Minneapolis Residential Discrimination: Why Eliminating Single-Family Housing with Neo-Liberal Zoning will Fail

The spatial distribution of housing in Minneapolis and all of the Twin Cities metro area is a

product of race and class.  Yet curing this discrimination does not reside in the elimination of single-family housing through changes in zoning or a comprehensive plan.  Such an approach, call it neo-liberal zoning, is destined to achieve the same results in land use that neo-liberalism achieved economically over the last 40 years domestically and internationally.
Residential housing patterns are the product of discrimination.  Private discriminatory preferences coupled with market decisions were enabled by racial covenants, government redlining, and zoning to produce the segregation patterns we see today. Countless books, such as Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton’s classic American Apartheid, tell this story well.  Nearly 25 years ago at the Institute of Race and Poverty at the University of Minnesota, I helped author a study pointing to the Twin Cities Metro region being the third most segregated urban area in the nation.  More recently, the University of Minnesota’s Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity located  persistent segregation in the placement of low income housing and education policy choices that concentrate low income people of color in specific neighborhoods and schools.
Fixing this segregation demands a metro-wide solution.  Yet Minneapolis has acted on its own via its 2040 comprehensive plan to address this problem.  It solution mostly includes elimination of single-family zoning, believing that intensification of land use along with market incentives will encourage the building of more housing.  Presumably this market-driven approach will mean more housing in more places, thereby fixing the economic and racial residential discrimination.
Both the New York Times and current Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson laud this market-driven fix.  Unfortunately, this approach will fail, exacerbating existing problems.
The Minneapolis approach to liberating the market to address its housing woes is neo-liberal zoning.  Neo-liberalism is the term used to describe a series of US domestic and international economic policies that begin with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (in the UK)  and continued through Bill Clinton and Tony Blair and into the present with Donald Trump.  Neo-liberals believe that a return to market fundamentalism–cutting government regulation and business taxes along with globalization in free trade–would rejuvenate domestic and world economies.  The reality, as many economists such as Thomas Piketty, Amartya Sen, and Joseph Stiglitz have described and statistics show, is that neo-liberalism has produced the greatest gaps between the rich and poor in the US since before the Great Depression.  The rich have truly gotten richer, with the middle and lower classes gaining little.  Maybe we are overall richer as a nation as a result of neo-liberalism, but the externalities of these policies have produced powerful economic inequities that overlap with race.
The elimination of single-family zoning to encourage intensified land use across the  city rests on a similar logic that will yield parallel results.  In theory the breaking up of  large single family houses in South Minneapolis will produce more housing, but it is doubtful it will be low income or affordable.  Conversely, permitting the break up of existing homes in North Minneapolis into multi-family units or their demolishing and replacement with multiple units too will not guarantee affordable housing in integrated neighborhoods.  This is a recipe for gentrification as developers will enter areas, buy homes, and dislocate current residents by building  more high end units. 
The Minneapolis comp plan fix ignores the realities of how housing markets  work.  While there may be a local demand for affordable housing, housing is also a national market  sensitive to price, profit, and cost issues that often are not local.  Developers have few incentives to provide affordable housing, and Minneapolis’s neo-liberal zoning amounts to no more than government sanctioned market red lining.
Beyond the fact the neo-liberal zoning will not fix the segregation problems, elimination of single family zoning will produce additional problems.  One, there is an inherent value in preserving  a mixture of uses both from a historic preservation perspective, but also in terms of how a multiplicity of uses, ages, and styles of buildings and residential options appeals to the widest variety of individuals.  As Jane Jacobs, perhaps the greatest 20th century scholar on cities wrote in her Death and Life of Great American Cities, cities are generators of diversity, it is that which makes them interesting and centers of commerce.  Two, phasing out single family zoning does not eliminate a demand for these types of units and people seeking them, often middle class and those starting families, will flee to the suburbs. Three, for many, single family homes represent a sense of community, connectedness, and stability that are worth preserving.  Finally, given how interconnected  residential and education discrimination are, tackling one without addressing the other dooms solving both problems.
Minneapolis’s population is exploding and more housing is needed to address that demand.   This housing needs to address all income levels and needs, and be spatially distributed in a way that is economically and racially fair.  Unfortunately, Minneapolis’s neo-liberal zoning policies will do little to address these issues.

PS:  David Schultz is Hamline University Professor of Political Science.  He is a former city director of code enforcement, zoning, and planning and  a former housing and economic planner.  He also served on the St. Paul Housing Board of Appeals, appointed to it by then Mayor George Latimer.

Politics, Lies, and Journalism: Why the Public Does Not Care If Politicians Lie

            American politicians and public officials lie.  George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bill Clinton about not having sex with Monica Lewinsky.  Politicians before and after them have lied.  But something seems different about the 2016 US presidential race so far.  The scope of lying seems unprecedented, as is the reaction to the media when it calls out candidate fiction.  The most recent example–Ben Carson’s lie about having being accepted at West Point andthe backlash by him and others against the press, claiming reporters are out to get him.

            First, what is a lie?  It is intentionally saying something one knows or should know to be false with the intent to deceive.  This should be contrasted from a mistake. I may believe something to be the case when it is not and if a state that then it is not a lie, only a mistake.  Lies can also be the withholding of critical or material information.  I tell you only part of the truth and not the “whole truth” as we swear to declare when testifying in court under oath.  There are also “white lies” such as “Yes Virginia there is a Santa Claus.”  They are still lies but the motive may be honorable, or at least not malicious.

            Generally we consider lying to be wrong.  We lie in order gave advantage for our self in a world where others act on the belief that we are telling the truth.   For Kant, lying is wrong because we make an exception for our self a general rule that says everyone should tell the truth. Honesty is necessary for trust, to be able to get along with others, and to encourage reliance upon others.  Live in a world where no one can trust one another and quickly we would fall into a Hobbesian state of nature.

            Lies have been a part of politics since the days of ancient Greece.  In the Republic Plato wrote of the noble lie–a story to tell people about the origins of social classes in order to justify political  relations and authority.  Rousseau too speaks of political lies in his Discourse on the Origins of Inequality, as does Dostoevsky in his tale of the Grand Inquisitor in Brothers Karamazov.   In perhaps the single best book ever written about political lies, Sissela Bok in  Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life,  argues against the claim that politicians or public officials can lie in the name of the public good.  In a democratic society, lying to the public is wrong because it make you–the public official–the sole arbiter of what is the public good.  That is the task of elections and the people who are sovereign.  Additionally, lying to the public undermines political legitimacy and it fails to treat the public with respect.

            But the lying we are seeing in 2016 is not of the kind above. What we are seeing are not lies in the alleged public interest.  Instead they seem to be lies about one’s autobiography or about the state of the affairs of the world.  For example, Carly Fiorina has lied both about the contents of a Planned Parenthood video and the percentage loss of jobs for women under Obama. Some have argued she has also lied about her career and working her way from secretary to CEO.  Marco Rubio has been accused of lying about his family and the flight from Cuba under Castro.  Hilary Clinton is accused of lying about everything if you listen to some.

            In 2016 we are seeing a different type of lie, along with the reaction to it.  Collectively, the Republican presidential candidates are at least in denial if not lying about global warming and its causes. Some are lying about their tax plans or their political records. All of them, but especially Trump, seem to be lying about who the unauthorized immigrants  (illegal immigrants) are and what impact they have on the economy.  The type of lies here are ones where even if they have made a mistake initially, the scientific or other evidence is overwhelming and when confronted with the facts, they should change their claims.  But they do not.  They remain  fastened to their denials.  Few want to call this a lie.  Some might say a candidate is wrong or misinformed on an issue.  Yet when individuals intentionally repeat information or make statements they know or should know are false, that is a lie.

            But why do they lie?  There are many reasons, both psychological and political.  Perhaps it is ego, self-aggrandizement, or even the seduction of power. These lies are done to help them win elections by appealing to the prejudices or beliefs of some voters.  There is a pure instrumentality to these lies.  But most people don’t seem to consider these statements lies.  Exactly why is perplexing.  Maybe public expects politicians to lie.  Or on some matters of public policy voters too are confused or they view political statements no more than mere statements of belief–akin to saying “tomorrow will be a better day.”  Or maybe the public simply accepts candidate exaggeration–perhaps no different than when people lie on their own resumes.

            Yet usually even if the public does not treat candidate statements about political issues as lies  traditionally personal statements about one’s autobiography are viewed differently.  Most voters can understand personal lies–claims that one did or did not do something in private life.  Nixon lying about his involvement in Watergate is a good example.

            Traditionally the role of the media in the United States is to seek the truth and publicize it.  The Jeffersonian idea of democracy requires a free press to provide the critical information the public  needs to know in order govern and make choices.  The press also has a watchdog function, serving to uncover corruption and public deception in order to hold the government accountable.  The gold standard of journalism, as well documented in All the President’s Men, is to provide two sources to corroborate facts.  In fact, the job of a journalist is about publishing the truth by gathering and weighing the facts.  Real journalism is not simply reporting what two sides say–such as what the Democrats and Republicans assert–but determine what is truth and print it.  There are many economic reasons and pressures why the press often no longer does this, instead simply pandering to the prejudices of their audience into order to maximize revenue.  As a result, public trust in the media is low.

            Now enter Ben Carson.  By all accounts he has repeatedly lied about being accepted to West Point.  He never applied, never was accepted.  The media reported that and now they are looking into  other claims he has made about his upbringing.  Why?  If Carson is making his life story his political  narrative he has placed it into the public domain for scrutiny.  The press has a right to investigate it.  Had Carson not made his personal life public then perhaps the press should not care, especially stories about who Carson was in his youth.  But Carson is putting his personal character into  political and public display, thereby making his lies relevant to his fitness for office.

            No surprise Carson is angry at the press for effectively calling him a liar. More surprising is  the public backlash against the media, with some claiming they are out to get Carson.  Some of the reaction is political, some a product of the declining trust in the media.  Some of it is cognitive dissonance, where supporters will dismiss information contrary to what they believe. One reporter  I know calls this faith-based politics.  No matter what the facts are one holds fast to one’s beliefs.  My candidate did not lie, the media is out to get him.

            Social media does not help.  Who know what percentage of what is found on Facebook is even close to the truth.  Facebook facts simply confuse more, sow doubt, and appeal to the ignorance, intolerance, and paranoid style of American politics that historian Richard Hofstadter wrote about.   Nor does the American educational system help–increasingly it fails to do what the it should do–force students to confront ideas that challenge their prejudices.  And the courts do not help–striking down lies regulating political lies.

            So where does this take us?  In the 2016 presidential election lying seems everywhere but it also seems no one is bothered by it.  No one really thinks that truth exists or that anyone really tells the truth, or that it does not matter.  Abraham Lincoln may have been wrong–perhaps you can deceive all of the people all of the time, and that no candidate (or group in politics) need fear the sanctions associated with lying.

Ben Carson’s America

With Ben Carson taking the lead over Donald Trump in Iowa and perhaps nationally there will be new media focus on him in the third Republican debate.  So far he has not gotten much scrutiny, but that will soon change.

            What does Ben Carson’s America look like?  In many ways perhaps not so different from that of Trump’s, Fiorina, and most of the rest of the Republican presidential field.  More style than substance has distinguished the various GOP candidates from one another, but in so many ways they share along with the congressional Freedom Caucus (the Tea Party) faith in what I shall call the five Cs: Conservatism, Constitutionalism, Capitalism, Christianity, and Caucasianism.  It is these five Cs–especially let’s call them the Five Fundamentalist Cs–that really is the core of  what Ben Carson’s America looks like.

            Carson’s campaign slogan is “Heal, Inspire, Revive.”    Ted Cruz’s is  "Reigniting the Promise of America.”  Trump’s is “Make American Great Again.”  All three speak to an America in decline, one that has drifted away from it basic principles or values.  They want to bring America back to an ideal they once saw in the US but which they see having slipped away, especially under Obama.  It is a retro image of America–no, not a benign Norman Rockwell one–but nonetheless one that  looks at the country with a halcyon view of the past.  It is less looking at the world though rose colored glasses or one that has golden tones.  It is instead that world of the five fundamental Cs.

            It is a conservative America, one hostile to change and resistant to new ideas, especially those based on science and reason.  Thus it is an America that denies global warming, ignores the reality about immigration, cannot come to grips with the fact that vaccines work and do not cause autism, and questions whether other countries have ideas from which we can learn.  But on the other hand, Clinton sold us out in Benghazi, Planned Parenthood got rich selling dead baby parts, and Obama is a Muslim who is not an American citizen.

            It an America of constitutionalism.  No, not a constitutionalism that generally emphasizes individual rights but one of limited government, especially a federal government.  It is a belief that all government is wrong, but especially the federal government since the New Deal, and there is a need to strictly enforce the Constitution to limit the size of the government.  It detests presidential power–at least as used by Obama–and selectively wants to give absolutism to the Second and Tenth Amendments–but sees no constitutional impediment to waterboarding or restrictions on government spying on its own citizens in the interest of national security.  Nor does the Fourteenth Amendment means what is says when it declares all who are born in the US are citizens.  And even if it does mean that, we should change it in the interest of getting the Constitution right in terms of what it is supposed to mean.

            It is an America of capitalism.  It is no coincidence that the Declaration of Independence and Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (the book giving the first expression and description of capitalism) both came in 1776. Markets are good, government is bad. Who needs regulation, such as the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act, as Trump recently remarked.  Business can figure out how to protect the environment much in the same way that the Obamacare is not needed because the private sector can find better ways to insure more people than the government can.  We do not need to tax the rich, the benefits of capitalism will trickle down to all of us.  Welfare disincentivizes the poor and crowds out charity, taxes discourage individuals and businesses from investing, and left to its own devices, privatized government services will do it faster, better, and cheaper than all those lazy overpaid government workers.

            It is an America that is Christian. God Bless America. We are one nation under (a Christian) God.  Muslims are not welcome and are suspect, especially unfit to be president.  Jews are tolerated, and non-mainstream Christian faiths such as Seven Day Adventists are not really Christian.  The Constitutional Framers never intended a separation of church and state.  Government should be able to enforce morality, ban abortion, prevent gays and lesbians from marrying.  Christians should be able to invoke the First Amendment to discriminate, to refuse to provide for birth control for women, and force everyone to pray in public school.  With God on our side America can again be a great nation–just let’s not remind anyone about all the times true Christian politicians have been caught with their pants down.

            Finally, it is an America that is Caucasian (and male). Especially ironic in part for Carson.  But it wants a color-blind America–or at least one that says that the only color that matters is white and that all of us should act that way.  It denies racism still exists, all lives matter and not Black Lives Matter, and that police target racial minorities.  We need to erect a big wall across American borders (Even Canada for ex-candidate Walker) to keep not just the illegals out but perhaps also to keep all immigrants out.  America was better when it was almost all white, but now immigration is flooding America with lazy, welfare-dependent rapists and murders who just want to come to the US to steal our jobs.  Oh, except for those agricultural jobs, according to Carson, that pay so low that no real American’s want them.

            Ben Carson’s America is what they think the country was like 50 years ago.  Or maybe 100 years, of perhaps what it was in 1787 or 1776.  It was an America where God made America a shining city on a hill where rich white guys ruled and where everyone else knew their place, whether it was on the plantation, in the kitchen, or working for the businessman who knew best how to invest his money and provide for us all.

            This is Ben Carson’s America.

A Tale of Two Parties: The Challenges Facing the Republican and Democratic Parties in 2016

            In contrasting ways both the national Republican and Democratic parties are divided and dysfunctional, facing terrific challenges as they enter the 2016 elections.  Their respective troubles speak to many issues, but among them is both a generational shift occurring in the US and the failure of the establishment in the parties to keep pace with these changes.  Political scientists like to speak of critical party realignments.  These are processes where parties redefine themselves, adopting new policies and coalitions to reflect the changing political landscape.  Realignments are necessary for political survival.  Yet in so many ways, what we are seeing with the Republicans and Democrats are realignments that are either going in the wrong direction or which are stalled, thereby contributing to the problems they face as they enter 2016.

The Republicans

            When Abraham Lincoln in 1858 gave his famous “A house divided against itself cannot stand” speech he was referring to a country torn by slavery not a House of Representatives and Republican Party divided against itself.  But that is exactly what we are witnessing now.  First it was the presidential race where the so-called establishment party candidates with governing experience (Jeb Bush for example) are losing to the outsiders (Trump, Carson, and Fiorina) or to the hard right (Cruz).  But now the House of Representatives is a mess: Boehner is out, McCarthy is out, and the Liberty Caucus of the House (aka the Tea Party members) is looking to weaken the Speaker’s position and pull the Republicans even farther to the right and into even a more confrontational mode against Obama, Democrats, and really government and the institution of the House itself.  One thought it was bad enough that the Republican House could not accomplish anything in the last four years, now it cannot even rule itself.  It is a party hugely divided against itself, and against its future.

            The Tea Party has won.  They have achieved a critical realignment of the Republican Party, remaking it in is conservative image.  It took five years but now they have enough clout to at stalemate the party, if not perhaps completely take it over.  Critical realignments of parties are good–they are ways to realign the base and policy preferences of the party so that it will be able to survive and reflect the changing and evolving political landscape.  Yet the critical alignment of the Republican party is retrogressive–it is a party taking it backwards in time. 

            The new Republican Party is one that seems to represent not a new emerging demographic of America–one that is more multicultural and racially diverse–but one that is a throwback to the aging base of its that will literally die off in the next few years.  Phrase otherwise, the future belongs to the Millennials but the Republicans are still locked into the politics of the Silent generation.  They are adopting views on immigration, abortion, GLBT rights, and taxes that are clearly at odds with those views held by the Millennials.  Moreover, they are hardly a populist party.  Their views on GLBT rights, guns, and money in politics are in clear opposition to where public opinion in America is headed, and also to where majorities of their own members are in some cases.  Throw in their views on taxes and it is clear that the new GOP is a plutocratic one, increasingly anachronistic and at odds where history is headed. Contrary to the claims of some that the Republicans are the party of no, they actually do have an agenda.  It may not be one that they can govern on, but they do seem to have an emerging an clear narrative, even if that narrative is one that is a throwback in time and to a set of views that is so many ways take them back to a world before the New Deal.

The Democrats

            The best thing the Democrats have going for them is the Republicans.  Yet the Democrats too are a divided party–just look at Clinton versus Sanders.  Clinton is still leading in the national polls and have a ton of party regulars and leaders supporting her, but polls show little enthusiasm for her among many of her supporters. She is the safe candidate, although one that the polls again suggest may not be able to win over critical swing voters in swing states.

            Sanders speaks to a base of the Democratic Party fed up with its institutionalism and elitism.  Obama  disappointed, he helped the banks and Wall Street and never did much for workers, unions, and middle class America.  He now seems paralyzed in waning presidency.  Sanders offers something Obama, Clinton, and the Democrats have not had since 2008–a narrative for why they should govern.  “Change” was great in 2008 but since then what has been the narrative for the Democrats?  What is the message they offer for why they should stay in power and govern?  Simply saying the Republicans are nuts is not enough.  The lack of narrative cost Democrats power in 2010 and 2014 and it was only a weak Mitt Romney that saved them in 2012.  Clinton has no narrative in 2016, Sanders does. He has pulled near even with Clinton in fundraising, still leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, and draws enthusiastic large crowds.  Clinton for now has huge advantages further down the line, even if Biden enters the race. Clinton should be able to wipe out a Socialist running as a Democrat, yet her failure to do so speaks to her weaknesses and to the dangers facing a Democratic Party establishment that has too quickly endorsed a candidate who too may not be where the future of the party is.  Clinton, like Bush, is yesterday, not the future.

            Moreover, Democrats are counting too much on “demographics are destiny” in 2016.  The demographics are against Republicans and favor Democrats, but one still needs a reason to get people to vote, and they includes offering a good candidate with views that will motivate and mobilize.  Remember 2014 where we threw an election and no one voted?   Clinton lacks the buzz, Sanders may have that.  The Democratic party divide mirrors the Republican Party–establishment v outsiders, aging Boomers v Millennials.   The problem the Democrats face right now is that while demographics are destiny, the leadership is fighting this destiny both by embracing policies and candidates who might now reflect this destiny, and by a failure to construct a narrative to take advantage of that destiny.

              It is the best and worst of times for the Republicans and Democrats.  Both have the potential to change but they approach and they direction they are taking may not where history suggests they  should move.  What also may be occurring is that the divides between and within these parties reflects more powerful divides within the US across race, class, gender, region, and religion.  Lincoln may have been right in that a house divided against itself cannot stand.  The divisions that we see politically reflect broader divides found in America society, yet neither the Democrats nor Republicans seem capable at addressing  these divides.

Counted in or Counted Out Before the Counting Begins: The Curious Case of Hilary Clinton and 2016 Presidential Race

Remember–Not one primary vote has been cast nor one caucus delegate stood up to show support for a candidate.  No primaries have been held and no caucuses have begun.  Yet despite the fact that the official presidential race has yet to begin, winners and losers are already being declared, often no more than based on polls, pundits, and the game of perception which is at the heart of American presidential politics.  More so than any other candidate, this is the fate of Hilary Clinton.  Yet we should be skeptical of what all this pre-primary noise tell us in terms of assessing the presidential candidates, including Clinton.

 One presidential candidate (Rick Perry) has already dropped out.  Others will no doubt do the same before the real start of the presidential race on February 1, when the Iowa caucuses take place.  Expect this week’s CNN  Republican presidential debate to winnow out the fortunes of a few more candidates.  It could be Pataki, Christie, Graham, Walker, Jindal, or someone else. But one or more of them will have another bad debate performance, their money will dry up, the media will declare them dead, and their campaigns will fade away.  But for others, such as Trump, Fiorina,  and Carson, who have never received a single political vote for them in their entire life, they seem to be riding tall, with poll numbers that almost seem ephemeral. The test for them will be delivery in Iowa and  New Hampshire, the ability to attract donors, volunteers, and voters who will actually turn out for them when they need to be counted.  Can they translate name recognition and personal brands into  a real campaign?  This is really the only thing that should matter.  For now, it is all about perception.  Look to see the Wednesday debate to be pugnacious, no one can afford to let Trump steal the show again.

 Perception in many ways is the fate of Hilary Clinton.  I know of no candidate subject to more speculation and expectations than her.  Some of it is self-inflicted.  Her resume as Senator and Secretary of State are impressive, although her real record of accomplishment is thin.  First in 08 and now in 16 she seems to be building an impressive political machine, raising money, securing endorsements, capturing super-delegates.  She also started months ago with the best name recognition among Democrats, high approvals from her Secretary of State days, and great poll numbers and a lead that towered over her rivals.  This year as in 2008 she has created an air of inevitability and invincibility.

 Yet as with 2008 her political campaign seems to be floundering.  Yes she is still in the lead in terms of endorsements, money, and many polls, but in the last two months much has changed.  Polls show Sanders beating her in New Hampshire, a new poll this week shows Sanders tied with her in Iowa among likely causes attendees.  Her enormous popularity from her Secretary of State days has lapsed and her negatives have gone up.  Head to head polls show a tight race with her and Republicans in the swing states or over all, and some polls show Biden (so far a non-candidate) and Sanders doing better than her in the presidential race.  In so many ways, Clinton looks better as a candidate when she in not one.

 Clinton’s problems are multiple.  She is the target of enormous sexism.  Republicans hate her, and she is the subject of many false claims.  Seriously, does anyone really think she ordered troops to effectively surrender in Benghazi?  Her private e-mail server while Secretary of State smacks of aloofness and privilege, but at the end of the day she was not selling secrets to the enemy.  She is neither a socialist (Sanders is) nor a closest one.  She is a mainstream Democrat, self-proclaimed.

 But Clinton has created her own problems.  She never appreciated the political baggage of the private e-mails.  She thinks that the proper response to criticism that she is not authentic is to send out a press release saying she will be more authentic.  She has build a campaign strong on her personality, but more importantly, one based on expectations.  Specifically, her greatest strength is her perception of her great strength–it is the impression she has created that she is inevitable and unbeatable that is the source of both her power and her ultimate weakness.

 If one runs as inevitable everyone wants to beat you. Everyone looks for dints in the armor, for signs of weaknesses.  This is where Clinton is again in 2016.    She ran as a bully in 2008 and lost and she seems to be doing that again.  People want to beat the bully, to take down the front runner, to beat the person everyone declares will win.

 Yet remember, as well as Sanders is doing and as badly as Clinton seems to be doing now,  no caucuses or primaries have taken place.  Polls are flawed, especially in predicting caucus and primary attendees.  They have margins of error and sampling problems.  Polls are merely snapshots in time that can change rapidly.  They fail to capture ground games or other intangibles that make for good candidates and campaigns.

 The point is that one should never declare a candidate a winner or a loser until the votes are counted.  This is true with Clinton.  She has both many assets and liabilities as a candidate and judging her now as in trouble or fine months before the first votes are cast is risky.  But if politics is often about perceptions, and you are a candidate like Clinton who has played politics your entire career based on it, be ready to be judged by these standards and not simply by actual votes.

Final Note: This week I had a wonderful time speaking to the South Metro Senior Caucus in Apple Valley.  Thank you for hosting me.  It was also great to meet so many wonderful people including Senator Carlson, Angie Craig, and Mary Lawrence.