When the War Ends, What will Ukraine Resemble?

 My latest is in the International Policy Digest. 

We’re nearly a year into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and there is no indication that the war is about to end. The war at times resembles the bloody battlefields of the First and Second World Wars than a conflict involving modern 21st-century militaries. There is also no indication that either side is prepared to negotiate. The potential is there for a long protracted, slogged-out fight where at various times, both Russia and Ukraine achieve some short-term advantages but nothing permanent. It is like round 12 of 15 in a prize fight where the two protagonists are strong enough to fight on but not able to seal the knockout punch.

Where or what is the end game for the war? While some argue that a divided Korea is a possible outcome for Ukraine, a partitioned Germany is equally likely.

A divided Korea is a permanent fixture of a war that technically never ended. The Korean War may have been the first major Cold War conflict. The fighting between the North and South was a proxy fight for China, the USSR, and the United States. The military advantage shifted back and forth from 1950 to 1953. Eventually, all sides wearied from the fight, culminating in an armistice that simply declared a temporary end to the fighting, leaving a nation divided and no resolution of the various claims. Nearly 70 years later, the two Koreas persist as one of the last Cold War flashpoints, with the possibility of hostilities resuming always on the horizon. It is a state of drizzled peace and war, similar to many days of weather many often experience.

This could be the fate of Ukraine. Unlike Korea, there is no legal principle supporting Russia. Its 2014 annexation of Crimea, Donbas, and Luhansk was illegal under international law. The 2022 Russian invasion and annexation of four of the latter’s regions is similarly illegal under international law that dictates that states renounce the use of force to resolve grievances including over border sovereignty. International law makes Russia’s actions clearly illegal, compelling that Ukraine is entitled to all of its lost territory returned. Yet right is often not might, and there is no indication Russia and Vladimir Putin will willingly retreat and respect Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Neither Ukraine nor Russia has an interest or incentive to end the war. For Russia and Putin, it is about maintaining a zone of influence. It is about national pride. It is the ‘Vietnam Syndrome’ with a Russian accent. The war is going badly and no Russian elite, including Putin, wants to admit defeat. He has made victory in Ukraine a test of personal will and his ruling legitimacy may now be tied to the war. Instead, pump more money, arms, and dead soldiers into it. Inflict more damage on Ukrainians in the hope of breaking their will, beating them into submission, or simply exhausting their will to fight. Perhaps at some point, Russia as a supposed superpower can outlast a weaker opponent.

Moreover, others such as China do not want to see Russia lose. With Ukraine supported by the U.S., NATO, and the European Union, it is a test of West versus East, or democracy versus authoritarianism. If Russia were to lose, what of China’s claims to Taiwan?

For Ukraine, the U.S., and the West, it is in part a war of principle to uphold the post-WWII international order. For Ukraine, it is a battle of survival, of national identity, and the right of self-determination to join Europe. Additionally, the U.S. sees this as an opportunity to weaken Russia, with the incentive for the war to go on as long as possible to hasten what is seen as the latter’s inevitable long-term decline.

There is no game plan for peace. No game plan for victory. No incentive to end the hostilities. The fight could go on for years, but probably will not. At some point, the bell for round 15 will sound and the active fighting will end. But how? Yes, one can see one side or another achieving a military victory, but the odds are against it.

In September, I was at a conference in Lithuania in part to promote my new book, Europe Alone: Small State Security without the United States. The book looks at the role the U.S. has traditionally played since WWII in European security needs. Among the several contributors were faculty at the Lithuanian Military Academy. One of them said back then that the fighting will go on until the two sides agree to not fight anymore. They will not agree to peace, they will not agree to resolve their grievances, and they will not agree to legitimate and permanent territorial boundaries. Moscow and Kyiv will fight to get as much land as possible before declaring a truce.

This may be Ukraine’s fate. Whether by that point it has recaptured Crimea, Donbas, and the other annexed regions is not clear. But the lines drawn then will be the basis of a divide between Ukraine and Russia, Ukraine and East Ukraine, or the Republic of Ukraine and the People’s Republic of Ukraine, what the names will be is not clear, but Ukraine may be a divided state.

The answer may be a divided Ukraine similar to what we see on the Korean peninsula where territorial claims are never solved and the threat of war breaking out at any moment is always present. Welcome to the new hot peace or cold war.

The other answer is a divided West and East Ukraine. The former will be an EU member state, and possibly a NATO member. It will prosper like South Korea while watching the remainder of Russian-occupied Ukraine go the fate of East Germany. One nation, two states, temporarily divided on a permanent basis. Russia will not have to declare defeat, but it will be vastly weakened. Ukraine wrongly loses territory but gets stronger and prospers as a result. Eventually with a weakened Russia unable to support its client states much like the USSR was unable to do, the client state of Ukraine gets absorbed by its stronger neighbor.

The question thus becomes, is the end of the war similar to Korea or Germany and how long will it take to get to the answer?

It’s the Message not the Messaging: The Future of the Minnesota Republican Party

 

Republican operatives such as former House Speaker Paul Ryan  among others believe their party has a problem.  For Ryan it is Trump, for others such as Annette Meeks, a former Republican candidate for Lieutenant-Governor in Minnesota, it is a lack of vision, messaging, or even a failed state nomination process that produces candidates out of  touch with suburban voters. 

All this may be correct but something more fundamental may be at root.  It is not the messaging but the actual message or vision that is the problem.  And it will grow as a problem into the future as the Republican Party faces an existential crisis in the coming years as its base is literally dying out.

America needs viable party competition, including a viable Republican Party.  There is no democracy in the world that is a one-party state.  The parties too must reflect  majority preferences, tempered by respect for the rights of minorities.  But  to win elections and govern parties must build coalitions and form majorities.  This means they need to reflect majority preferences or face oblivion.

Yet what Ryan and Meeks do is confuse the symptom with the cause.  For Ryan, he sees Trump as the problem. Jettison the latter from the Republican Party and it can return to  "Reagan 2.0,” a party of limited government, deregulation, and low taxes.  For Meeks part of the solution to achieving roughly the same  vision is changing the party nomination process such that extremists do not win control.  For her, she wants what I have advocated for more than thirty years—abandon the caucus-convention process to nominate candidates and go directly to  to a primary.  The party is more than the activists, it should be the larger group of voters who ascribe to a limited government free market vision.

But perhaps the real  problem is the message or the underlying public policies that  Ryan and Meeks advocate.   Even if a Reaganite set of public policies were where America and Minnesota  once was  40 years ago, that is no longer the case.  The country currently finds broad majorities at odds with the policies of  what their vision of the Republican Party should be.

Every two years  since the early 1970s the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago  performs the General Social Surveys.   The GSS  is arguably the most comprehensive survey on American public opinion in the country.  The most recent 2021 study is instructive on many scores.

Consider first regulation of the economy and the role of the government in society.  In 2021, 51% of the those surveyed  believe taxes on the rich are too low or much too low.  Nearly 67% believe that those with higher incomes should pay a much larger share of their income in taxes than those with low incomes.

 More than 57% believe the government has a responsibility to meet the needs of those who are sick, unemployed, or elderly.   More than 64% believe or strongly believe business profits are not fair.  More than 70% believe that the government should ensure wages  of low paying individuals increase as the economy grows and a similar 71% believe the income distribution in America is unfair  More than 55% favor more government regulation of the economy. Nearly three-quarters believe workers should  be represented on corporate boards of directors.

Additionally, 66% believe or strongly believe the government spends too little to ensure individuals are healthy.  When it comes to  protecting the environment and  improving education,  62% and 65% have similar views.

When it comes to social issues, nearly 69% believe abortion should be legal, although  with some qualifications.    Almost half at 46% believe  climate change is due to human activity—a response more popular than any other.  Three out of four favor permits  to own guns.  And 61% believe police treat Whites a lot fairer than Blacks.  Finally, 74% oppose opening  up public lands for development.

Across the board it is clear that majority opinion nationally and  probably in Minnesota favors a more activist government  to regulate the economy and business and to ensure that  the basic needs of individuals are met.  This is not laissez-faire Reaganism.  Moreover the stance on social issues such as abortion, guns, and the environment is not about do nothing when it comes to reproductive freedom, crime or safety, and climate change.  The vision articulated by Ryan and Meeks simply is out of touch where the majority of America is.  And they will become less popular over time.

As the Baby Boom and Silents exit the political scene and are replaced by the Millennials and Gen Z, this generational shift makes Reaganism 2.0 even more antiquated.  Surveys of the latter two generations even more strongly support the majoritarian preferences noted in the GSS.  As greater Minnesota depopulates, the base for the Republican Party  will wane.  In 2022 the Republicans did win 74 of the 87 counties in Minnesota, but the big  five—Dakota, Hennepin, Olmsted, Ramsey, and Washington—constituted nearly 48% of the statewide vote and are growing. Over time the more urban and suburban areas of the state will continue to grow. And these areas hold attitudes on issues consistent with the GSS results.

As I argue in my new book Trumpism:  American Politics in the Age of Politainment—the number one rule of politics is having a good narrative that  is forward and not backward looking. The Ryan-Meeks message is retrograde and fails to appeal to an existing and emerging majority.

Demographics are not destiny but they do portend change.  The Democratic Party too faces existential problems but for the Republicans the problem is more pressing in a state where they have not won statewide election since 2006 and have failed to win the presidency in 50 years.  

In 2012 after Mitt Romsey lost the presidency to Barack Obama the national Republican Party soul-searched and concluded it needed to change to reach out to women and people of color.  Trump’s ascendency  forestalled that.  The problem is not a messaging issue for the Republicans, it is a message and policy problem.  As with dinosaurs who failed to adapt and became extinct, the Republicans need to do the same.

PS:  In a subsequent blog I will discuss the problems facing the Democratic Party.

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.

Rout and Route: What Happens to Minnesota Democrats on and After Election day 2022

There is the real possibility that Minnesota politics could be a rout this November.  It would be a rout of

the DFL and a major victory for the Republican party, potentially putting the latter in charge for the first time since 1984-1986 when it was the last time the GOP controlled the state legislature and the governorship.  It might also represent the culmination of the Trump and Republican Party effort that first started in 2016 to flip the Midwest.  Of all that happens, what is the route for the Democrats after election day?

The National Scene
Six months ago it would have been an easy prediction to argue this election cycle nationally and statewide was favorable to Republicans.   Generally the president’s party does badly in midterm elections, losing an average of 26 House seats. Six months ago Biden had approval ratings of about 40%, Voters disapproved of the president’s handling of the economy despite the fact that there was record low unemployment and the strongest labor-wage  market in years. For voters the economy was inflation at the gas pump and grocery store.  Voters were also concerned about crime.

Nationally Democrats had either no narrative or a bad narrative when it came to the economy or crime.  But then the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade and abortion saved the Democrats, temporarily.  For several months abortion was the major Democrat talking point nationally and in Minnesota, and it appeared to save them as it motivated many groups, including college educated suburban women.

Until a month ago or even less it looked like abortion would save Democrats. But national polls suggest that abortion has run its course.  The economy or inflation and crime are the top two issues by far, with abortion third or even lower.  This is even true among suburban women.  Polls now suggest that US Senate races where the Democrats were once favored, such as in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, are tightening and it is possible Republicans could prevail.

Minnesota
Minnesota is an American political microcosm.  MPR and Survey USA (KSTP) polls point to an electorate worried about inflation or the economy and crime.  This includes suburban voters.  Polls suggest a close race for governor’s race, Attorney General, Auditor, and even Secretary of State.  Depending on voter mobilization and how the few undecided voters break, these races could go DFL or GOP.  Many think the GOP will win at least the AG and State Auditor.   The DFL holds a narrow majority in the Minnesota House and the Republicans a small but solid majority in the Senate.  The only real tight Congressional race is in the Second District where DFL incumbent Angie Craig holds (according to internal polls) about a one-point lead over GOP Tyler Kistner.  

While I see no chance for the DFL to flip the Senate I am also doubtful that it will hold the House. It is thus entirely possible for the DFL to get swept out of the four statewide offices and lose the second Congressional District.

Were the above to happen, what went right for the Republicans or wrong for the Democrats?

Messaging and Strategy
One answer is that the results in Minnesota are determined by national trends.  An unpopular president, inflation, and crime are macro forces beyond the control of anyone in Minnesota. Republicans rode the wave and Democrats got buried in it.  But such an explanation ignores too much.

Nationally Democrats had no message or narrative on inflation or crime.  Granted there is little a president can do to address inflation, but the talking points were awful or next to none.  The same is true with crime. Biden and the Democrats could have stolen a page from Bill Clinton  and proposed money to hire 100,000 police but they did not.  Instead, they became painted yet again as soft on crime.
The same problem exists in Minnesota. Walz and the Democrats relied too much on abortion to save them.   They were tagged two years ago as soft on crime with the riots after George Floyd’s death.  They were tagged with the defund the police movement and failed to articulate a narrative of public safety.  In terms of the economy there may be little they can do at the state level to address inflation. But the fact that they failed to craft a narrative is a problem.

Moreover, the strategy was bad.  Walz sat on his lead and cash advantage and avoided debating.  It cost him dearly. Recent KSTP polls point to a weakening of his support in his former First Congressional District.

Effectively, Walz and the Democrats have written off all but the Metro region.  In 2018 Walz won 20 of Minnesota’s counties. In 2016 Clinton won 9 counties, in 2020 Biden won 13 counties and Tina Smith 15 counties.  The base of the DFL is narrow and counts on high mobilization in a few Metro area counties.

I spend a lot of time traveling the state to lecture and give talks.  It is clear the Metro DFL agenda on crime, the environment, and social issues don’t play there.  The Metro area DFL, party activists here, or the convention attendees and activists are out of touch with the rest of the state, and perhaps with many leaning DFL in Greater Minnesota and even in the suburbs.  As noted above, polls suggest erosion of support for the Democrats in most locations across the state, including in the metro suburbs and among college-educated women.

Summary: Rout and Route?
To state clearly–The DFL and Walz may have a message out of touch with most Minnesotans who are nowhere near as progressive as the Metro area or core Twin Cities activists. This in turn  renders their strategy to win difficult because it is one narrowly confined or defined to a narrow base.  Moreover the messaging or narrative fails to understand the depth of concern regarding crime and  the economy and its focuses too much upon an agenda that appeals to the progressive wing of the party.  Couple that with a campaign strategy that aims to mobilize only in a few counties, that fails to counter the GOP narrative, that focuses too much on abortion this year, and which, in the case of Walz, sat on a lead, one then gets the makings for a rout.

If that rout occurs, the question on the day after the election will be to ask what route should the DFL have taken to avoid the rout, and what direction should it take going forward?