Trump 2024: Will the Media Behave this Time?

 

My latest from Counterpunch.

Donald Trump is running for president again.  Elon Musk has reinstated Trump’s Twitter account.  Will the media be able to resist temptation to cover every inane tweet of his and report on Trump the way he deserves?  Don’t bet on it.

Trump and the mainstream media are a dysfunctional couple.  Trump’s entire life is a fabrication, edified upon his ability to manipulate the media to give it what it wants–easy stories and profits. Even before Trump hosted the Apprentice he manipulated the New York and national media to craft the fiction of his brand. Trump Towers, University, Wine, and golf courses all were a product of careful headlining and boasting by Trump.  Trump got what he wanted from the media–attention and a cult of personality or Trumpism and Trumpistas–and the latter got viewers, readers, and clicks. The fifteen year run of the Apprentice was wildly successful, making Trump a household name and making NBC a pile of money.

Trump’s presidential campaign was a made for television and social media event. Studies confirm the billions of dollars in free advertising his campaign received, in return again for the apparent insatiable appetite reporters and the news establishment had. Trump brought them profits and the media rewarded him with the presidency.

As president Trump perfected the art of the deal.  He knew that starting off the day with several tweets would set the news and media agenda for the day. For a lazy media and reporters looking for easy and cheap stories, Trump’s Twitter feed was addictive. No matter how outrageous, preposterous, or outright untruthful, Trump’s statements were reported, even before he was president.  For example, Trump understood that by declaring John McCain was not a hero it would get coverage. But such coverage was a brilliant distraction.  Better, as they say, bad press as opposed to no press.  Trump’s presidency was a lesson in how breathless reporters hung on his every word.

Donald Trump and the media are the most recent incarnation of politainment–the merger of politics and entertainment.  Trumpism became more than one person or a cult of personality, it became a political movement and attitude. Politainment is the joining of politics and entertainment. Together they produced a media-driven world of alternative facts, pop culture, and hyper-commercialism of candidates, politics, and the news. We still live in that world.

Now Trump is back.  He has hisTwitter account back, courtesy of Musk, another media darling the press cannot help but cover no matter how ridiculous  his comments. The question is will the media be able to resist reacting to every one of his text messages, tweets, or statements made by Trump?  Doubtful.  MSNBC, FOX, and CNN will bemoan him yet cover everything he says or does. It is more than simply covering a train wreck. Trump is political crack or political porn, and he is addictive.

A responsible media would ignore Trump.  Or at least treat him no differently than any other candidate for office.  He deserved less coverage in 2016 and 2020 than Bernie Sanders who was practically ignored by the mainstream press.  It would be better to ignore the Trump lies and nonsense than to cover it and give it a shred of legitimacy and attention.  The fuel that fires Trump is attention.  It is how the Big Lie is spread.  Resist the temptation to give what Trump wants; yet I doubt that will happen.

MN swing voters favored Gov. Tim Walz, helping him beat Scott Jensen

 

My analysis of swing voters and swing precincts  in Minnesota in a fine Pioneer Press article by Christopher Magan.

MN swing voters favored Gov. Tim Walz, helping him beat Scott Jensen

Precinct-level voting data shows ticket-splitters voted to re-elect the Democratic governor

By CHRISTOPHER MAGAN | cmagan@pioneerpress.com | Pioneer Press

PUBLISHED: November 23, 2022 at 1:58 p.m. | UPDATED: November 23, 2022 at 7:33 p.m.

Minnesota swing voters appear to have overwhelmingly favored Democratic Gov. Tim Walz over his Republican rival Scott Jensen in the Nov. 8 election.

A Pioneer Press analysis of voting data from more than 4,100 precincts across the state found Walz voters were roughly eight times more likely than Jensen voters to pick a member of a different political party for the state Legislature.

“It suggests that independents went to Walz,” said David Schultz, a political science professor at Hamline University, who noted the party in power almost always struggles to win a majority of independent voters. “That is so out of character from what it should be.”

There were 343 Minnesota voting precincts that Walz won where Republicans got the majority of the vote in either state House or Senate races. In about one-third of those, 110 precincts, voters backed Republican legislative candidates for both chambers while supporting Walz for re-election.

Jensen’s supporters voted almost entirely along party lines.

There were just 42 precincts that Jensen won where Democrats prevailed in House or Senate contests. Only five precincts won by Jensen also backed Democrats for both chambers of the Legislature.

Schultz said he suspects Jensen’s relatively weak candidacy coupled with former President Donald Trump’s endorsement drove away independent voters not just from him, but from other Republicans on the ballot.

In contrast, Democratic leaders say their message resonated with voters who may have found Republican positions too extreme. During the campaign, Democrats focused on abortion rights, well-funded public schools and economic issues for families.

The result? Gov. Walz cruised to re-election and the Democratic-Farmer Labor Party won narrow control of both chambers of the Legislature for the first time since 2014.

DFLers largely won in the Twin Cities metro and suburbs, but also had success on the Iron Range and in and around mid-size cities like Rochester, Mankato and St. Cloud. Republicans dominated rural areas and did better in northern Minnesota, but lost ground in the suburbs.

GOP to regroup

Amy Koch, a Republican and the Minnesota Senate’s first female majority leader, agrees that Jensen was a weak candidate, who made numerous missteps on the campaign trail. Now a political adviser, Koch points to comments Jensen and his running mate Matt Birk, a former Vikings star, made about abortion, taxes and other issues.

“We continue to chose candidates that don’t have appeal statewide,” Koch said. “Their message was bad in so many ways. There was nothing positive.”

Koch said that if Jensen hadn’t lost by nearly eight percentage points, other Republicans would have done better and the party might have held the Senate and won close races for Attorney General and Auditor. No Minnesota Republican has won statewide since former Gov. Tim Pawlenty in 2006.

“The top of the ticket was too heavy for the ticket-splitters,” Koch said. “Everything we know about elections was playing into Republicans hands and voters still said: ‘No, not you guys.'”

To be competitive statewide and to win back a legislative majority, Koch says the GOP needs to appeal to Minnesotans’ values, rather than recycle more extreme campaign rhetoric that works in traditionally red states.

“That’s not where people are in Minnesota,” she said. “We are a fiscally conservative, common sense electorate with a libertarian base.”

Republicans also need to do much better with suburban women, who appear to have stuck with Democrats this cycle despite Republican appeals on issues like crime and inflation. A good start, Koch says, is to have more women as candidates and in leadership.

“We’ve gone backwards,” Koch said, noting that women in the Republican Senate caucus and leadership have dwindled since she left office a decade ago. “I don’t know why we think suburban women would support us.”

On a more positive note, Koch praised House Republicans’ choice of Rep. Lisa Demuth, R-Cold Spring, as minority leader calling it a step in the right direction.

Few districts in play

While Democrats won a majority in the both chambers of the Legislature, it is a narrow one. When lawmakers return to St. Paul in January, DFLers will have a one seat majority in the Senate and about a half-dozen in the House — pending the outcome of recounts in close races.

Some of the DFL’s victories were so close, it appears that a few thousand votes here and there won them control of both chambers.

Schultz says that tracks with past election results when fewer than two dozen legislative races were competitive. A Pioneer Press examination of a decade of state elections found roughly 10 percent of the 201 state House and Senate seats were decided by 5 percentage points or fewer any given year.

Right after the election, DFL leaders Melissa Hortman, the House Speaker, and Kari Dziedzic, the incoming Senate Majority Leader, said they would chart a moderate course prioritizing policies with wide support. At the top of their list, codifying abortion rights, legalizing recreational cannabis, paid family leave and increasing funding to schools.

Schultz and Koch warn that with a slim majority Democrats would be wise to avoid mistakes Republicans made and not hew too close to their base.

“In general, the argument is, we are so polarized it really comes down to a few swing voters in a few swing districts that decide an election,” Schultz noted.

“They have the trifecta,” Koch added, “What (voters) giveth, they can take away.”

Not a red wave, not a blue wave in Minnesota or elsewhere

This was a November 24, 2022 op-ed in the Pioneer Press.  

November 24, 2022 at 6:08 a.m.

Pundits, political scientists, and pollsters predicted the 2022 elections would be a red Republican wave. Now they are saying it was a blue Democratic wave.

It was neither a blue nor red wave. Perhaps it was more a purplish ripple, where neither party won a mandate and the results of the election suggested more an endorsement of  the status quo.

Going into the 2022 elections America was a closely divided nation. The Democrats had slim control of Congress. Public opinion was sharply divided across the nation on a range of issues. There were many states whose governments were all Republican or Democrat. Then there was Minnesota, one of only two states with a divided government and legislature at the time.

Nationally, the political division meant there were fewer than 30 U.S. House and nine Senate seats that were competitive — and which would determine who won control of these chambers. In the Minnesota Legislature, it was also about nine House and seven Senate seats that would matter.

At the national and state levels the competitive swing seats were mostly in the suburbs. This meant a few swing voters in a few suburban swing districts would decide control of the Congress and Minnesota’s Legislature.

History suggests the president’s party in midterm elections does badly, losing an average of 26 U.S. House and four U.S. Senate seats. Political science models suggest that the president’s approval rating in the second quarter of an election year, along with the country’s economic performance, predict election results. With  Biden’s lower approval rating earlier this year and an economy facing problems, the 2022 election was  supposed to be a Republican red wave.

Yet the 2022 elections did not work out as predicted. The U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning abortion rights gave Democrats an apparent  boost, according to the polls. This blunted the Republican advantage to a degree, leaving Republicans, when the votes were counted, with narrow control of the U.S. House, the Democrats in control of the U.S. Senate, and, in Minnesota, the Democrats with narrow control of both the state House and state Senate along with control of all four constitutional offices (governor, attorney general, secretary of state and auditor, all of which are voted on statewide).

Because the Red Wave did not appear to happen, a Blue Wave was declared. Democrats had a great year, the reasoning goes, and because in Minnesota they had control of the Legislature and the governorship, some in this party are saying it is time to “go big and then go home.”

The reality is that there was no wave nationally or in Minnesota.

For the most part incumbents won re-election 95%+ of the time. Only one U.S. Senate seat flipped party control. Few legislative chambers across the country changed hands. The election in many ways was an endorsement of the status quo — but with minor adjustments.

Republicans, meantime, can claim victory. They flipped the U.S. House, and approximately 5 million more voters cast ballots for their congressional candidates than for Democrats. Republicans still control more governorships and legislative chambers than Democrats. Democrats did win back some governorships and held control of the U.S. Senate, but their candidates received 500,000 fewer votes than the Republicans’ Senate candidates.

The election was less a wave than a ripple. The Democrats managed to motivate a few more voters in a few swing suburban districts than the Republicans did. Had a few more Republicans shown up in a few critical races, the results nationally and in Minnesota could have been different.

Compared to 2018, nationally and in Minnesota, voter turnout was down. Granted, 2018 had unusually high turnout, but we may be in the middle of a generational turning point.

The 2020 election was the first one in 30 years where Baby Boomers were not the largest generational voting bloc. They and the Silent Generation are exiting the political process and are being replaced by younger Millennials and Gen Z voters who are more liberal than the Silents and Boomers.

It’s also more difficult to determine if these younger voters are going to vote, and they’re harder to poll.

This year, pollsters missed these voters. In a few critical suburban races, younger voters, along with some female voters, made the difference for the Democrats. While the polls were generally accurate in saying the races would be close, they did not always correctly predict the correct winner.

Why is all this important? In Minnesota  flip 321 votes in Senate District 41 and the GOP has a 34-33 majority. Three Seats won by the DFL were by a margin of 2,215 votes. In the House, the DFL won three races by a combined 1,251 votes. Change 1,500 votes and the Republicans would control the House and Senate.

So why were most pundits, political scientists and pollsters wrong? Each election  is unique. Elections are not decided by models. Campaigns matter. As do candidate quality, messaging and strategy.

Despite their victories, in Minnesota Democrats do not have a mandate. To enact their dream legislation, progressive Democrats will need to rely on colleagues in moderate districts. In these districts it may be difficult to legalize recreational marijuana or codify abortion rights. Also with Democrats wanting a bonding bill that requires 60% majorities, they will need Republican votes.

The 2022 elections were not a wave for either party.

What I Could do With $44 Billion (and It Would not be Buying Twitter)

My latest from Counterpunch. 

Elon Musk added a new toy to his collection with the $44 billion purchase of Twitter.  I am sure he will be happy with his new toy. He has already fired senior management, thousands of others are expected to be ousted or stiffed.  Already reports are that new racist messages are being sent. It appears to be a victory for capitalism and free speech.  Wall Street should be happy.

With all the worry about what will happen to Twitter and whether it was worth it for Musk to buy it there is another question simply being ignored in the mainstream press–Why should anyone be allowed to be worth what Musk is and why should he be able to drop $44 billion to buy anything, let alone Twitter?

Capitalism is amazing.  It has produced unprecedented wealth in the world.  It is the story of the wealth of nations, of the occasional person who rises from nothing to become rich.  It has brought forth technological innovations never seen before.  It has transformed peoples’ lives in countless ways.

Yet it has also given us the serious gaps in inequality both with the US and across what used to be called the North and South or First and Third Worlds.  It has given us pollution, global warming, colonialism, and reinforced and transformed racism and sexism.  For free marketers it is all about freedom and creative destruction, for its critics it has done little, especially in recent times, to address poverty, disease, and the quality of life for billions of people across the planet.

Musk is a living embodiment of Ayn Rand’s John Gault.  To many he is a hero because of  Tesla and the coming electric car. Or he is a hero because of SpaceX and the race to Mars.   Or simply he is a hero because he shows the power of capitalism to produce wealth for its own sake.  Yet we have to remember that he is worth so much because he exploited so many workers.  He is not the self-made person many assume–he was born rich and used his privileges to enrich himself.  Now he is super rich and can use his power not with great social responsibility, but in a way that caters to his whims and desires.

Musk is more powerful than a nation state.  His musing about how to settle the Russian war against Ukraine to the former’s advantage is more than simply idle thoughts. Rumors that Star Link–the satellite service Musk owns–were manipulated and blacked out the Ukrainian army at one point show the power he could exert over matters of war and peace and national sovereignty.

But let’s put the $44 billion in perspective. How large is that amount?  If Musk were a state, his $44 billion would make him the 86th largest GDP in the world.  His purchase of Twitter would be slightly larger than the $41 billion GDP of Serbia, yet just shy of the $47 billion of Lithuania.  His expenditure to buy Twitter is larger than the total GDP of the 31 poorest nations in the world.

This $44 billion is almost three times as large as the total amount of military aid the US has given to Ukraine since Russia invaded.   It represents about half the equivalent of total global aid to  Ukraine since the war started.

But what if we are not talking about military aid?  World Program USA estimates that it would take $40 billion to end world hunger and feed the most hungry for a year.  The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimates it would take $50 billion to reach 70% vaccination level for the entire planet.  According to the World Health Organization, “At a potential cost of about $5 per dose, including its distribution, it would cost around $325 million to administer each year across ten African countries with a high incidence of malaria.”

The World Bank estimates it would cost $150 billion to provide potable water to all who need it. Closer to home, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimates it would cost $20 billion to end homelessness in America and the remaining $24 billion of the purchase price of Twitter could feed all the hungry 60 million Americans who visited food shelves last year.

There are countless other things that could have been better funded or spent on globally or in the US that could have helped millions of people.  While governments and societies as a whole should be responsible for doing this, Elon Musk had a choice and an opportunity to prove capitalism  can do something good.  He opted not to do that. Remember that the next time someone praises his genius.