All Dem presidential candidates sorted by three strategies? a) unity (Biden's bi-partisan "epiphany"; b) revolution (Bernie's political mass movement); c) change the system (Warren's anti-corruption measures, seriously almost more left than Bernie!)

2018 Election Recap

Blue Ripple or Wave?

William Sundwick

It didn’t take long after the 2016 election for organizing to start. The Women’s March the day after the Inauguration was an affirmation of public disdain for the newly elected president and everything he stood for. So angry, yet so positive. The packed Mall was a marked contrast to the nearly empty Mall the day before, for the Inaugural. And, true to form, the new president lied about it, creating his own narrative out of whole cloth. It was the beginning of “alternative facts,” which we would see much more over the next two years.

As expectations headed successively lower for this president, planning for the 2018 midterm elections became a major preoccupation. The first nationwide referendum on the Trump era would be held on November 6, 2018. But it became apparent that not all voters agreed about him. How many would care enough to vote? Which ones? Which specific awfulness would motivate them most? Would there be so many that voters would just throw up their hands in disgust, and refuse to participate?

The Democratic Party needed a strategy. They needed to discover what would motivate voters most viscerally, much as the Republicans (and Trump himself) had succeeded in doing the last two election cycles.

Would it be the piggishness toward women? The semi-overt racism? Charlottesville or Vladimir Putin? How about the attempted repeal of Obamacare? That one was a wider Republican disaster, not just the President’s. Had Bernie Sanders brought enough socialists “out and proud” to make inequality and class struggle cool again? (After 100 years!)

In 2017, something eye-opening happened in Virginia. A huge blue wave was coming toward the Old Dominion. Was it a dress rehearsal for the nationwide elections the following year? In the event, it was more about fresh faces, and women, than about issues. But we have seen Medicaid expansion and dedicated funding from Richmond for Metro despite the wave not being quite complete in the General Assembly. It needs to wait until next year.

In 2018, the two-year-long organizing of the Resistance was about to meet its first real test. There were so many organizations: Indivisible, Our Revolution (the Berniecrats), PDA, PCCC, DFA, OFA, and DSA (Democratic Socialists of America, sounding almost like a third party, but not quite).  Indeed, from the viewpoint of one of those newly “out and proud” socialists, it seemed that the left had not seen better days in the USA for just about a century (certainly not since the New Deal).

The results of the November 6 elections did not, in the end, support such giddy optimism. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made a big media splash after winning her Democratic primary but has been punching above her weight class ever since – we wish her the best, but it’s going to be a long, hard slog on Capitol Hill.

The Bret Kavanaugh hearings did galvanize women, likely contributing to many female Democratic candidates’ victories. But there may have been a reverse effect as well, in some races (North Dakota?). 

This year’s results, like last year’s in Virginia, were spectacular in the House, and more than impressive in statehouses and governorships (six statehouse flips, seven governorships so far). Many states, especially red ones, were willing to jump on non-partisan ballot initiatives. Had they relied on a Democratic candidate to push them, many would likely have failed.

A gun control measure passed easily in Washington. Decriminalizing recreational marijuana passed in Michigan, medical marijuana in Missouri and Utah. Minimum wage increases passed with ballot initiatives in Missouri and Arkansas. Voting rights were restored to ex-felons in Florida. All these initiatives passed easily -- even as Democratic Senators went down to defeat in Missouri, and maybe Florida, too.

More than ever, it seems that whether you vote for a Democrat or a Republican depends on where you live and who you are. It isn’t really about issues, it’s about tribes. Tribalism is growing, not subsiding. Sometimes, however, demographics do change. Virginia is now a classic example: it is more diverse, more suburban, better educated than twenty years ago. It’s seen a bluification. But some rust belt and rural states in the Midwest are undergoing redification. They experience a brain drain and decline of their cities and educational infrastructures. This seems to be true of Ohio, Indiana, and Missouri. But, even here there continue to be blue oases within those red states (i.e., cities). House seats can be won by Democrats in such places, and in this year’s elections many were.

Certain indicators can predict accurately how you will vote. And, the myth of telecommunications bringing us closer together was clearly exposed in these last two election cycles. The Internet age has contributed to greater tribalization, not less. The indicators are:

• ·         How old are you? (18-to-29-year-olds are Democrats, if they vote; 65+ are mostly Republicans)
• ·         How close do you live to your next-door neighbor? (if more than 200 yards, you’re a Republican)
• ·         Where did you go to school? (it’s too much to say that only non-college-educated are Republicans, but education does matter)
• ·         What color is your skin? (this one is at the end of the list on purpose, because it’s well-known, but is not as decisive for brown people as you might think)

It would seem this makes pollsters’ jobs easier. But, for some reason, they still crank out those polls every election. Why don’t they just look at Census Tracts? The answer lies in the eternal uncertainty of who will show up to vote!

This election, turnout was huge – rivaling presidential years. But, contrary to Democrats’ assertions, large turnout, in some states at least, went against them. You can’t assume that “the people,” when engaged, will vote Democratic. See the list above. Many people in many states are afraid, afraid of a future where they may not enjoy the privileges they have always known. They live in anticipation of an ebbing of their influence. They’re old and dying, as is their way of life. And they are still voting. They vote for candidates who project their fears, “Make America Great AGAIN”. 

These people didn’t vote for or against health care, breaking up big banks, the minimum wage, or even “socialism”. They just wanted to be younger! They wanted things the way they used to be.

But, then, many looked forward rather than backward. They likewise didn’t vote for specific issues, just the future in general. For both groups, it came down to personalities, and a non-rational message of hope. It may have been delivered by either an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or a Steve King.

In the end, and it hasn’t ended yet (recounts still going on), Democrats will likely pick up more seats than any time since the post-Watergate midterms of 1974. Perhaps, even more seats than Republicans flipped in 1994 or 2010. And, with pick-ups in governorships and state legislatures, the 2018 midterms were clearly more than a ripple. Those ballot measures were all leftish (except some new taxes, which failed). Looks like a wave to this observer!

Locally, the Virginia Congressional delegation, formerly seven Republicans and four Democrats, reversed to seven Democrats and four Republicans. Deep blue Arlington flipped its sole County Board seat not held by a Democrat to a newcomer, young Matt de Ferranti. 

Whatever losses Democrats incurred in the Senate, after all recounts, can probably be made up in 2020, when Republicans must defend some difficult seats, just as Dems did this time. Beto O’Rourke can try again vs. John Cornyn. And, the field of Dem candidates will only increase.

In the meantime, the House can investigate the administration, looking at Elijah Cummings as chair of the House Oversight Committee. It can block legislation, yes, a “do nothing” Congress might be the right prescription in these times. And, Nancy Pelosi, as presumptive Speaker, is at least as talented a politician as Paul Ryan.

Most important now, Democrats must frame a message that can resonate with voters in 2020 to burnish their brand – even in those red states -- if they want the wave to continue.

  Politics of Outrage

Debating Policy and Ideology Is Only Fun for a Few

William Sundwick

The first principle of politics: it’s about gaining and wielding power. Practitioners of politics are interested mostly in dominance. They’re motivated by biology and genes.

The second principle of politics: we all engage in political behavior. We spend our lifetime learning how to most effectively influence others, how to get what we don’t have, and how to protect it once we get it. It is the human condition.

In the United States, like most countries in the modern world, politics has become institutionalized as the profession of manipulating the feelings and thoughts of the population toward that singular goal of achieving and holding power. Professional politicians are experts in the use of the tools that make this possible.

Nothing gained by appeal to intellect

Manipulating emotion has been shown to be a far more effective motivator than appealing to intellectual faculties. Discussing policy planks does not equate to more votes. Emotional appeals tend to seek the lowest common denominator – gut instincts. Few voters can censor those gut feelings sufficiently to allow their intellect to govern their behavior at the polls. If they did, they might be likely to stay away from the voting booth altogether! (Granted, sometimes an effective strategy.) So, “Lock Her Up!” and #LockHimUp become popular rallying cries and social media memes.

And it’s not just voters who are susceptible to the appeals to outrage and baser emotions. Once elected, a public official will discourage independent thinking among staff, instead emphasize personal loyalty. Supporters are kept in the fold not only by producing a more entertaining show than the prospective opponents, but also through incentives and intimidation.

Successful politicians avoid revealing unpleasant aspects of the business of power – like throwing former allies under the bus, or any hint of corruption in their dealings. Unless, of course, the opponent shows even more unpleasantness!

Competition for attention

The 21^st century media environment is far different from the one politicians of a previous generation learned to master. Advertising must be targeted to more platforms than before, and narrowcast to many audiences, rather than broadcast to one audience. It has become a science. And, in the end, it is emotion, especially outrage, that will grab audiences best. Emotional stimuli are what generate clicks. Clicks are what you pay for. Data analytics are also what a savvy politician pays for. The winner in an election will most likely be the one who best understands the demographics and emotional signaling of certain narrowcast messages.

Who pays for all this? No changes here, only three types of financial resources. There is personal wealth, there is corporate cash (PACs as well as individual contributions), and there is grassroots fund raising. The distribution formula for these methods of fund raising may vary – many in public office have mastered one or two methods, but not all three. Any of the three may succeed individually, but only if well guided by  data analytics from consultants.

Identity politics and intersectionality

Recently, a new term has emerged to explain the “politics of outrage.” It is “identity politics.” In addition to the well-accepted propensity for voters to respond best to emotional rather than rational appeals, it now appears that there is, in the U.S. as well as many other developed democracies, an accelerating drift toward tribalization in politics. The tribes are not necessarily defined by geography, but may be defined by common backgrounds and interests, level of education, urbanization, etc. In the best post-Marxist sense, they are based on class divisions! Race plays a role, for sure, and language, too (both in the U.S. and Europe), as do gender and religion. But, among “whites” voting patterns mostly depend on those more traditional class conflicts, the same ones we’ve known throughout the last century in America. Party loyalties between Democrats and Republicans have flipped for working class white Americans and professional class white Americans. True, non-white voting patterns have not changed much – and Dems always point out that there are more of them now, if you can just get them to the polls!

Identity politics would lead only to fragmented coalitions, and destructive rivalries in a two-party system, if it weren’t for another trend, most visibly promoted by feminists. That trend is something called “intersectionality.” It resembles the classic Marxian analysis of power dynamics in society – namely, oppressed groups (the “marginalized”) have more in common with each other than with the oppressors (the “privileged”). Hence, alliances between marginalized groups are natural. One group should fight for the improvement of the other groups. It seems to offer a solution to racism, sexism, homophobia, and even economic inequality! But, alas, there are many who think that commonality of aspirations between the marginalized (“temporarily embarrassed millionaires”) and the privileged within a certain community, are stronger than the bonds between marginalized in different communities. Thus, tribalism overcomes class struggle. Perhaps, if intersectionality had as high a profile in the popular imagination as identity politics has recently achieved, we would see the balance of power shift.

Is it only the campaigns?

What must be done to win an election might not matter so much, if the actual business of governing were a well-oiled professional machine. Unfortunately, it is not. Once in office, politicians cannot escape the forces that put them there. They attempt to mollify constituents with boiler plate letters and town halls. Their decision making in preparation for a vote doesn’t usually require input from their voters. Only after the fact do politicians have to explain the vote. But, the outrage factor for the tribes makes any attempt at cross-aisle conversation risky. No elected office holder wants to be seen by constituents as a “collaborator.” And, the outrage merchants in the media are omnipresent.

When it comes time to stand for re-election (nearly continuous for two-year terms), a politician must think of those donors – what to say to them? How to conceal those conversations from voters? Time, once again, for those data analytics.

Can we voters resist the politics of outrage? Social media clearly need some critical review – not just for “fake news,” but for click-bait as well.  Can Facebook and Twitter be held accountable? Is regulation necessary, or can they self-police? For new voters, should schools be more actively training kids to censor those emotional gut feelings?

Understanding the economics of politics surely helps, but “follow the money” often leads only to further outrage. Knowing your allies and your enemies is the correct path to follow here.

As always, the inequality trap hampers effective political action by many marginalized groups – by definition they are poor, with limited resources. The powerful will be able to muster far more resources, unless strength in numbers can overcome their advantage. It points to the vital importance of intersectionality for any decisive change in politics.

A sober look at the immediate future suggests things will get worse before they get better. But, if we survive, they will get better …