The Democrats Loss of the Working Class was Fifty Years in the Making

 One month out after Donald Trump and the Republicans beat Kamala Harris and the Democrats, the

reasons for the electoral defeat are still being debated. Yet, while it is possible that Harris could have won, but for several mistakes that she made, it is not clear that any Democrat could have won this election. In fact, the roots of Harris’s and the Democratic losses in 2024 are deep going back at least to three previous Democratic presidents.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the 2024 presidential race was close. Had Harris picked up approximately 124,000 votes in the critical swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, she would have been an electoral college winner for the presidency. This is comparable to how in 2016 Hilary Clinton would have won the presidency had she picked up 90,000 more votes in the same three states, or had Trump won 43,000 more votes in 2020 in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin.

Some might argue that had she picked a different vice-presidential candidate, such as Josh Shapiro from Pennsylvania, which might have made a difference. Or that had she developed a better narrative or broken with Biden sooner, perhaps the results would have been different. But the roots of her and the Democratic Party’s failure to win, and especially to lose the working class, go back decades.

It started in the 70s and 80s, when the US economy was restructuring away from manufacturing. The jobs that were lost belong to the working class and with the new economic employment opportunities going to those who were college educated. As manufacturing disappeared from the US, the gap between the rich and poor accelerated, starting in the eighties up to the present. The Democrats did little to address this growing inequality, and in fact, embraced it and the new economy and the new workers who would be the winners.

The first major mistake was under Bill Clinton. His endorsement and support for NAFTA clearly demonstrated an indifference to how free trade would hurt the working class and people of color. The enthusiasm there and among the Clinton Democrats for free trade drowned out critics who said that unless the agreement protected the working class, it would have hurt them, even though it generated, perhaps overall greater net worth for the business community. NAFTA had winners and losers, and it favored the business community, as well as eventually favoring those college, educated, trained individuals who were to benefit from the new internet based intellectual service economy, of which NAFTA was part.

The second mistake was with Barack Obama. In 2008 as the global economy collapsed due to bank failures in the United States, initially, George Bush pushed through TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, to help bail out banks. Once in office, Obama continued that approach to bail out the too big to fail. His Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, when asked at one point about all the hundreds of thousands or millions of homeowners who were going to lose their houses, he demonstrated a tin ear by saying that that would have to happen to save the banks.

Finally, under Joe Biden, his support for the working class was supposedly what led him to defeating Donald Trump in 2020. It was probably less that and more that Trump mishandled the pandemic. But among Biden’s signature achievements was the Inflation Reduction Act, a commitment of hundreds of billions of dollars to transition the United States to the green economy with green jobs. Yet again, these were not jobs that were going to benefit the working class that used to support the Democratic Party. Instead, it would go to those with different skill sets, and not necessarily in areas such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin, where Democrats needed votes.

Three Democratic presidents, three critical choices that demonstrated a turning away from the working class. What is not surprising is that they finally abandoned the Democrats en masse in 2024 what is more surprising is that they did not do it sooner. As the Democrats regroup, they need to think about these broader and deeper structural choices that the party made and how it has walked away from the working class under each Democratic President for the last fifty years.

When the Pohlads Sell the Twins the Taxpayers should get part of their profits

 

There's excitement in the air as the Pohlads announce plans to sell the Minnesota Twins baseball team after purchasing the team for $44 million in 1984.  Estimates are that the team is now worth $1.5 billion, and the sale will net the Pohlads a lot of money.

The state of Minnesota, Hennepin County, and Minneapolis taxpayers who subsidized the team should tax the profits to get back their investment in the Twins.

Professional sports are big business and very profitable. Profitability is largely due to the public subsidies it receives. Professional sports play on fan loyalties and threats to move as ways to extract corporate welfare from taxpayers. Many justify the subsidies by contending that sports stadiums provide. major economic stimuli for communities.  Yet no major, credible study supports this.  Viewed from an opportunity cost perspective, public investments in sports yield lower returns for the community than investments in museums, schools, or other public amenities. Yes, sports may contribute to the quality of life in an area, but they are not good economic investments for taxpayers.

Among the tactics sports owners use to increase their profitability is getting taxpayers to pay for the stadiums. Studies indicate that public investment in a new sports facility is one of the prime ways that teams and their owners increase profitability.  The Pohlads have benefited twice from the taxpayers in Minnesota.

 First prior to Pohlads purchase of the Twins in 1984, taxpayers provided subsidies to build the Metrodome. There was $155 million in bonds for the facility and $30 million in bonds for surrounding infrastructure.

Years later in 2006, the Pohlads successfully convinced the state of Minnesota, Hennepin County, and in Minneapolis to subsidize Target Field. This came after they threatened in 1999 to leave the state of Minnesota if Saint Paul taxpayers did not build them a stadium.  While St Paul voters rejected the tax and the team did not leave, just seven years later Minneapolis, Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota came up to bat and hit a home run for him.  They provided $90 million in bonds for infrastructure, $ 260 million in bonds for the facility, and Hennepin County enacted a 0.15% sales tax.

Thus, twice taxpayers have subsidized the Twins, a private business operating for private gain. As a result, the Pohlads original $44 million investment now will produce an estimated 1.5 billion sale. Such a gain is way beyond the inflation rate.  The $ 44 million in 1984 today would be worth $133 million.  The $1.5 billion far exceeds the rate of inflation and cannot be explained simply by increased valuation the Pohlads have added to the Twins unless one also includes the public subsidies.

While no one begrudges Poland's making money, they did so significantly at taxpayer support.  What they have now is an unrealized capital gain on their investment produced largely in part by public investment in their private business.  Their sale will be a realized capital gain.

Taxpayers are entitled to a part of that gain and the value of the team when it is sold. Exactly how much is not clear.  But nonetheless, the public made the Twins so profitable and valuable, and they are entitled to its fair share of the return on their investments.

The coming end of Tim Walz's political career in Minnesota

 Come this November, whether Kamala Harris wins or loses the presidency, Governor Tim Walz’s political career in Minnesota ends. 

Tim Walz has had an amazing run in Minnesota politics. It includes six terms as a member of Congress, having flipped a Republican conservative district Democratic, even if only temporarily, and by winning the governorship twice and becoming a star among progressives. Nationwide. He was selected as Kamala Harris's vice president both because of his supposed appeal to progressives and his folksy Midwest image that would endear him to swing voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Were Harris to win the presidency, Walz would resign as governor, move off to Washington, and probably never return to Minnesota politics again. This would be like what happened to Walter Mondale after his national career ended. There is a slight chance that Walz might return to Minnesota much like Hubert Humphrey did after serving as vice-president and losing the presidency, but odds are against it.

On the other hand, were Harris to lose Walz will take the blame for her loss. It will be because of his missteps in many of his claims about his resume or because he turned out to be the wrong and risky choice for Vice President. Many said that perhaps Harris should have selected Pennsylvania. Governor Josh Shapiro to be her running mate, a popular political figure in the most critical swing state.

Were Harris to lose, Walz returns to Minnesota as governor. It will be in the remaining two years of his second term. It is hard to imagine that Walz would be successful in seeking a third term if he decided to do so. While Democrats like him, Walz has built up a lot of opposition across the state of Minnesota, receiving in his second election run for governor a smaller percentage of the vote than the first time, against an arguably weak opponent. Winning a third term in modern Minnesota history has only been accomplished once by Rudy Perpich, and that occurred under extraordinary circumstances of which it is unlikely we will see again.

Walz effectively becomes a lame duck after the 2024 elections in Minnesota, one way or another. Moreover, were the Republicans able to flip one or both houses of the legislature that would also significantly diminish or end his influence in this state. But even if the Democrats hold their political trifecta, they faced the consequences of a possible budget deficit according to the most recent fiscal forecast.  This was caused in part by the significant budgetary increases they enacted in the last two years. Walz will not have the budget surplus he did in the past to do the things he wants. He will have to make far more difficult choices politically than he had to do in his previous six years.

But even assume that Walz does stay on as governor and the Democrats hold the trifecta, having tasted the national spotlight, it is unlikely that he will want to continue his focus at the state level. As the adage goes, after you visited the city, it's kind of hard to keep you down on the farm.

 Under any of these scenarios, Tim Walz will become less of a feature in Minnesota politics in less than a month.

If the US presidential election were held today–Look at what the Young Spectator will do

  The US presidential election remains inconclusively close.  But it still favors Donald Trump.

However, as political scientist E.E. Schattschneider  once declared, look at role of the audience or the undecided voter when it comes to political fights or elections. In this election, it may come down to the youth voters who decide the election and who are notoriously difficult to poll. 

As has been the case for well over a year, the 2024 presidential election has come down to six swing states where 150,000 to 200,000 voters will decide the electoral college outcome.  The electorate is polarized and there are few voters to persuade or move.  Polls suggest a close race. As of September 30, Harris is leading in three of the swing states. Trump is leading in three of the swing states. But the margins of their leads ranges from one-tenth of a point for Harris in Pennsylvania to a two point lead for Trump in Arizona.  Most of the polls being done have margins of error ranging from two to four points, while  indicating approximately two percent of the voters described as likely to cast a ballot  who are undecided. 

What we know is that polls indicate a that Trump is favored in terms of his handling of the economy and immigration, both of which are listed as important, if not the most important, issues in 2024.  His supporters have been loyal and enthusiastic for him from the start, and there is no question they will show up to vote for him. 

Additionally, among those few voters who list themselves as undecided, generally 60% vote against the incumbent.  That is, if they vote. In 2024 Harris is viewed as the incumbent.  A majority of Americans also do not like the direction the country is headed. Put all this together, these numbers and trends favor Donald Trump. 

Conversely, Harris has many things operating in her favor.  She has largely, but not completely, overcome the enthusiasm gap that stymied Joe Biden versus Donald Trump. She has an incredible amount of money and a cash advantage over Donald Trump to be able to  get out the vote, advertising, and other electoral matters. She has the abortion issue on her side, which is tremendously important to many college educated suburban women, as well as many other voters, Harris has picked up increasing support among Latinos and African Americans.  All of this suggests movement in the right direction for her, and some polls suggest that she would squeak out a narrow electoral college victory.

But the real challenge in this election is with younger voters, those under the age of 30.  They are much less likely to vote than those over the age of 30.  While Joe Biden's was in the race, they were unenthusiastic to vote for him. With Taylor Swift's endorsement of Vice President Harris, we've seen some evidence of increased voter registration among younger voters.  Most evidence suggests that celebrity endorsements have at best marginal impact on voters but Taylor Swift could very well be different in terms of her impact.  Additionally, this could be an election where reproductive rights, LGBTQ issues, and perhaps other matters of concern to voters under the age of 30 might drive them yet again to the ballot in ways pollster do not see.

But it is difficult for pollsters to capture this group of voters in polling.  Survey research wants to determine who a likely voter is. If you have not voted before or just turned 18, for example, polling you or assessing you as a likely voter is problematic and it is possible that the polls are not capturing these younger voters. They are the audience or the bystanders in a political fight.

EE Schattschneider once stated that what the audience or what the bystander does, determines the outcome of political fights, in this case, an election.  What we don't know is whether these younger voters will go from being audience or bystanders who are currently not reflected in the polls to participants and voters in the 2024 election in the critical swing states that will decide the outcome.

Profit-Driven Polling and the 2024 Election

 

Yet again this election cycle, polling and the polls are a major controversy. The issue is that the polls are all over the map, or again, will be simply wrong, as allegedly, they were both in 2016 2020 and even in 2022 during the midterm elections. The real problem with the polls is not their accuracy. Instead, it is a misunderstanding of the purpose of polls and the problem of profit-driven polling.

Recent polls,  as reported  on sites such as Real Clear Politics, especially those after the September 10 Trump Harris debate, seem to be all over the place. Some national polls have Trump up by three, some have Harris up by four, with others offering different margins. This has led some to conclude that this year will again be a mess for polling.

The problem with polling lies both in misunderstanding what polls are meant to do and in the motives for the polling. First, remember that polls are snapshots in time. They are not predictors. Polling is not some type of model that inexorably declares or states what will happen on November 5 this year. Polls merely tell us on any given day what some individuals think about some subject, such as, who they likely to vote for President.

Many black swans, October surprises, or unknown unknowns have already happened in the 2024 race, and many more could still occur, thereby impacting the final voting decisions of  voters regarding whether they will vote and for who,  Ascertaining who is likely to vote, which is critical to polling, is not easily predictable and subject to some guesses and some polls and pollsters are better or worse at doing that.

That is the second point to remember. There are some polls that are more accurate, and some with more biases or inaccuracies over time. Casting all polls as of equal value is inappropriate, and one needs to think about good versus bad.

A third issue is interpreting the margin of error. Most polls indicate a specific number in terms of polling results, such as the recent ABC/IPSOs poll indicating among likely voters Harris has a 52% to 46% lead over Trump, with a margin of error of plus or minus two precent. This is a small margin of error. But for many polls these margins seem to range from three to four to five points. In part the margins of error reflect many polls using small samples to reach their conclusions. But to say that somebody has a one- or two-point lead, according to a poll, with a margin of error of three to four points tells us very little. It could be that one candidate has a larger lead or a smaller lead than thought, or that with such a margin of error, the other person could be winning,

Deciding about who is ahead or who is behind, based on one poll is insufficient. It fails to provide evidence of trends. Even if more than one poll is used but if the results in them are both within margins of error, it still may not be enough to establish a trend.

Polls also have confidence levels. Confidence levels refer to the issue of accuracy and sampling certainty. These are questions regarding from a mathematical or statistical perspective, how likely a sample of respondents might mirror a larger population. Most standard polls have a confidence level of .05, or 95% certainty. This means that even on the best days, there is a one in twenty chance that the poll will just be wrong. But sometimes polls, to save money, reduce the sample size of those surveyed, thereby reducing the confidence level.

There is then another problem where some websites or aggregators average out the different polls and to give some type of composite number with the belief that their average is more accurate. Statistically, this is not sound practice. Such composites average good and bad polls together, with different methodologies, dates, and questions. One cannot really average them together.

Finally, when it comes to polling, especially national polls for the presidency, ignore them all. We do not elect presidents by national popular vote, and national polls do not tell us anything about what' is going to happen in the six or seven swing states that will decide the election. Here it is 150,000 to 200,000 voters that would be decisive, and polling cannot be done easily at this level of granularity.

But beyond all these methodological misinterpretations of polling, there is a bigger problem, and that is profit driven polling. It is the habit of some organizations to do repeated polling to make their polls the new stories of the day, as opposed to covering the campaigns or examining the public policy issues that the candidates are espousing. Profit-driven polling is meant to create a horse race and to focus on who is ahead or who is behind.

Profit-driven polling is not about providing accurate reporting of public opinion, but about making money, or in some cases, organizations releasing polls to confuse or impact public opinion. It is possible that the misunderstandings among many journalists or websites regarding polls is simply a consequence of what polling can and cannot do. But it is also possible that all this misunderstanding is more intentional in terms of seeking to maximize profits from polling.

Tim Walz, JD Vance, and the Myth of the Midwest

 What is the Midwest of the United States? 

When presidential candidates Donald Trump and Kamala

Harris selected JD Vance of Ohio and Tim Walz of Minnesota as their vice president candidates they did so in part because the Midwest, specifically Wisconsin and Michigan, is a strategic battleground for the presidency. The belief was that a Midwesterner from one state would appeal to voters across all the Midwest.  Arguably, Midwest values and appeals will be on display October 1, during the vice-presidential debate which, oddly, will be held in New York City and not Detroit or Milwaukee.

Somewhere along the way someone needs to explain to the east coast that there is not one Midwest. Instead, it is twelve separate states, and placing a debate in NYC is perhaps not the smartest way to demonstrate empathy for the Midwest voter.

There is a classic New Yorker Magazine cover depicting everything west of the Hudson River as flyover territory. We in the Midwest are one land of corn and soybeans, or at one point, cars, steel, iron, and manufacturing. The myth of the Midwest in part, is crafted by American folklore. Maybe it is Willa Cather’s O’Pioneers, Sinclair Lewis’ Babbitt, Philipp Meyer’s American Rust, or even Mark Twain’s Tom Sawyer or Sherwood Anderson’s Winesburg, Ohio. These books evoke a literary Midwest ethos that for many geographically merges my part of the world together. Some might even place JD Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy within this literary genus. Yet a more than cursory review reveals broad diversity across among these states and people these books depict. George Babbitt is not the same person as Tom Sawyer.

The US Census Bureau defines the Midwest as that geographic area west of the Appalachians, east of the Rockies, and bordered by the Ohio, Mississippi, and Missouri Rivers. It is twelve separate states broken into two regions. But even this definition is not fixed. Pennsylvania, by Census Bureau standards, is not the Midwest. Yet in appointing Walz or Vance, both Harris and Trump seem to have forgotten that. Parts of Pennsylvania west of the Appalachians seem Midwest to some. But certainly, the eastern part of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia are on the East Coast. Many in Minnesota view Michigan as back east because it is in a different time zone, and few in South or North Dakota consider Appalachia Midwest.

The Midwest is more than geography. It is politics and political values, and each state is different. Minnesota is as liberal as Ohio has become conservative. Some may see no difference between Minnesota and Wisconsin. For years I taught a class comparing Minnesota and Wisconsin politics and drew contrasts. Since the 1970s the two states have moved politically and economically in different directions and have adopted different perspectives on a variety of issues ranging anywhere from abortion, welfare reform, social welfare policy, and education. We are different not just because we cheer for the Vikings or the Packers.

Each state in the Midwest is a blend of immigration patterns colliding with its geography and economy to produce a unique political culture. But even within each state, there is diversity. Rural Minnesota is to the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St Paul as Detroit is to the Upper Peninsula. Or Madison, Wisconsin is to the northern part of that state. Franklin County Ohio votes far differently than Hamilton County Ohio. In 2022 Tim Walz won only twelve of Minnesota's 87 counties when he was reelected as governor. The counties he won were urban, the counties he lost were mostly rural. To think that Walz would appeal to other Midwesterners is naive. He does not even appeal to all Minnesotans—only 52% voted for him.

 

There is no one undivided Midwest. It is a myth. Each state has its own politics, and there is a need to appreciate that politically and geographically, and not campaign in a cookie cutter fashion. As the 2024 Presidential election reaches fever pitch, and Trump and Harris concentrate on a few swing states in the Midwest. They need to remember that there is not one single Midwest and there is not one atypical Midwest voter.

As Scranton goes, so goes the American presidential election yet again

  

In 2024 Lackawanna County will again be the decisive bellwether county that determines whether Donald Trump or Kamala Harris will be president.

The media and the presidential campaigns are focused this year on the six or seven swing states that will decide the presidential election. Donald Trump and Kamala Harris each have their respective safe states that will vote for them, but neither of them has wrapped up enough electoral votes to win the election.

 In the past Maine, Missouri, and Ohio have been the critical swing or bellwether states that decided presidential elections. Within those states powerful swing counties stood out. Whichever candidate won a county in that state would go on to win that state in the presidential election.

For years, Hamilton County, Ohio was the bellwether. Win Hamilton County, where Cincinnati is located, meant that one would win Ohio. Were one to win Ohio, one would win the presidency. But demographics and politics have changed. Lackawanna County has replaced Hamilton County as the most important battleground in the country.

Historically, Lackawanna County voted for Democrats for president. It was working class, union, and manufacturing. As late as 2012 Barack Obama won the county over Mitt Romney, 63%, to 36%. But then the economy changed. The factories closed down. Union jobs exited and mining ended. The political base of the Democratic Party eroded, and workers did not see them helping enough.

The Democratic party moved to the left on many social issues alienating those unemployed workers who used to vote for them. Today, Lackawanna County sits to the political right of where the Democrats are, and to the political left of where the Republicans are. It is a true swing county that is a bellwether of Pennsylvania and national politics.

Eight years ago, in August of 2016 I argued that Lackawanna County was key to that presidential election. If Trump were to win the county or to get close, he would go on to win Pennsylvania. Were he to win Pennsylvania, he would go on to win the presidency

In 2016 Hilary Clinton—whose family roots were in the county—won the county, but with barely 50% of the vote; down 13% from Obama's 2012 victory. Trump won 47% of the vote. He got close in Lackawanna County, went on to win Pennsylvania, and went on to win the presidency. All this as predicted.

Joe Biden, a native also of Scranton, in 2020 went on to win Lackawanna with 54% of the vote, while Trump dropped to a little over 45% of the vote. Biden then went on to win Pennsylvania, and eventually the presidency.

In 2024, it is not clear by how much Kamala Harris must win Lackawanna County to repeat the performance of Biden and avoid the loss by Clinton. She certainly needs to win decisively more than 50% and hope that Trump does not improve upon his 2020 numbers. It is doubtful that Tim Walz or JD Vance, two Midwesterners, resonate with undecided voters in Scranton.

Were I advising Harris or Trump, I would tell them to frame your issues and your campaign pitches in such a way to win over the disaffected, undecided voters in Scranton. In a polarized political America, they are at the center and torn between two parties that do not speak to them. The voters there will again this year decide who wins Pennsylvania and who wins the presidency.

Trump v Harris: Generational Politics in the 2024 US Presidential Election

 

Joe Biden’s exit from the presidential race transformed the 2024 election from an intragenerational battle between him and Donald Trump to now an intergenerational campaign between Harris and Trump.  The key to Harris’ electoral college victory is adeptly playing this intergenerational  game across five or six swing states where the election will come down to  what 150,000 to 200,000 voters will do.  While Harris needs to motivate voters across several generations, she especially needs Millennials and Gen Z.

            Harris’ decision to select Minnesota governor Tim Walz as her vice-president indicates that she understands this generational contest, selecting  a candidate potentially appealing across generations, but especially to an emerging  Millennial and Gen Z voting bloc.

            The 2024 presidential race is now a new campaign reset along many dimensions, including a generational contest between Trump and Harris.  What we know is that across the five generations voting this November—the Silents, Baby Boomers, GenX, Millennials, and GenZ—there are profound policy preference differences, with the latter two generations being far more liberal on a range of issues including reproductive rights, voting rights, immigration, LGBTQ+ issues, gun regulation, and many other social issues.

            We also know that in general the Republican and Democratic parties are divided along many dimensions, with there being a generational split with more Silents and Boomers  favoring the former, while  Gen X,, the Millennials, and GenZ favor the Democrats.  But while Biden was candidate, he was unable to motivate these generational voters, especially in the six or so  swing states that will decide the election.

            Harris’ choice of Walz challenges conventional wisdom of picking a political moderate in a swing state.  Her selection of Walz—a liberal from Minnesota—suggests here campaign is going fully progressive, seeking to motivate these new generations.  Its sets up a contrast to Donald Trump whose selection of JD Vance, sets up a clear liberal/conservative and generational voting divide. Both presidential candidates and parties are playing generational base politics.

            Harris may be better positioned to play this generational politics than Trump by the simple fact that generational ascendency and descendency are factors in this election. This election features the last gasp of the Silent generation in terms of its influence in American politics.  Beginning in 2020 the Baby Boomers no longer were the largest generational voting bloc in America, and are now being eclipsed by the millennials and Gen Z, who in 2020, were 37% of the voting bloc. Now they're nearly 40%.  The voters  and constituencies Trump is appealing too are literally dying out, while for Harris her supporters are coming of age.

            The Millennials and Gen Z view the two major parties as two stores with two different menus. They are not completely sold on either the Democratic or Republican parties and would like to see more mixing of the different items on the policy menus. This again suggests appealing to them by emphasizing themes of unity and cross-party policy. They are generally liberal on most issues, more centrist on fiscal issues. They remain worried about college education affordability,  health care affordability, buying a home, as well as crime, the environment and guns.

            The key to this election is both generating communications that appeal to specific generations, as well as cross generational themes. Each generation looks to different media for its sources of information, and successful campaigns need to use those media to target them with different symbols and themes based on defining events in their life that help them to continue to frame their perspective on the world. Generational politics is real.  But it is real in the context at perhaps five or six swing states will decide this presidential election.

            In Harris’ acceptance  speech she seemed to acknowledge the reality of the generality differences across the six or so swing states and where 150,000 to 200,000 voters will effectively determine the election. 

The Declining Significance of Race in America, Not Quite

 This blog  originally appeared in Counterpunch. 

            According to a recent study on economic mobility in the United States, race appears to be a declining factor in terms of explaining intergenerational mobility. For some the conclusion might be that race matters less in America. But the reality is less that race doesn't matter and more that class has become even more of a significant variable or factor in American politics.

            Researchers at the Harvard University’s Opportunity Insights Center tracked intergenerational mobility by race and class. What they found was that between 1978 and 1992 children from high income families saw their incomes increase, while children from low income families decreased by 30%.  At the same time income earnings for parental income of Black children at all levels increased.  This reduced the Black-White income gap across the board by 30%.

            On the face of it, this study would seem to suggest that the gap between Black and White children  has decreased , thereby mitigating or rendering race a less important factor in America. Yet race still does matter. What has happened in recent American history are a couple of things.  One is that for poor White children, their mobility has decreased, leveled down to that perhaps that for Blacks.   Two, instead of economic mobility increasing overall, it is decreasing.  

            This study suggests class has become even more important than it was before. The evidence from this study documents an increased rigidity whereby now both Blacks and Whites at lower income levels have less mobility to move up now than before.  The study also  indicates that factors such as parental income and neighborhood are even more determinative of social mobility and life outcomes than before. At no point does this study indicate that race is no longer important.  Instead, there has been a leveling down in a sense that class now holds down or holds back Whites at lower income levels, at rates that are approximating those for African Americans.  Therefore at lower income levels, both Blacks and Whites face increasingly convergent impediments to social mobility.

            What does all this mean? Race and class continue to hold back many in America.  Repeated studies point to significant racial disparities in income, wealth, home ownership, criminal justice, education, and voter participation.  Many of these are solely issues of race, but they too intersect with economics and class. To be from a lower socio-economic class, regardless of race, impose impediments on social mobility, and those class barriers are only increasing.

            When we think about the 2024 presidential and other elections, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are seriously talking about class, nor how its intersection with race impacts social mobility in America. Despite Trump's appeal to the working class, he offers nothing to help them beyond appeals to anger and racism, Harris's proposals acknowledge race and identity, but offer little to address the root causes of intergenerational poverty.

            The dirty secret of American politics is that both race and class do matter. They come together to undermine the very concept of the American dream and the now mythic belief that by merit and hard work, individuals can get ahead.  If it was not the case. already, American society has become more rigid and stratified, with little evidence that it is going to change in the future, regardless of the party or president elected this November.

Go Ahead Harris and Pick a Female VP! Unconventional Wisdom and the 2024 US Presidential Election

 

Politics is often about conventional wisdom. Yes, such wisdom is not alway

s correct and in fact often wrong. Going into the 2024 US presidential election there are three bits of conventional wisdom being circulated.

           One Kamala Harris must pick a white Caucasian male from a swing state as her vice president.

            Two, Harris cannot select a female as vice president.

            Three, the odds are still against her, according to the polls, and that Donald Trump is still favored to win the presidency.

            Politicians, pundits, and polls often are the basis for how journalists think about campaigns and elections.  They form the orthodoxy or received wisdom for a campaign cycle.  But received or conventional wisdom often is incorrect.

            Years ago I published an article which challenged two bits of conventional wisdom in politics. One was the belief that there was a bump from the location of a national political convention in a specific state. The second was that the selection of a vice president from a particular state would enhance the ability or competitiveness of that state for the party that selected that favorite son or daughter. I examined the data back to WWII and found that in fact, conventions provided no bump for the party in that state, or for that candidate. Additionally, there was no evidence that selection of a vice presidential candidate from a particular state would enhance the ability to win that state.

            Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence, these two beliefs persist. Thus the reason why the Republicans chose Wisconsin in 2024 for the location of their convention.  Perhaps maybe that is why the Democrats picked Chicago for their convention because of its proximity to the Wisconsin media market.

            How does all this apply to 2024 and the three bits of conventional wisdom noted above?

            Since Harris became the likely Democratic Party nominee for president the focus has turned to who her vice presidential pick will be. Conventional wisdom is suggesting it has to be a person from a swing state and that it has to be a white Caucasian male. The  conventional wisdom is that a popular figure from that state will enhance the Democrats’ ability to win that state. The idea of being a white Caucasian male is to balance out the demographics of Kamla Harris.

            While the governors of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, or Michigan might all be amply qualified to be president, as well as Senator Mark Kelly from Arizona, there's no indication that merely placing them on the ticket enhances the competitive competitiveness of those states.

            Think about it. According to many statistics, barely 40% of Americans can name the sitting vice-president. There is overwhelming political science research indicating that with one notable exception, vice presidents have little or no impact on presidential elections, and that people do not make their voting decisions for president based upon the vice presidential choice. The one notable exception 2008 when Sarah Palin was John McCain's vice presidential pick.  There is evidence that her lack of qualifications, at least according to the American public, potentially cost McCain one or two percentage points in the polls. But he was going to lose anyhow. So perhaps it really didn't matter in the end.

            If vice presidents do not matter, the demographics of the vice presidential candidate equally do not matter. This gets to the second argument that says that Harris cannot pick a female to be her vice president.

            On the one hand, if vice presidential picks don't matter, then perhaps it doesn't matter if the selection  is male or female, pick the best qualified candidate. But on the other hand in 2024 the 2024 election will decided across five or six swing states, with the choice being made by 150,000 to 200,000 voters. It is possible that who the vice-presidential candidate is might matter. And here despite conventional wisdom, it might make a lot of sense for Harris to pick a female vice presidential candidate.

            The single most important voter in American politics, are college educated suburban women. With that, it is also black women who are equally important in terms of voters. Democrats must mobilize both if they are expected to win the presidency. Harris appears to have Africa African American women and women in general. Why not consider placing a female on the ticket as vice president to even further mobilize female voters across the country. Women already are the majority of voters in the United States and there is gender gap favoring Democrats.  More heavily mobilizing the female vote makes an incredible amount of sense in many ways for Democrats much in the same way that Trump (and his selection of JD Vane as his running mate) was not about balancing out a ticket but in trying to  juice up the Trumpistas even more.

            Finally, politicians, pundits, and pollsters  are arguing that as of now, Harris is perhaps in no better situation to win the presidency  than Joe Biden was.

            That may be true as of July 22, or July 24, 2024.  But remember, polls are not predictors. They are snapshots in time and over time political  fortunes change.  Many of the famous prediction machines such as Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight often get it wrong. Back in 2016 on election day, FiveThirtyEight gave Hillary Clinton about an 80% chance of winning the election.

            Polls inform conventional wisdom. They may be accurate at a point in time. They do not always capture shifts in trajectory or shifts in campaigns. Harris's taking over from Biden resets the American presidential race. It gives her an opportunity to redefine the race to capture voters who did not like Biden but equally did not like Trump and it gives her the capacity to energize the base in ways that Biden did not.

            To challenge conventional wisdom. I would argue that Harris is much freer in whom she could select for her vice presidential pick. It doesn't necessarily have to be from a swing state. It doesn't necessarily have to be a white Caucasian male. Given the polarization in America, given the dislike for Donald Trump, and given how apparently she has already brought excitement  among many to her candidacy, conventional wisdom may be wrong in terms of her prospects this year.  Go ahead Harris—pick a female VP if you want.

 

Biden, Harris, and the Manufactured Crisis of the Corporate Media

 

Joe Biden's exit and Kamala Harris's replacement as a Democratic nominee for president changes and confuses the corporate media script in its coverage of the 2024 election.  Nothing better captures that than the coverage within the 24 hours after Biden's announcement that he was leaving the race and endorsing Kamala Harris.

            The first imperative of corporate media is to run stories to make money and maintain audiences. This includes public radio and public television. One can say that the mantra for the corporate media is “all the news fits the script,” or “ all the news that sells we tell.”  The task of the corporate media is to create news or confusion where it does not exist.  For the corporate media, because they have a narrative or script for how to do reporting, if something does not fit into that narrative or script, the reporters are confused themselves, and their confusion becomes the story.  Bad or lazy reporting is appealing to existing narratives, simply  assuming the story is one thing when it reality it had changed.

            For the last several months, the corporate media story about the 2024 presidential race was predictable. It was how Biden and Trump were going through the primaries, rolling up the delegates and  how the election would be a rematch between the two of them. The corporate media had a story and reporters simply copied that script.

            At some point the sub story began to focus upon Biden's mental capacities, but this was not until his disastrous debate with Trump in June.  Prior to that there is evidence that the corporate media knew of some of these mental problems, but chose not to cover but once that debate occurred, their narrative shifted. It became about his mental capacities and about efforts to oust him.

            With that what would happen if he's ousted, who would be his likely replacement? That story came to a head on July 21 when Joe Biden announced that he was abandoning his presidential race, freeing up his delegates and endorsing Kamala Harris. This up ended the corporate media script for coverage of the presidential race. As one listened to the news that day, the stories were about chaos, that now we  had chaos or the Democratic Party was  in chaos in terms of what would happen.

            Within less than an hour of Biden saying he was stepping down, reporters were frantic and asking, why hasn't Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama endorsed Harris? Will there be an open convention? Will Harris have enough votes or support to win the nomination? Will there be there be challengers? The reporters seem genuinely perplexed. However, the reality was that the reporter-proclaimed crisis was a manufactured crisis that resolved itself quite quickly.

            If there was chaos at all, it ended Sunday afternoon on July 21 when Biden said he was leaving the race. The  real chaos had been what would had been occurring for several weeks prior. Additionally, many of the questions that were posed by confused reporters who did not know how to make sense out of the new narrative, were quickly resolved.

            Nancy Pelosi soon endorsed Kamala Harris within 24 hours. Harris, according to AP, had enough delegates to win the Convention on the first round.  Possible challengers to Harris quickly endorsed her, and Harris set a one day record in terms of fundraising.  By the end of Monday, July 22 almost all the perplexities and problems that the corporate media reporters were raising had been resolved.

 

Where will the Double Haters Go?

 

            Now that Joe Biden is out and Kamala Harris is in as the likely Democratic nominee for president, the question is, “where will the double haters go?”

            For the last several months one of the most interesting facts about the 2024 US presidential election was that a majority of the American public did not Want to see a Biden Trump rematch. Among those who did not want to see the rematch, or a small but important group of voters often described as the double haters. These are individuals who equally disliked Donald Trump and Joe Biden as presidential candidates, depending on which poll one looked at, the double haters constituted between 15% to 20%  of the electorate.  According to the Washington Post, these double-haters are “ more likely to be younger, Hispanic or Black, and women living in larger cities or with no religious affiliation.  Among the reasons they hate both is that Trump and Biden were simply seen as too old.

            When the race was still between Biden and Trump these dual haters had several options. Option one was to hold their nose and vote for the candidate that they found least objectionable. Option two was to potentially vote for a third party candidate such as Robert Kennedy Jr. Option three would have been a decision not to vote whatsoever.

            All three of these were possible options for the double haters. For those who intended to vote and vote for a major party candidate, their choice between Trump and Biden might come down to how relatively important they viewed issues such as the economy, border security, the personalities of the two candidates, or the drama either of the candidates brought to their presidencies.

            Both Trump and Biden had calculated into their strategy what the double haters might do. They were pitching their messages to discourage these individuals from voting for the opposition, with the hope they would vote for them, or at the very least choose not to vote on Election Day.

            Biden is now out. This clearly changes the equation for the double haters. It is not clear that these voters have the same hatred for Harris, as they did for Biden. They still nonetheless hate Trump. How will they recalculate their vote?  

            Do they view Harris the same as Biden and therefore their calculation between Harris and Trump is the same.

            Is there no hatred for Harris, but still for Trump, and therefore they're more likely to vote for Harris?

            Will they still opt to vote for a third party candidate, or will they still opt to stay home on Election Day?

            Harris's entry into the race changes the race for the presidency for these voters. The profile of these voters are individuals who are more likely to vote for her than Trump.

            Trump’s campaign, which had already calculated how to address these double haters, now needs to change their campaign strategy. Candidates and campaigns have scripts and narratives and their strategies are based upon both. Harris replacing Biden changes how the Trump campaign must campaign. It gives Harris and the Democrats a new option and opportunity to reset the 2024 presidential campaign.  

    The election is down to 150,000 to 200, 000 swing voters in five or six swing states. There are certainly enough double-haters  in the critical swing states to alter the flow of the election and potentially give Harris a victory.

Joe Biden Personal Health Fraud: Why the DNC Delegates Should be Able to Vote For Whomever They Want (Because they were misled)

 

Right now the only way Joe Biden will not be the Democratic Party nominee for president will be if he makes the decision himself to leave the race and free up the delegates to vote their conscience. The reason is a party rule. A rule decided by party leaders and attendees, requiring delegates to cast their vote on the first ballot for the person they are pledged to support. 

            Assuming this to be the case, Biden would get the nomination despite the fact that more than 60% of Democrats say he should step aside from the race.  This is at the same time when increasingly many party leaders are suggesting he do the same. But consider a different option. What if pledged delegates simply refuse to  vote for Biden claiming they were misled. What would happen?

            The core of the fight between Biden and perhaps the rank and file Democrats is a question about who the political party is.  Legally the courts have been confused over this question. Is the party its elected leaders or nominees such as Joe Biden here? Is it the leadership? Is it the primary voters? Is it those who identify with the party right now?

            It  seems to be the first two are viewing themselves as the party into a conflict with the latter two, with them increasingly saying Biden should not be the nominee.

            But consider a different way of thinking about the party and thinking about the choices that voters in the primaries or caucuses made and the delegates who were selected. What if we think of the party not as the leadership but as the broader membership? Should they not have a say in the direction of their party, especially based upon information that is more recent about Biden and the state of presidential race.

            Recently I had a conversation with a  Biden delegates  to the national convention and with primary voters. I asked them what they thought about Biden's debate performance, his interview with George Stephanopoulos, and what they're seeing in terms of Biden now.   They said had they known back then when they pledged as delegates or voted for him what Biden's mental and physical conditions or acuity were they might have made different choices. Moreover, they argued that things appear to have changed in the several months since the Minnesota primary and they should now be free now to cast a ballot based not upon being bound in pledged to vote for Biden according to the rules, but based upon what they know now and whom they believe would be the best candidate to leave their party. They insisted that they were the party and  neither Biden, nor the leadership.

            These comments were interesting and that they suggested that these delegates and voters wanted to make their decisions based upon information at hand now.  What has become clear is not simply that Biden's mental acuity has declined, but that stories indicate there were efforts to cover this up and to protect Biden and conceal his condition from the public.

            His real  health status, borrowing from the field of law, is a material fact that a voter or delegate would have wanted to  know.  One could argue that when voters cast their ballots across the country for Biden, or delegates pledged for him, they did so under false pretenses. It was not just that they didn't know information about his health but they were actually misinformed or misled.

            In law this is the concepts both fraud and detrimental reliance. We act or make decisions based upon information that we are given.  Detrimental reliance can be the basis of forming contracts in the law.

         But the concept of detrimental reliance also addresses the question of honesty. What if individuals are lied to  in order to induce them to enter into a contract.  Courts will invalidate such contracts because of fraud.

            Think of a decision of a voter to cast a ballot as a form of a contract. Or conversely, think of the same when it comes to a delegate. They voted or pledged for a candidate based upon information at hand. But what if they were lied to? What if fraud were committed? Should they nonetheless be still bound by that candidate  or by their pledge?  There should there be grounds to argue that their pledge or vote was made under false pretenses and the delegates should not be bound to their pledge according to party rules.

            What if then, the delegates simply chose not to support Biden. Is there a moral and legal argument to support them? Clearly Yes.

            If they were to choose not to support him what would happen next? Would the courts intervene and forced the delegates to adhere to the party rules? Unlikely. The Supreme Court has said that internal party matters are protected by the First Amendment and that generally, the court should not interfere in what happens. Were the delegates to the DNC simply to say they are no longer going to support Biden because of either change circumstances that makes supporting him no longer seem tenable or because they pledged for him under false pretenses, it does not appear that anything would prevent them from doing that.

            They delegate should be considered the party and should be free to do what they think they should be done in the best interest of the party and in furtherance of putting forward a candidate who they best believe can compete in November.