Politics

Real Talk About Charlie Kirk

/ Rich Wilkins / 1 Comment

I waited a few days to write about Charlie Kirk for a number of reasons. The first thing is, I didn’t watch his show while he was alive, so I had no strong, informed opinion about him. I knew I didn’t agree with him much, but that was about it. Second, the rhetoric got so toxic between a lot of people last week that stupid things got said. Some on the left said stupid things, like the world is better off with him dead. Some on the right decided to call for Civil War, as though these keyboard warriors were suddenly revolutionaries. Frankly the entire internet debate was toxic. I didn’t need to write about it until putting some thought into it.

As I said, I just wasn’t really a fan. I also really didn’t think about him much, let alone hate him. The best thing I ever did for my mental health after 2020 was to stop watching 24/7 political news and punditry. Charlie Kirk had his views, I didn’t particularly love them, but he had a right to say them. He also had a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, certainly free from fear of violence. American society failed to provide him that. Any time any person anywhere is killed by another person, that is a bad thing. It is a sad thing. Any time anyone, anywhere is killed over politics, that’s a bad thing, period, full stop. Yes, there are deaths in most revolutions, including our American Revolution, but most revolutions are not fought over differing opinions. The King of England was denying Americans their inalienable rights. Charlie Kirk was saying things you didn’t like on a podcast. Anyone actually involved in politics should be calling for a harsh punishment for the murderer, not trying to twist themselves in a knot to defend it. Political violence is simply always bad. A 33 year old father being shot in front of a live audience because the shooter didn’t like what he said is bad. It’s really that simple and that’s as far as it has to go. No further. I’m not going to make Charlie Kirk more in death to me than he was in life. I’m not going to change my mind about his message. I’m simply going to state unequivocally that Charlie Kirk deserved to be alive. I don’t really care what he said, that doesn’t change.

Now, a little reality for the American Right though- Paul Pelosi got beat with a hammer, over politics; Former Minnesota State House Speaker Melissa Hortman and State Senator John Hoffman, as well as their spouses and one of their dogs, were killed over politics; Gabby Giffords was shot in the head, and five others were killed in Tucson, over politics; Senior Pastor and State Senator Clementa C. Pinckney and eight churchgoers in Charleston were killed, over politics. I could actually go on here, but won’t. The point is that while Trump supporters and Republicans are blaming Democrats and the American left for Charlie Kirk’s shooting, conservatives produce plenty of insane murderers, if not a few more statistically, as well. Hate, violence, and crazy people are not confined to one political side or there other. The kind of nuthouse jackass who will take a gun and try to kill Donald Trump is not much different at all than the nuthouse jackass that drove up to Washington, D.C. to try and stop the fictional “Pizzagate” scandal (update- police killed this lunatic during a traffic stop down in North Carolina).

A little more reality for the American Right- we didn’t kill Charlie Kirk. This kid grew up in conservative, red-state Utah, with Trump loving parents who were very religious. Utah Valley University isn’t exactly in some liberal bastion. Reports are that this kid had a “transexual lover,” but even those reports are murky and don’t really give much context. Some reports say he lived with this person, but records contradict that. Regardless of who this kid loved, there is zero sign at all that he ever became a Democrat, or that he had any intention of helping Democrats through this insane act. The murderer is a scumbag and should pay, the overwhelming majority of Democrats agree with you, regardless of what we think of Kirk. Trying to turn this into some sort of rallying cry to start a civil war is connecting dots that don’t exist.

And now for the left- you don’t have to say much. You are under no obligation to mourn Charlie Kirk. You don’t have to build him a monument. You don’t have to say much of anything at all. You also don’t have to say anything negative about the dead, as has unfortunately happened. There is no virtue in it, whether you’re factually “correct” or not. The people who are cheering negative comments about a dead person they didn’t like politically are not new converts drawn to your intellectually “correct” position, they are people who already agreed with you and voted like you. You are speaking in an echo chamber, and frankly it’s an echo chamber that has not faired well for Democrats. Obviously there are many who disagree with your position that the world is better off with Charlie Kirk dead. There are many, many more who simply roll their eyes at this kind of talk- at best for you, they don’t care, at worst they’re just sick and tired of anyone saying it and are put off by it. It does not matter if you are “right” or not here. The vast majority of the public doesn’t want to hear this kind of talk. They don’t think better of you because you “said it how it is” on Charlie Kirk. Really.

Charlie Kirk did not deserve to die, what happened is awful. I wonder how many people will consider why we’re here though. We have 24/7 political cable news. There are “twitter personalities,” streamers, and other pundits out there putting content into the world. Most of them make their money by appealing to the most zealous of people that agree with them. As a result, they pump out talking points and rhetoric calling their opponents traitors, predators, criminals, and bums. Are there people who are deadbeat bums in our politics? Yes. Have we over used all of this inflammatory rhetoric at this point? Also yes. Constantly telling those who will listen that we are in crisis and the opposition is dangerous, well that eventually has consequences. There is always someone not nearly as stable as you reading the words, and they may decide to act. If you’re going to call someone a deadbeat, make sure it’s justified. Shootings like this are becoming more common, not less.

Would You Recruit This Candidate to Face Lyin’ Ryan Mackenzie?

/ Rich Wilkins / 47 Comments
This Goof Represents The Most Swing District in America.

There’s not many scenarios where Democrats win the House in 2026 and don’t win PA-7. Joe Biden won it in 2020, Donald Trump did so in 2024, and both times the margins look similar to the state margin, and Pennsylvania basically is the tipping point state right now. One of the reasons I never registered to vote anywhere else while out on the road (besides the fact I was coming back) was that I really do live in the most swing spot in the country.

So it seems that the DCCC may not have been as thrilled with how the race was shaping up. Fundraising amongst the candidates in the field wasn’t matching up with the more metropolis swing districts in New York and California. That sort of makes sense though. There’s not a lot of big donor money in this district. The big donors in Philadelphia and New York are hesitant to put money into a competitive primary. So two of the three candidates are finding it a little harder to raise cash than expected. The other, we’ll just say he’s problematic. Problematic in big ways. Problematic in many ways.

I can’t blame the DCCC for going looking for more candidates. Why not? The more seats you can put on the board, the better. If you don’t feel absolutely great about the candidates you have, keep finding more. Competition should be fierce for an important job. Right? Unfortunately, maybe the DCCC is not looking in the right direction. The candidate they are supposedly recruiting now has some, let’s just say, issues.

Out of respect for the man, I won’t name this first time candidate, yet. He has never held public office, but he has spent his career working for the public. He’s got no experience being a candidate though, and running for Congress is not the place to learn. Digging in a little deeper, things get a little difficult for him though. A friend whom I will not name dropped me a note on the guy today, and he’s got some problems that will dog him in his race. He’s been in foreclosure twice, in 2012 and 2016. One could write that off, all of us normal people have financial problems at some point. He also had a $5,000 legal judgment rendered against him to Midland Bank, which sounds like a credit card or some small loan that he failed to pay. Again, no judgment here. This part of what they told me stuck out though. It goes well beyond just some hard economic times:

He borrowed $55,000.00 from his mother-in-law. Signed a promissory note. Refused to pay. Got sued. Had a trial. Lost. Appealed. Lost. There is currently a unsatisfied $55,000.00 judgment hanging over his head.

Ok, look, there’s being a working class guy that is behind on some bills, which I think we all can sympathize with. Congress could use more guys that understand that feeling. Then there’s stiffing your mother-in-law for $55k and not paying it back even after you lose in court twice. This friend goes on to note that there’s also a divorce with the potential candidate’s first wife out there, which they don’t know what is in there. I don’t know if this was mother-in-law one or mother-in-law two, but I’m guessing this judgment was from the first one. If that’s the case, I’m sure that divorce is messy and I’ll probably get something sent my way on that later.

Stiffing old ladies isn’t a good look. Especially when it fits with a pattern of being bad with money. Stiffing a family member makes it look like maybe the money problems aren’t just a case of tough times, but maybe something worse. It’s hard to tell, but I will bet bourbons to beers that Ryan Mackenzie and the Republican Party will take information like this and absolutely slime this guy if he’s nominated. By the end he’ll be the symbol of elder abuse and financial misconduct in America, not the next Congressman.

This new candidate has went around the district telling people he will enter with the public support of the DCCC, the Governor of Pennsylvania, and the Democratic Leader in the House. I find it hard to believe any of them would be so stupid as to promise all of that to a candidate without doing a little more research than this friend of mine did before sending this info to me. In fact, I first met the Governor like twenty years ago when he was a State House member, the guy is way too smart to put himself into a nasty, competitive primary like this right before re-election (and maybe a run for President?). I definitely don’t see that happening, once they do their research.

Campaigns are hard. This guy has had an honorable career serving the public. This may be biting off a bit more than could be chewed.

Carpetbagging Republican Crosswell’s Out of Town Donors Try to Buy the Lehigh Valley

/ Rich Wilkins / 13 Comments

You can’t make this up if you try. No, really. Crosswell’s first finance report is out. It’s incredibly bad. Don’t take my word for it. From Lehigh Valley News:

Crosswell, the latest candidate to enter the race, raised more than $320,929 in just three weeks, records show. 

That amount, which came entirely from individual donors, led the field of Democrats. After expenditures, he had $254,003 on hand as of the end of June, according to the reports.

Crosswell resigned from the U.S. Justice Department in protest after the Trump administration opted to drop corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams for political reasons. 

His campaign, which has focused on upholding the rule of law, appears to have attracted significant support from the legal community. Dozens of attorneys from across the country have donated to his campaign, records show.

However, it appears almost none of the money he’s raised came from within the district. 

LehighValleyNews.com identified only a single donation from within the Lehigh Valley or Carbon County on the 200-page report — a $500 contribution from an Allentown woman.

The dearth of local donations could feed more political attacks that cast him as a carpetbagger. Crosswell, a former Marine, moved to the district earlier this year and switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democratic in December. The Pottsville native had no prior ties to the district other than athletic competitions in high school. His three opponents have accused him of district shopping — a claim Crosswell denies.

For a moment I’ll leave aside the false narrative that the Adams decision pushed him to run and let the rest speak for itself. Croswell got exactly one person to donate to his campaign from the district. One. This guy isn’t even pretending to represent the Lehigh Valley, he’s trying to buy his way into our seat with a bunch of lawyers from North Carolina, DC, California, and God knows where else paying his tab. I’m sure if we looked over their voter registrations, plenty of them are his buddies from his union busting days in the Republican Party, but it really doesn’t matter if they aren’t. They aren’t from the Lehigh Valley. That’s fine with Crosswell though, because neither is he.

I’ll just point out though something that is just as bad, especially if you’re a solid Democrat who believes in the policies and values of the Democratic Party. While raising $321k, he couldn’t find one Democratic group to back him. Not a single PAC gave him money. Not one union. No pro-choice organization. No environmental group. Nobody. This is because he has long held the values of the Republican Party when he went to work and vote. One has to worry now that if he does find a group to give him money, it will be because he basically sells himself. He came into this with none of our values. This whole campaign is being astroturfed by union busters and Beltway elites.

The other two Democratic candidates have not matched Crosswell so far, which can be expected based on past Lehigh Valley congressional primaries. This isn’t a wealthy district, and this happens to be where they made their actual lives and careers. They’re from here, and they’re Democrats. I certainly have my preference, but I could probably deal with either one being our nominee. Being honest about who you are is the first and most important step to asking for someone’s vote.

The Moderate Myth

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment
Bill Clinton speaking in front of an American flag at the Hotel Bethlehem during the 2008 Presidential Primary season.

“Why do all of these rich tech bros think Donald Trump is a moderate? They spend all this money. pushing a right-wing agenda and then people actually believe it’s moderate.”

This was the prompt of a recent conversation I had, and well, it’s a fascinating one. Donald Trump did have a lot of rich “moderates” behind him, didn’t he? Hillary Clinton was simultaneously beat on by alt-left dead-enders for basically being Dick Cheney, and also viewed as too left by a lot of voters. Kamala Harris is about as “normie Democrat” as you can be on policy at this point, but she was viewed as the extremist by a lot of voters, not Trump. Why did this happen?

I tend to not really want “big change” policy moves, and so I have a tendency to like and support actual moderate policy. I think it’s highly important that we don’t mistake actual fairly moderate policy for being a political moderate though. There is no real pocket of voters out there giving you credit for say, taking a moderate position on abortion rights, for example (codification of Roe in it’s original, two-trimester form that allows some regulations of procedures and when you can access care). Not many voters gave Senators any credit for moderate positions on immigration or gun control in the past 15 years. Taking actual moderate policy positions often times leaves you in the bullseye of your own party’s activists and gets you no credit from the opposition.

One of the key reasons both parties (and not at all the only reason) could not properly handle Donald Trump is that both are fairly ideologically homogeneous. Democrats fight over how to get people health insurance, they don’t fight over whether or not to do it. Voters don’t really view you as more moderate for preferring the Affordable Care Act over government Bernie-care for All (it’s not Medicare, really). Same on the Republican side, they have some disagreements over how far to go on deporting illegal aliens and whether or not they’ll allow bare minimum background checks for all gun sales. No one is literally arguing for a path to amnesty or for blocking some gun sales in the GOP. Both parties have their positions, and there are degrees of separation in them, but even a moderate is still basically a member of one or the other. Voters don’t really see moderates as different.

Most of the reason is that lower information voters and honestly voters in general are far less ideological than voters who are activists, staffers, or candidates. They personally hold views that are not always consistent. For instance I know friends that vote regularly and are pro-gay marriage (and lgbtq rights in general) and pro-life. Anti-war and love going to the shooting range. Anti-immigrant and pro-marijuana. Many non-politically active voters actually very commonly hold views that are ideologically contradictory. When they think of a moderate, they think of someone who breaks out from party orthodoxy, like they do. And there’s a lot of them- a third of Americans identify as moderate and 43% consider themselves an independent.

When faced with Trump’s sometimes bizarre campaign positions- being for mass deportation, but against any foreign military action, or being pro-life while also being for ending taxes on tips and social security- a lot of these voters feel more comfortable with that. Very disciplined candidates like Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris actually pay a price for not saying anything all that shocking. Voters who want “moderate” are often times just telling you they want something different, and an ideologically consistent candidate isn’t it.

Obviously identity plays into how a candidate is perceived, and some portion of the public understands the “left-right continuum” in a traditional way. Part of this is just a basic disconnect though. Political people are thinking about moderates as actually being moderate. Normal voters are thinking of moderates as more free wheeling and less careful. That fits Trump perfectly. It’s also now his biggest vulnerability, as he governs. How long until the public realizes he’s the definition of a conservative?

I Wonder How Much Union Buster Money is in Crosswell’s $320K?

/ Rich Wilkins / 11 Comments

In an earlier post, I told you how Ryan Crosswell is a Republican carpetbagger, running a fraudulent campaign for the Democratic nomination in PA-7. Ryan didn’t grow up in this district, or ever live in it until earlier this year. He registered to vote as a Republican in North Carolina, Louisiana, and Washington, DC (That we know of), and voted in the Republican Presidential primary in every one of Donald Trump’s races for President, so far. He claims he had some epiphany to become a Democrat when Trump’s DOJ decided to drop the charges against Eric Adams, but he purchased his campaign websites long, long before that. He just thinks Democratic voters are dumb enough to be bought off by a Republican from the Beltway.

Despite that, VoteVets and other DC groups are astroturfing together a well-funded campaign for the carpetbagger. He announced that he raised $320,000 in the first three weeks in the race. That’s an impressive amount of money, for regular candidates. This guy is going to need every penny of it though to distract voters from the fact he’s got no connection to this district, and that he’s not a Democrat. Turns out though, he’s got lots of help with that. He doesn’t just have VoteVets helping him, or the mega law firm that he works for in San Diego currently (yes, that’s in California). In fact, the guy is likely being funded by actual Republicans.

Back before Crosswell was working for the Trump Administration he worked for a firm called Littler Mendelson in Charlotte, NC. As they would tell you it, they’re the best of the best in employment law, from the perspective of the employer. Ask literally any labor union in the United States and they’ll tell you they are a notorious anti-labor firm. In regular people speak, Littler Mendelson is a union busting law firm. According to Crosswell’s LinkedIn (above), he specialized in the kind of “non-compete” agreements that the Biden Administration was trying to weaken or end in some cases.

Basically, in addition to not being from here and being a Republican, Crosswell is asking a district that literally was the birthplace of the working class (Bethlehem Steel and Mack Trucks) to elect a union buster. I would laugh at this, if he didn’t have so much money.

Of course Crosswell would raise a bunch of money to try and buy a district he has no relationship to. One has to just ask though- how much union buster money is in that $320,000? Given that nothing in his record suggests that he changed his mind from his previous Republican positions on any other issue, one has to wonder how working on the Eric Adams case changed Crosswell’s career long beliefs in anti-union practices?

Please Don’t Mess Up, New York.

/ Rich Wilkins / 3 Comments

Today’s the New York City Mayoral Primary Election, and I’m not extremely excited. On the one hand, Andrew Cuomo winning is the *good outcome*, which in light of recent years tells you a lot. Cuomo’s fall, from a nearly unbeatable and popular governor that was maligned by the far-left is well documented. I would probably prefer to be telling you today that City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams has a chance, but she doesn’t. Either Cuomo wins today, or a complete lunatic nutbag wins.

That’s probably why we’re in this place- a lot of people really can’t stomach voting for Cuomo, even on the second ballot. Is that fair? Probably not. While one could certainly make him shoulder some blame for his handling of nursing homes during COVID, the sexual misconduct accusations that actually drove him from office turned out to be a dud- not a single prosecutor in the entire state took the Attorney General’s report and turned it into anything near a successful prosecution. I don’t think it matters though. Cuomo is just kind of viewed as a mean, loathsome politician. I think a lot of people have figured out that he’s just not that progressive, and he doesn’t do the necessary virtue signaling to make them feel good.

Here is where the alternative should matter, but doesn’t really seem to. New York State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani has all but caught Cuomo, thanks to New York’s stupid “rank choice system,” where being someone’s second, third, fourth, or even fifth choice matters. Most voters who don’t back Cuomo at first, just don’t. They’re seemingly not bothered by Mamdani though. Mamdani calls himself a Democratic Socialist, much like AOC, but he’s honestly mostly just a big government liberal. Mamdani has built up a viral support through his proposals and gained thirty points over the past few months. He has the normal support of progressives like AOC and Bernie that the electorate nationally and statewide in New York has repeatedly rejected, and says the normal nonsense about being a socialist. He’s going to freeze rents. He’s going to make buses free in the city. He’s going to force landlords to keep their buildings at 78 degrees, year round. He’s going to make all the city public schools buildings climate friendly. He’s going to crack down on landlords. Basically everything but a unicorn, free of charge. He’s just going to tax the rich to pay for it all. As long as Albany allows him to, which is probably a long shot since the city can’t do a lot of the things he’s proposing currently. But he’ll do it. Trust him.

Look, the difference between being AOC and winning one of these ridiculous, sleepy summer primaries and being Alessandra Biaggi and losing them is often just how many people give a shit and bother to come. If Mamdani was just the garden variety of leftist and running a race to beat Cuomo, honestly who really cares, right? That would normally be my attitude too. If New York wants to elect a 33 year old that’s promising them lots of things he can’t deliver, have at it. The problem is that these optics aren’t staying in the cities. Whether it’s crime in Chicago, homeless people in Los Angeles, or whatever the hell is happening here, Republicans are running against this. Mamdani takes it to the next level though. That next level, the elephant in the room if you will, is his views on Israel. A race for local office is at least partially being energized by a candidate’s views on a foreign country. Any decent politician would avoid that. It’s basically become the backbone of this race. That may not hurt him in this primary. Bloodlust is a political motivator in the era of Trump. This is a New York Primary, a city which did elect us AOC. And it’s hot outside today. Only the most motivated will vote. Maybe this works in this race. That doesn’t mean much good will come of it.

Look, I don’t know this guy personally. Is he an antisemite? I have no idea, but he certainly says a lot of things I would not say about Israel. If you think the Netanyahu government is an atrocious, steaming, stinking turd, I really don’t have a problem with that position, but I find the discussion of whether Israel should exist or not to be fully offensive. I actually doubt this guy would be “welcoming the Muslim Brotherhood to Gracie Mansion,” and other over-the-top nonsense some people are saying. My guess is he’s another really awful big-city Mayor, like a Brandon Johnson type, who does such a dogshit job that basically everyone agrees he’s bad. He’s going to fail to deliver on almost everything he promises, and two years from now he’ll still be ranting and raving about a foreign policy issue he’s both ignorant on and powerless on. Is there a chance he’ll be better? Sure. It’s highly unlikely though, because he’s promising things he can’t delivering on, and talking about issues he holds no authority on. Electing this guy is placing a big bet on what’s likely a small payout.

New Yorkers, I get it, you’re tired of Andrew Cuomo. He’s not nice. He doesn’t try to make you feel good. If he loses tonight though, you will have created the next right-wing boogie man for Donald Trump to point out to suburban swing voters everywhere. You’re loading another gun for J.D. Vance 2028. Do the right thing. Don’t rank Mamdani.

Karine is Mostly Right

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

I read today’s Politico piece about Biden Administration alums being mad about Karine Jean-Pierre’s upcoming book. I’ll be honest, I went into the piece expecting to agree with them. I didn’t think she was a very effective Press Secretary. I did think she was self-promoting. I had my biases. Then I read the article. Karine Jean-Pierre is right. From what it sounds like her book is going to say, she’s also writing something that absolutely, positively, without one shadow of a doubt had to be written.

Joe Biden’s White House never behaved as Joe Biden’s White House. It never did feel loyal and authentic to Joe’s brand. I would have guessed that Jean-Pierre was a part of that. It definitely appears not to be so. Her discontent with the decision of party elites to dump Joe Biden in last summer’s “switcheroo” was probably shared by a larger number of people than the margin of defeat for Vice-President Harris. Essentially a group of donors and a few has-been high level Democratic elected officials decided to nuke his re-election over their concerns and nominate someone who could not possibly win (This would have been true with virtually any Democrat, for the record.). What I think is more nauseating for some of us is the continual patting on the back that Beltway Democrats still give themselves for doing this. It failed miserably. There is nothing to be proud of. I was fine voting for Vice-President Harris myself, but I said on the day he dropped that she had no chance. Any non-brain dead Democrat knew the election was over when Biden dropped out.

I rarely read these books, so don’t hold your breath that I’ll read it. I will say this though- I’m glad someone is doing the pushback. While anonymous aides and donors further their narrative through corporate tools like Jake Tapper, the truth is very clear and obviously in front of us- the Democratic Party nuked their only chance to win because many of the people tasked with keeping the party in power never really wanted him anyway. Would Biden have won? His poll numbers were really not all that much changed after his June debate. We’ll never know. The disloyalty to him made it virtually impossible anyone was going to win though. Maybe it was mishandled from the decision to run again, maybe we blew it in June, but who cares? The incompetence at the high levels was laid bare before us, and I’m glad someone said it.

Thoughts on Why Democrats Lost in 2024

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

Later on today, Republicans will take control of both houses of Congress, setting up for a unified control of government when Donald Trump is sworn in as the 47th President, later this month. Regardless of what you want the Democratic Party to be, they will essentially be irrelevant in governing America soon. Parties that win elections get to govern. Parties that lose get to complain.

I’ve largely stayed out of the debate over why exactly the Democratic Party lost in the 2024 Election. The reasons for that are fairly simple. First, I think there’s ample evidence that the election should have been much worse for Democrats, based on how they did down ballot from the Presidential race (they did better), so I think I’d be wrong to sit here and tell you how awful everyone did. Second, while I think there were serious problems with the Vice-President’s candidacy, I think it’s unfair to dunk on her after the loss when she didn’t cause most of the problems. Third, while I think Joe Biden does deserve some of the blame for the state he leaves the party in, I basically reject the media’s narrative that he lost the campaign for the party, or even that pushing him out was some stroke of strategic brilliance. My general read on what happened to the Democratic Party is that the root cause of their defeat was a death by a thousand cuts, that many different factors played into their defeat. My big picture opinion is that the problems with the Democratic Party were bigger than Biden, Harris, or even campaign tactics on the trail. Democrats have a mostly systemic problem that would be painful for a lot of people involved if they fixed it.

We make campaigns really complicated and scientific, and really at the end of the day they are more marketing than data science. Whether you’re trying to grow the electorate, shrink the electorate, or whatever, your goal is to convince more people that they want to make the effort to vote, and to vote for your candidate. Most voters don’t have some long checklist of issues they care about, they’ll look at the personal qualities they want and maybe one to three issues they care about. In other words, you want to be talking to the broadest audience possible about things they agree with you on, with the most likable/least offensive messenger possible. If you’re spending a lot of time as a party on stuff that excites 45% of the population, you’re probably going to lose, no matter how well you target voters. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were both generally likable people, who seemed to like things that normal guys liked, and ran competent governments on the day-to-day. There were a lot of people who didn’t consider themselves progressives or activists, many people who didn’t ever donate a dime, who felt fine casting their vote for them. The same could be said for Joe Biden in 2020.

The Democratic Party largely misread exactly why Barack Obama won two terms, and it has plagued them in almost every election after. It was less about changing social norms and demographic tidal waves changing the country, and more about President Obama providing cool, competent leadership coming out of a turbulent time. He wasn’t winning record numbers of Black, Latino, and young voters because those groups somehow are naturally more liberal than the rest of the population. He won them because they liked him, and he offered ideas that they liked when they heard him. I think that the misread of why Obama won has done serious damage to the party’s brand, and maybe gave a false sense of security that lead Democrats to take positions that were never going to sell. Democrats found themselves arguing the virtues of progressive social policy against conservatives, rather than going back to the faithful argument that all Americans deserve rights and security afforded to them simply as human beings. Democrats found themselves defending an open border, rather than a competent, orderly, and fair immigration process that has the resources to keep people safe. We got cornered into virtue signaling arguments about slogans like “Defund the Police” and “Green New Deal,” rather than fairness in the justice system and a clean, safe environment. Because a lot of donors, activists, and operatives in the Democratic Party wanted Obama’s mandate and legacy to be a demographic tsunami that was leading us to a rejection of white, traditionalist, Evangelical male values, we took his impressive electoral strength as confirmation that he won for the reasons we wanted him to. He didn’t. The belief that he did though lead a lot of the Democratic Party being very comfortable in a perpetual culture war that a combined majority of America either didn’t agree with us on, or just didn’t give a damn about. We spent a lot of time telling America what a bad guy Donald Trump and his supporters were. We probably would have done a lot better the last eight years talking about lowering Medicare’s eligibility age, funding public schools, and building more affordable housing. The Democratic Party lacked anything that could make a majority of America feel excited. We didn’t put forward a big idea that most people felt would improve their lives.

For sure there are other problems with the party. Our campaigns are overly bloated and inefficient, our messaging is too narrow, perhaps our candidates are too cautious. We waste our power on Capitol Hill when we win worrying about process arguments and norms. We view digital and online campaigning as largely a fundraising tool, rather than the battleground. I could go on. None of that on its own is what does us in though. If you don’t know what people like about you, it’s really hard to sell those attributes.

To the extent Joe Biden deserves blame, perhaps the timing was just bad. An 82 year old man just isn’t going to look and act like a 62 year old man. That’s not his fault, nor does it necessarily mean he was incapable of actually doing the job. Perhaps he should have run in 2016. Perhaps, given how close Kamala Harris lost, he should have never (been forced to) dropped out at all. Unfortunately, I think Joe Biden’s biggest political miscalculation in 2020 was trying to appease the numerous but small factions of people in the Democratic Party with his candidacy. Some people were never going to be happy and enthusiastic with Joe, because his brand really was different than the rest of the party. There’s a reason he looked like the most moderate guy on the debate stages in 2020- he knew better than to chase slogan politics. The unique brand that got him nominated and elected in 2020 should have been something he defiantly defended. Doing so would have given him much more space to address inflation, to address global issues, and to deal with a Congress that was increasingly dysfunctional for the latter half of his career in Washington. Governing as a fairly standard ideological Democrat boxed him in with a large chunk of America.

When Kamala Harris de facto took over the Biden campaign in the Summer, I privately told family at the time that she had no chance. Here she was, with terrible approval ratings, serving under a President with bad approval ratings, jumping into the race late, swimming uphill against the demographic history of our country (we elect white guys), and frankly her last Presidential run didn’t go great. She far exceeded my expectations of her. She was a disciplined and focused candidate, she raised money, she motivated people, and most of all, she didn’t make big mistakes. She picked a Vice-Presidential candidate who did the least harm even, a move that is almost always smart. She damn near won despite everything. About the only thing I can say bad about her was that previous Presidential campaign. Her instincts coming out of the 2018 midterms were to chase the lefty activists who seemed to have momentum in the party. Most of America was never there. Trump’s campaign effectively used her words against her. She just couldn’t quite get clear of being viewed as the average Democrat. She just couldn’t quite out run the past. Most of the reasons why (bigotry, the nature of her current job, poor media coverage, etc.) weren’t her fault. That doesn’t change the sense in hindsight that this was baked in from the jump.

The evidence suggests Democrats should have gotten blasted worse in this election. Basically every other governing party in the developed West has either lost or lost seats since the Covid-19 pandemic has faded from public view. Senators Rosen, Gallego, Baldwin, and Slotkin won swing states that Vice-President Harris lost, as did Governor Stein, while outgoing Senator Bob Casey out performed Harris in PA. House Democrats basically held the status quo. All this happened while Donald Trump won the election and the popular vote. If the Republican Party had matched his performance across the country, they would hold a sizable majority in both houses of Congress, comparable to now. This could have been way worse for Democrats. That they avoided it is worth some congratulations.

If you want people to buy your product, you have to sell them something they want. Republicans are always going to try and define the Democratic message as something terrible. The Democratic Party didn’t really push back against those perceptions. Most Americans view Democrats right now negatively. Allowing the GOP to define the Democrats as a “globalist” (such a gross term) status quo, Beltway insider, ideological, “DEI” (I know, horse shit), nerd party isn’t going to work. Marching out a collective of the same old faces and leaders, a surrogate list that still looks like 2009, and messaging points that are approved by every partner in the coalition isn’t breaking that mold.

In short, I think it’s time for some of our leading voices to take a break. Too many of our leaders listen too much to activists and donors in our party, and their views of the world just don’t jive right now with most of the people. Elections are won out where the people are, and the next generation of Democratic leaders should take the timeout we’re in to get out and meet them. Learn what the product is that they want from us, and run with it. Most people aren’t looking for a Bolshevik Revolution in America, but they do want something to be excited and hopeful for. Twenty years from now, the world will remember Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi fondly for the actually good governance they gave us over these past couple decades. We boxed them in though, and it’s time for Democrats to get outside of the box.

To a better 2025.

Revisiting an Old Post- Presidential Approval and Our Four Party System

/ Rich Wilkins / 1 Comment

I published this back in 2023, on 12/19. I got a lot of this right. This realignment wasn’t good for Democrats. Presidential approval remains poor. Non-college educated minority voters did keep moving towards Trump, while Harris actually improved with white voters almost entirely because of improved performance with college educated white men. The parts I got wrong were the importance of Dobbs and Biden winning. Dobbs did not disrupt the migration that was already going on with voters. Biden did not win, in no small part because of inflation/recession concerns and his own party knifing him up, because he wasn’t exactly what they really wanted. Kamala Harris could not unite the factions either, it turns out. Anyway, enjoy the update here.

It’s worth noting- our last two Presidents have spent most of the last seven years with poor approval ratings. When I say poor, I mean consistently under 50%, and usually handily. This is not something we’re necessarily used to- Bill Clinton spent most of his Presidency with high approval, George W. Bush spent his first term generally over 50%, and Barack Obama spent the majority of his Presidency with majority support. With that said, the new normal has become poor Presidential approval ratings, which seems to be an obsession of the press.

I think it’s worth us noting that this shouldn’t be shocking- the “right track, wrong track” question about this country has almost unanimously shown Americans saying we’re on the wrong track going back into the Bush 43 Presidency, or the better part of 20 years. Americans have not, for quite some time, thought the condition of our nation and society is improving. We live in one of the wealthiest, most technologically advanced, most militarily powerful countries in human history, we enjoy a high standard of living relative not only to the world, but to human history, and yet we’re not overly happy. The last couple of decades have shaken our confidence in so many institutions we held dear. We carry high debt, we work longer and longer hours for the same (or less) money, our marriages end in divorce (if they happen at all), addiction (to opioids, alcohol, whatever) is literally killing us, we’ve seen multiple wars in the last 75 years built on false pretenses, the Catholic Church covered up child molestations, school shootings are a constant part of our lives, universities covered for sexual monsters, our banks nearly melted down the economy, a hurricane destroyed an American city while our government looked incompetent, we spent 20 years in Afghanistan to just give it back within hours of leaving, Iran-Contra, the ridiculous Clinton impeachment, we lack confidence in our elections, Congress constantly gets us to the brink of government shutdowns, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I honestly can’t even remember all the stuff in my lifetime that people thought was horrible, and I didn’t even get into terrorist attacks here. It’s kind of surprising anyone thinks we’re on the right track. And I’m only bringing up the Supreme Court at the end of this list of grievances.

With that backdrop, it’s sort of surprising it took until 2017 for our Presidents to start seeing approval ratings that are under water. We began a period of political realignment with Barack Obama’s 2008 election, and we’ve been in it ever since. The net result is in-party division like we have never seen before. The Biden/Hillary wing of the Democratic Party represents somewhere between 55-70% of the party, while the Sanders wing approaches a third. The MAGA Republicans represent about two-thirds of their party, while the old Bush/Cheney/McCain/Romney/Ryan wing of the party is the other third. Nearly none of these people even entertain voting for the other party, but they basically hate the other wing of their own party. The net result of this is that virtually no national figure in American politics today has 50% of the population willing to “approve” of them. The other net result is that every Democratic Presidential nominee since 1996 has received at least 48% of the popular vote, and every Republican Presidential nominee since 2000 has received at least 46% of the popular vote. So basically the public will increasingly dislike our Presidential candidates, and yet they will basically vote for them or skip it. There’s very few actually open minded voters. There’s just a lot of unhappy voters.

All of this is a very long-winded way for me to say that Joe Biden and Donald Trump’s actual approval rating doesn’t really matter. About 90% of their voters from 2020 are going to vote for them again, no matter what, regardless of what pundits on X say. Even more to the point, even that last 10% might talk about doing something different, but 80% of them are voting the same way again, no matter what happens. National pollsters have not adjusted to an electorate that works more like the volume on your radio than a horse race. Intensity moves, opinions really don’t right now.

Again I’m making a point that is maybe lost in the explanation- Joe Biden is going to win in 2024. He’s going to win with an approval rating that probably never quite gets back to 50%. Most of the agitators to his left- be it on student loans, Gaza, or Dobbs- either live in super “blue” cities and states, or didn’t vote Democratic in 2020 (for varying reasons), and don’t represent anyone offline. Yes, this is true of the supposed “Gaza Backlash” voters in Michigan too, where Governor Whitmer last the Arab-American vote in 2022 and won an easy re-election. Trump has lead a very slow, drip of resurgence among non-white voters in general, particularly high school educated or less men, but he has more than limited his upward mobility with older white voters by putting Social Security and Medicare into question (and letting others in his party do so), and of course by Dobbs. Look, I’m going to be honest with you- Dobbs is going to decide the 2024 election. The GOP has generally underperformed a bit from 2017 on, but since Dobbs they have performed apocalyptically poorly for an opposition party in the United States, routinely losing or underwhelming in elections all over the United States. You simply cannot win an election telling slightly over half the population that they don’t have the right bodily autonomy in our society. There is no way to slice that. It cost the GOP what should have been a huge win in the 2022 midterms, it factored into abysmal performances in Kentucky, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and around the country in 2023, and it simply will kill them in 2024. Worse yet for them, nominating Nikki Haley might seem like it would fix it, but both for her own extreme position on abortion, and the fact she could never get the Trump base voter to turn out for the election, she would underwhelm too. The GOP has a Dobbs problem, and virtually no silver bullet to fix it by 2024. The most angry women live in suburban swing Congressional districts, often times in the most swing states (which should be read as “suburban.”). Yes, things can happen yet. International crises. Recession. Inflation spikes (mostly from gas). A health crisis. So no, this is not set in stone. As is though, Dobbs is going to be what decides the 2024 election, and Joe Biden is in a good spot for that.

In the longer term though, this is more interesting than what I’m writing here. It may be a long while until a President has consistent majority approval. We basically live in a constant “four party” state where primaries are ideological war zones, and incumbents do not enjoy broad support within their parties. Voters are still realigning as I said before, but at a glacial pace for now. I would expect if the dam is going to break, and we’re going to see a mass migration of voters, it’s going to happen after Biden and Trump have run their final campaigns in 2024. In other words, a year from now you’ll just see the tip of the new political sun rising. College educated white voters moving left. Non-college educated voters of color moving right. This could make for significantly different politics in the near future, and serious problems for the Democratic Party. Much as Catholic voters moved substantially in the 20 years after JFK’s 1960 win, millennial and non-white voters are not going to continue to provide them the margins they gave Barack Obama. It was silly to ever think they would. Again though, these are five and ten year problems from now, not 2024. And no one should get worried about Presidential approval ratings for a while. They aren’t going to be pretty.