Month: November 2016

I am a Nov. 8, 2016 purist; anything else is complicity

Hawaii Delilah, Nov. 20, 2016

The election in the United States of Donald Trump as president on Nov. 8, 2016 — without a popular vote mandate — has evoked questions about how a loyal Democrat should deal with Trump voters personally, and also in the halls of power.    

In my view, the election of Trump — a multifaceted  bigot — has created an imprimatur for racists and misogynists to express their disdain for those of us who are women, people of color, immigrants, and various other minorities.   


Continue reading “I am a Nov. 8, 2016 purist; anything else is complicity”

I don’t want to hear Democrats talking about working with Donald Trump. I want to hear Democrats talking about stopping his agenda.

Jack Runyan,  Nov. 18, 2016.

Here’s the reality: President-elect Donald Trump won the White House without winning the popular vote. He has the highest unfavorables of any President-elect polled by Gallup since 1992. Only 29% of Americans believe Trump has a mandate to carry out his agenda.

Compare this to 2008, where President Obama won the popular vote, had very high favorables after being elected, and 50% of Americans believed he had a mandate to pursue his agenda. This was alongside a sweeping win where Democrats took over both houses of Congress. But back then, none of those political realities stopped Mitch McConnell from making his first and foremost agenda the goal to ensure President Obama was a one-term President. They simply didn’t give a fuck: President Obama’s agenda was to be opposed by virtue of the fact that President Obama was pursuing it. That’s all that mattered.

Continue reading “I don’t want to hear Democrats talking about working with Donald Trump. I want to hear Democrats talking about stopping his agenda.”

Wine Review: Hope and Grace Merlot (there’s a political analogy)

Hawaii Delilah, Nov. 4, 2016

I was chatting with friends about some of my favorite Napa Valley wines and found myself being reminded of the 2011 Hope and Grace Merlot.  I want to note that Hope and Grace is one of my favorite boutique wineries in the Napa region. There is something to love in all their wines.  In this case,  I am looking at the 2011 Merlot.  Of note is the fact that it spent 22 months in French Oak and only 10 barrels of this wine were produced.


Ruby red in hue, this medium-bodied wine features fruit forward flavors of black cherry and blueberry, and is warmed by brown sugar and honey accents. Before one can be lulled into a sense of complacency on the palate, one’s senses are sparked by hints of pepper and spice, along with surprising aromatic intimations of bay leaf, rose, and violet. The base notes of chocolate and tobacco make it clear that the Hope and Grace Merlot embodies substance.
Continue reading “Wine Review: Hope and Grace Merlot (there’s a political analogy)”

Why I, as a progressive, cannot vote for a 3rd party presidential candidate in the United States

Jack Runyan, Nov. 4, 2016

It’s fair to say that I’m generally to the left of the Democratic Party on most issues. To give you some idea, if there were a well-crafted ballot initiative in my state proposing, say, a statewide universal basic income, I would probably vote for it. I think the debate around the minimum wage gets fixated on adjusting for inflation when that’s only a part of the issue; my view is that it should be adjusted for gains in productivity as well. In general, on economic issues, I would like to see a Democratic Party that proposes a platform in the spirit of the Second Bill of Rights. Even more ambitious is the platform put out by Movement for Black Lives, which is arguably the most thorough platform I have seen this entire election.

It’s no secret that Hillary Clinton’s platform is no where near as ambitious as either the Second Bill of Rights or the platform put forth by the Movement for Black Lives. This does not mean her platform is insignificant however. Far from it.

Continue reading “Why I, as a progressive, cannot vote for a 3rd party presidential candidate in the United States”

Ensuring Democratic Party longevity & a progressive agenda after Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump

Jack Runyan, Nov. 4, 2016

Future Democratic campaigns should prioritize face-to-face canvassing over all other GOTV strategies.

Scientific studies of various GOTV methods have consistently shown that direct contact with potential voters is the single most effective method for turning out additional people to the polls.

Alan Gerber and Don Greenran the first of these “field experiments” in 1998. The professors randomly assigned voters to receive different inducements to vote: some received postcards, some received phone calls, some received a visit from a canvasser, and some received nothing.

The experiment found that voters called on the phone or sent postcards were not noticeably more likely to vote than those sent nothing. But canvassing was different. Just one in-person conversation had a profound effect on a voter’s likelihood to go to the polls, boosting turnout by a whopping 20 percent (or around 9 percentage points).

The nearly two decades since Gerber and Green’s first experiment have consistently borne out their finding that personal conversations have special political potency.

In contrast, there is mounting evidence that campaign ads are not nearly as persuasive as vying politicians would hope. And yet, this year has been marked by millions of dollars directed to TV advertising. While some baseline presence on TV is probably a necessity, the science suggests that it’s daft to prioritize spending on campaign ads over face-to-face mobilization efforts.

If we accept as a maxim that increased overall turnout is good for Democrats and decreased overall turnout is bad for Democrats, this is an especially important question for midterm elections (where turnout generally drops compared to presidential elections). U.S. Representative Keith Ellison has personally embarked on a quest to drive up turnout, particularly during midterm years, through his own brand of face-to-face GOTV efforts:

…Ellison has workers fanning out to apartment buildings and low-income communities to reach potential constituencies in more personal ways. His idea is that through more one-on-one contact, Democrats can drive more people to the polls and cement lifetime allegiances to the party.

Enter Artiste Mayfield — a part-time employee at an Amazon warehouse and a college student who grew up in north Minneapolis. With streaked red and pink hair and glasses at the end of her nose, she doesn’t look like your typical hardened political operative. Last year, she knocked on more than 200 doors in the neighborhood. This was different from conventional political door-knocking, however. In this case, she knew many of the people behind the doors.

Mayfield also was part of a “SWAT” team — composed of blacks, Spanish speakers and Oromo speakers — who descended on apartment buildings and knocked on doors together. The idea was that no matter who was behind the door, there would be someone on the team whom he or she could relate to.

The results of this effort are striking:

Ellison can point to his own Fifth District in Minneapolis and parts of adjacent suburbs as proof that the system works. His was the only one in the state where turnout numbers grew significantly between 2010 and 2014 — both off-year, midterm elections. More than 13,000 additional voters in the district showed up in 2014 than in 2010 — by far the biggest spike seen across the state.

These results were achieved “without the enormous investment of television ads.” If implemented nationally, Democratic prospects in midterms could significantly improve.

Protecting and expanding voting rights may be the single-most important means of securing a progressive agenda.

Sean McElwee went through the American National Election Studies 2012 survey and produced a chart that makes this case better than anything else:


Consistently, nonvoters tend to favor a government more active in combating economic inequality, whereas those voting are more likely to oppose such a government. Furthermore, a survey of nonvoters from 2012 tend shows extraordinary support for Barack Obama over his then-rival Mitt Romney.


This suggests that turning nonvoters into voters would make the electorate more progressive, and therefore the elected government would ideally be more progressive in response. Therefore, protecting and expanding on voting rights has the potential for doing more to secure a progressive agenda than anything else. That means fighting for initiatives such as universal voter registration and making election day a holiday on top of combatting various forms of voter suppression, many of which disproportionately affect people of color and low income folks. The increased willingness of Republicans to adopt voter suppression tactics, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act, seems to suggest that they realize one of the greatest threats to their agenda is more people voting.

Democrats can be realistic while not being allergic to imagination and a strong progressive vision.

While Bernie Sanders ultimately lost the Democratic primary, understanding why his campaign was more successful than the majority of people originally predicted is a worthwhile exercise. His presidential campaign generated a unique brand of enthusiasm largely because his stances on various issues were not limited by perceived political realities: Medicare for All, tuition-free public colleges, a national minimum wage of $15 by 2020, and breaking up the largest financial institutions so they’re no longer too big to fail. All of these are ambitious policy objectives, but they were straightforward and easily conveyed a vision of a society characterized by economic justice. As someone who supported Bernie’s primary run throughout late 2015, the appeal of this platform was that it was seemingly free of bullshit: no playing around with means-testing and it’s absurd to say we can’t pay for these things when we are the wealthiest country on earth.

While I believe it’s vital to level with your supporters what aiming for these bold policy goals means in terms of the resistance they are likely to face, there still is a value in Democrats aiming high, especially during midterm elections. Whereas presidential elections entail rallying around a candidate, midterms should ideally be times where Democrats rally around key issues (e.g. a public option), and make clear that down ballot candidates winning across the country is necessary to achieve those objectives. The bottomline is you cannot separate excitement for Democratic candidates from their positions on the issues. And if the Democratic primary has taught us anything, it’s that Democratic voters now tend to be more liberal than Democratic voters in previous years.

The most reliable Democratic voters are people of color. Recognize that they are the base of the party and build on that.

In October, Jacobin posted a piece that suggests flipping Trump supporters to the Democratic Party’s umbrella is what is required to not only win the election, but secure Democratic majorities.

If Matthews supports the Democratic Party’s agenda, why wouldn’t he want it to win back as many Trump votes as it can? How can the Democrats gain the kinds of majorities they need to push through all the beneficent policies he cites if they fail to win votes away from the other side? Isn’t that one of the ways parties win elections — by taking votes from the other side? In fact, isn’t that why Hillary Clinton’s campaign is now wooing anti-Trump Republicans?

This is misguided. First of all, having the most votes isn’t just about taking voters from the other side. It can be about registering new people to vote and convincing them to vote for you as I noted in previous sections. Building off of that observation, the second point that needs to be reemphasized: people of color tend to be more reliable Democratic voters (as the 2012 CNN exit poll shows).

Instead of chasing after Trump’s white male base, which is predominantly motivated by apprehension toward a country that is rapidly changing demographically, it makes way more sense to expand the electorate with new and mobilized people of color. If people who voted for Trump end up voting for future Democratic candidates, that is one thing, but we should primarily court those most loyal to party.

One idea proposed by Professor Lisa García Bedolla of UC Berkeley entails the creation of an in-person social network that combines traditional in-person GOTV efforts with community organizing:

A permanent, year-round system can be established in minority neighborhoods for a fraction of the funds it takes to carpet-bomb voters with television ads. Lisa García Bedolla, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of “Latino Politics,” has developed a concept called the “civic web” that is a synthesis of the old-fashioned precinct captain model, modern-day social networks and culturally specific community organizing. Paid staff members, neighborhood team leaders and block captains are part of a seamless network where the employees recruit and supervise volunteers — especially mothers, who are critical to building good voting habits in their families and communities.

The civic web leverages face-to-face social networks and emphasizes long-term relationship building. In a battleground state such as Nevada — which Mr. Obama won by about 66,000 votes — Ms. García Bedolla estimates, the civic web model could, by 2020, mobilize more than 100,000 additional Latino voters at a cost of $3.1 million.

Winning elections, not bipartisanship, is the only way forward in the face of GOP intransigence.

In 2009, John Cole wrote something that proved to be extraordinarily prescient in retrospect:

I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years.

We have now reached a point where Republican officials refuse to hold hearings on Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court. But now conservative groups like Heritage Action are committed to 8 Supreme Court justices throughout Hillary Clinton’s presidency, and elected officials are promising “years” of investigations targeting her as well.  The reality is that Republicans have abandoned any semblance of interest in governance. Proposing bipartisanship with a party that is fundamentally at odds with the notion of Hillary Clinton governing is a fool’s errand, and quite frankly, talking about bipartisanship with a party establishment that’s been okay with a white nationalist on the top of the ticket so long as tax cuts for the rich come to pass is an insult to the base of our party, people of color.

Until the Republican Party engages in collective self-reflection and commits to actually caring about governing again, Democrats should not campaign on the notion of bipartisanship. Democratic voters want to hear their candidates talking about winning majorities and fostering the conditions necessary to pass policy solutions, not working with a party whose leadership did not buck Donald Trump as the Republican nominee.


Securing a long-term Democratic majority is contingent on:

  1. Prioritizing in-person voter contact methods for GOTV.
  2. Safeguarding existing voting rights while pushing for voting right reforms across the country.
  3. Getting more people to vote, especially given that nonvoters tend to have more progressive views than people who currently vote.
  4. Recognizing that being realistic about perceived political realities is not incongruent with offering a bold progressive vision of where we should go, particularly in light of the increasing number of Democrats who identify as liberal.
  5. Recognizing that people of color are the base of the Democratic Party and build on that.
  6. Candidates that recognize that winning majorities, not bipartisanship, is the only way to achieve new policies given the extraordinary intransigence we are witnessing from the GOP.

Edit (11/15/16 1:01 AM): This piece was originally written under the presumption that Hillary Clinton would win. While we are disappointed (frankly, horrified) that presumption turned out to be incorrect, we still feel the advice offered in this piece is a winning strategy for Democrats going forward. This piece has been edited to reflect this new information.

Political correctness, Donald Trump, and the pathological politics of cruelty

Hawaii Delilah, Nov. 3, 2016

In July 2015, I made a bet with several friends that Donald Trump would win the Republican nomination.  Most of them happily took on the wager, assured that there was no conceivable way that the flamboyant real estate businessman and television reality star would actually attain that goal.   Setting aside the fact that I now have a lot of free dinners in my future, the fact is that my friends were merely making reasonable judgements about the Republican primary contest based on past precedent.


As  one friend, a lawyer from New York, said to me, “That’s not how it works.  He [Trump] will be like Michele Bachman or Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich and have his place at the top of the polls for a month or two, then things will settle out.”  My friend was convinced Marco Rubio would be the nominee because he was the young star of the Republican Party and presented as moderate, his actual record notwithstanding.  Other friends posited the view that Jeb Bush’s war chest would win the day – even though I pointed out that money for advertising was no longer a determinant of election outcomes.   Later on, I had other people express alarm that the likes of John Kasich would pose a serious threat to Hillary Clinton due to his folksy image and congenial persona that obfuscated his more problematic policy positions.   Overall, the general consensus was that Trump would be the “flavor of the month” or maybe two months, and then fade away, making room for a more moderate  choice with a serious chance to win the general election.  As my New York lawyer friend had  implied — that’s how things work. 
Continue reading “Political correctness, Donald Trump, and the pathological politics of cruelty”