment—but the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is still stalling.
Recent efforts to expand access to automatic voter registration are again calling attention to old promises by the Biden administration to enhance the accessibility of civic engagement and continued failures by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to actualize them. Even this week,
a piece in the magazine Bolts highlighted how a holdout by Biden officials continues to stall efforts to support low-income residents in registering to vote, despite recent Oregon legislation to automatically register Medicaid enrollees.
A 2021 Executive Order by President Joe Biden sought to promote access to voting, particularly by “expanding access to voter registration and election information,” in a directive to agencies to provide additional access to voter registration with services that directly engage with the public. Automatic voter registration through Medicaid enrollment offices is a common-sense way to expand opportunity for civic engagement among those most likely to be excluded by current voter registration infrastructure and enables the National Voter Registration Act to move towards achieving its full potential.
Automatic voter registration (AVR) has proven effective in increasing voter registrations across a myriad of states—and not just by the number of voters registered, but in ensuring that the registered voter population is more diverse. And states like Oregon, Massachusetts, and Colorado have worked to take this even further, through AVR for Medicaid recipients.
The holdout by Brooks-LaSure, and CMS more broadly, stands in stark contrast with explicit steps set out by President Biden to improve accessibility to voter engagement.
And despite what the wishy-washy response from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on the issue might indicate, AVR based on Medicaid enrollment has tremendous potential:
Despite the overwhelming positive evidence of improvements to voter registration infrastructure, CMS has taken no action to enable states that have passed legislation to actually use Medicaid for automatic voter registration. In a response to a letter from Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) in support of Colorado’s Medicaid efforts, CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure expressed aversion to the use of Medicaid for voter registration, citing conflict with Medicaid privacy concerns. CMS rules currently prevent Medicaid agencies from using enrollment data for non-Medicaid purposes, but CMS can waive these provisions to implement certain proposals at the state level. Even prior CMS officials have indicated support for state-based health insurance exchanges facilitating voter registration.
The holdout by Brooks-LaSure, and CMS more broadly, stands in stark contrast with explicit steps set out by President Biden to improve accessibility to voter engagement. And CMS has resisted fully stepping into its authority in a number of other Executive Orders and actions called for by President Biden—notably, but not limited to the Executive Order on Competition in its calls for coverage for generic drugs and biosimilars. The far-reaching authorities and impacts of CMS, and its role in healthcare for all Americans, deserve additional scrutiny and oversight from the Department of Health and Human Services.
Eight steps the Biden campaign should take to reach voters in the Tar Heel State.
The GOP may be eying a Republican presidency, but strategic investments made now can position North Carolina as Democrats’ firewall and the linchpin in President Joe Biden’s re-election bid.
Although several paths could garner Republicans the 270 electoral votes needed to retake the White House in 2024, they all intersect with a North Carolina attuned to its marginalized voices and unwilling to sacrifice human capital for political favor.
We implore the Biden campaign to implement the following eight strategies immediately to ensure the Tar Heel State is equipped to thwart voter suppression tactics and bolster the Democratic Party’s reach beyond 2024:
Early investment in on-the-ground infrastructure is vital to reaching rural and previously untapped communities of prospective voters. In 2020, the Bident campaign spent $47 million dollars on ads making North Carolina the fourth most expensive state for the campaign. Biden still lost by 1.3 points. We recommend the Biden campaign invest a minimum of $4.9 million in its North Carolina operations, beginning in Fall 2023. This funding would support everything from strategically-positioned paid staff to communications literature. This will help to lay the groundwork for a robust field campaign.
North Carolina will not be decided solely by urban or rural voters but through the masterful engagement of both groups that emphasizes what unites them above what divides them. There’s no question that the Biden campaign must invest heavily in the Charlotte area to reach the one-third of North Carolinians residing there, but field organizers dispatched to rural counties should be tactically selected based on their hands-on and contextual knowledge of the areas in order to establish meaningful connections that transcend rhetoric.
The Biden campaign must be willing to invest the same level of surrogate attention in North Carolina as it did in Georgia in 2020 and 2022. North Carolinians need to know that they matter to the Democratic Party, but it’s hard to feel truly valued when you’re kept at arm’s length. You can tell North Carolina voters all day long that their rights and prosperity are both on the ballot, but saturating the state with Democratic star power will show them that their plight is shared.
The Biden campaign must develop more complex strategies to reach Black, brown and Indigenous voters statewide because the one-size-fits-all approach squanders any hope of any one group feeling seen, much less valued. Again, strategic deployment of engaged field organizers is key to establishing meaningful connections with voters, and investing early in their recruitment ensures Biden’s messages can be targeted to the needs of specific communities.
During the 2022 election cycle, three out of four registered Latinos in North Carolina stayed home. The state’s lack of Spanish language media automatically limits direct mass outreach to Latino communities, so the Biden campaign needs to work diligently to craft community-specific outreach events that welcome these isolated voices to the national conversation.
Members of the Lumbee tribe once voted reliably Democrat, but underinvestment in one of the state’s largest Indigenous communities shifted its allegiance toward the GOP. Lumbee turnout—and Democrats’ ability to effectively engage and connect with the tribe’s roughly 55,000 North Carolina members—could reverse the trend.
You simply cannot persuade voters you cannot reach. As of 2022, only 40% of North Carolina’s rural population had access to reliable, high-speed internet, meaning rural voters still rely heavily on local papers for their news. The Biden campaign must bring in local media experts to guide strategic investment in rural advertising or risk its message never reaching huge chunks of the state.
The former president's list of crimes and despicable traits is long, but his most lasting impact is that he actively and brazenly unleashed the worst elements in our society. Will the country finally say: Enough.
I have co-authored, with Mark Green, two books on Donald J. Trump, and I’ve thought a lot about the toll his presidency has taken on our country. Trump’s legacy goes beyond him being a toady of Wall Street interests or an inflator of massive, wasteful military budgets, or his siding with corporations over workers, consumers, small taxpayers and needy communities. Other presidents have also betrayed their oaths of office in these ways. However, Trump’s most lasting impact is that he actively and brazenly unleashed the worst elements in our society – cruelty, bigotry, greed, violence-prone bullying, racism, and misogyny. He gave visibility and status to these traits, which were dutifully reported daily by the ratings-minded mass media moguls, in part because he kept getting away with such behavior year after year.
Moreover, Trump openly violated long-established norms and standards, both criminal and civic, as well as our Constitution. Recall his radical declaration in 2019, “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.” By getting away with this outlawry, until some recent pushback by law enforcers, Trump further institutionalized such violative and criminogenic behavior for others to also openly emulate. Children now use his foul words in family exchanges.
A majority of U.S. citizens still long for a president who seeks to inspire the best from its citizenry.
Others among his predecessors engaged in some of these transgressions, but Trump overtly, regularly brought these and other offenses to the surface. His abuses of power include, criminally violating the Hatch Act and the Anti-Deficiency Act, defying over 130 Congressional subpoenas as well as openly, defiantly and recurringly engaging in at least a dozen impeachable offenses from the White House (See, Congressional Record, December 18, 2019).
Once unleashed, his imitators rush to replicate such behavior, especially when as candidates, they see political rewards in our winner-take-all, gerrymandered, Electoral College system of minority rule.
During Trump’s rule, countering forces became meek, not more energetic. Many from organized labor and organized religion, the academic world and civic groups found the will to adequately confront Trump’s abuses of power. If they were engaged at all, they seemed overly sensitive to the torrents of anonymous abuse over the Internet. In athletic lingo, they froze or clutched. If they tried, they couldn’t keep up with Trump’s high-velocity vitriol.
Tracker Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post counted over 30,000 false or misleading assertions by Trump in his four-year term. Politicians lie, to be sure, but for Trump, it was a way of life, hourly, 24/7, as was his chronic, daily, personal obstructions of justice, which intimidated law enforcement officials.
A long-time civic leader confessed to me that his group could not figure out how to get its arms around this guy. Progressives picketed Obama’s White House. Fifteen hundred people were arrested there during a civil disobedience protest against a proposed pipeline certification that protestors believed would open the door to adding more greenhouse gases to our atmosphere. More protests should have occurred in front of Trump’s White House for far greater offenses in just about every domestic sector. “What’s the use,” was the fatalistic explanation for not doing so (See the list of some of the protests during the Trump administration here).
Of course, the ratings-obsessed mass media bears great responsibility for the rise of Donald J. Trump, from his early misogynistic interviews with Howard Stern while a failed gambling czar, to his presidential campaigning. The press gave him center stage. The usually reserved New York Times, regularly denounced by Trump, gave him huge print space, and even repeated his slanderous personal tweets, down to printing his attacks on members of Congress and private citizens without giving the accused any right to respond. Never mind the Trump “dittohead” Fox News.
Is our country in for a Trumpian replay going into 2024 (assuming he is not convicted by prosecutions underway)? The cowardly GOP leaders seem resigned to such a horror show, in spite of Trump’s negative poll numbers. Will enough GOP voters migrate to the Libertarian Party, stay home, or hold their noses and vote for a Democrat? Nobody knows because the wild card is whether we will see either mass voter passivity or a mass fed-up backlash. By “mass” I mean enough of a slice of voters dropping Trump to produce a landslide for the opponents of Trump and his Trumpster candidates at the national and state levels.
The coming political season is a historic wait-and-see moment – a time for some emerging prominent figure, or some “had enough” voter turnout, or some bullying episode involving a brutish Trump act (say against a tiny number of dissenters at one of his rallies) to create a breakthrough by unleashing the frustrations, decencies, and moral outrage too long kept at bay by so many people in our country. A majority of U.S. citizens still long for a president who seeks to inspire the best from its citizenry. Their spirits need kindling to carry their longing to the voting booth.
With eye contact and a short "Go 'head" to a swift-moving member of his security team, Republican presidential candidate and billionaire media personality Donald Trump appeared to authorize the physical ejection of Univision's anchor Jorge Ramos from a press event on Tuesday evening.
Numerous cameras captured the event in Iowa. The real estate mogul's disdain for Ramos and his questioning of Trump's controversial immigration policy ideas first saw him tell Ramos to "sit down" and "Go back to Univision." Then, a security team member moved across the stage closely behind the candidate to remove the well-known journalist from the room.
Watch:
Subsequently--and despite what witnesses to the episode can judge for themselves based on the video--Trump said it was not his decision to kick out Ramos.
As the Huffington Post reports:
[Trump] insisted that security had made the decision to kick out Ramos, but said he was fine with it.
"This guy stands up and starts screaming," Trump said. "He's obviously a very emotional person."
Trump claimed he didn't know much about Ramos, which may have been true. But he probably should -- Ramos is wildly popular as a Spanish-language anchor and well-regarded for pressing politicians from both parties on issues, particularly immigration.
Trump, by contrast, is mostly disliked by Latinos, and going after Ramos is unlikely to help that fact.
Ramos was let back into the event minutes later and took the opportunity to ask several questions. Watch the exchange:
Meanwhile, Trump continues to paralyze the punditry class by confounding traditional understandings of what a candidate for the nation's highest office can get away with. While polls find that Trump continues to lead the large field of Republican candidates, others note that television executives are elated by the ratings bonanza that Trump provides to both cable news and the major networks.
For progressive critics of Trump, however, the spectacle of Trump's campaign speaks to an ever darker side of America's contemporary political landscape. In an essay for Common Dreams on Tuesday, Christian Christensen, a professor of journalism at Stockholm University in Sweden, said that Trump's candidacy is nothing more than political "junk food" for a global audience that is exuberant to see the hubris and crassness of the American stereotype so wonderfully exemplified in the billionaire real estate mogul who became a reality TV star before ultimately running for president.
Comparing the substantive and populist-driven campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders--which he wishes was "afforded the international media oxygen given to people like Trump"--Christensen writes:
Breathless reports of a depoliticized American citizenry fawning over a cartoonish autocrat make for good reading, but they are also de-contextualized. Trump is polling in the low 20s for a party that will likely get in the high 40s in a national election (in 16 months) where the voter turnout will be in the mid-50s. Yes, that's still a lot of people, but there are also millions of Americans disgusted with the political status quo as represented by the Republican and Democratic parties. By ignoring those millions in favor of media-friendly crackpots we relegate principled challenges to corporate-dominated politics in the US to a mere footnote in our public debate.
Trump is an easy target, and, more importantly, he's profitable clickbait. But Trump is also political and journalistic junk food: a diversion from a deeper, uncomfortable discussion about what ails both the US and Europe. There are serious people out there talking about these ailments. It's time we ate our vegetables.