Why Democrats (and Everyone) Should Care About People Who Don't Vote

by Brian T. Lynch

Both political parties in America, along with virtually all television pundits and political opinion polling companies focus entirely on 60% of likely voters. We all ignore 40% of potential voters who don't vote. Polling surveys commissioned by both the Democratic and Republican Parties are always predicated on some variation of likely voters. The results are then grise for the mill of television and newspaper commentators and political party prognosticators. And so it is settled wisdom that all of our elections boil down to 7% of likely voters who are also the swing voters among us. Rightly or not, these much fawned over swing voters are considered most independent voters with centrist political ideology. These swing voters have a disproportionate influence over electoral strategies and policy positioning. As a result, we never hear much about the 40% of all Americans who are disillusioned with politics.

The conventional wisdom is that these non-voters don't care about politics, but it is equally true that the body politic doesn't care about these non-voters. We have come to the point where non-voters are the largest block of eligible voters in America. But are they really unreachable? Or are they justifiably disengaged because they are neglected by both the Democratic and Republican Parties? What is the potential for re-engaging this huge block of the electorate, and which political party has the most to gain? Which of our current Presidential candidates have the best shot at reaching out to these non-voters? And who are they anyway?

Why Democrats should care more about non-voters than swing voters

·      Among likely voters, there are about 10 million swing voters or 7% of all likely voters according to Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight

·      There were 91.7 million non-voters in the 2016 presidential election or 40% of all eligible voters. Non-voters are the largest group of eligible voters

·      54% of non-voters (49.5 million votes) are Democrats or left-leaning non-voters

·      Another 10% of non-voters (14.7 million votes) have no political leaning

·      52% of all non-voters (47.7 million votes) want more government services, not less

·      The 64.2 million non-voting Democrats, left-leaning or neutral eligible voters represent over 6.4 times the number of swing voters in the 2016 election

·      This compares with 65.9 million Democratic votes for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election

Who are the eligible voters that are not engaged in voting?

·      66   million non-voters (72%) are under age 50. They are mostly younger voters

·      59.6 million non-voters (65%) are dissatisfied with the way things are in the country

·      54.1 million non-voters (59%) are White (non-Latino) citizens

·      19.3 million non-voters (21%) are Latino citizens

·      11   million non-voters (12%) are Black citizens

·      55  million non-voters (60%) either graduated or dropped out of high school

·      54.1 million non-voters (59%) are single

·      46.8 million non-voters (51%) experienced unemployment in their household in the prior 12 months

     39.4 million non-voters (43%) have household incomes of $30,000 or less per year

      By far, the largest number of eligible non-voters are people who once made up the base of the Democratic Party. They are citizens for whom the rightward and upward shift of both political parties over the year has left them without a voice in government. It is not only the right thing to do to reconnect with these less-fortunate Americans, but it is also in the best interest of the Democratic Party and the Nation. These disillusioned, often angry citizens are most vulnerable to the nationalistic authoritarian appeals to which they are being targeted every day. 

-----------------------------------------------------------

Wealth, Carbon, and Human Culture

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

The rising accumulation of private wealth is to civilized governments as rising levels of CO2 are to Earth’s climate.

Let that sink in. Extremes accumulations of private wealth in human society and the extreme build-up of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere are both transformative, disruptive of a complex equilibrium and ultimately destructive for humanity.

Human culture is both a cause and a barrier to solving these two great threats to our collective welfare. In fact, these two looming catastrophes of extreme wealth inequality and extreme climate change are different aspects of a singular human flaw - personal greed. More specifically, both of these threats are outcomes of a powerful cultural priority that places profits over people. We don’t do what is our health best for human society because the cost would reduce personal profits for those who profit the most. The idea that we would not sacrifice personal wealth to save our immediate family from ruin is unthinkable, yet in the abstract of corporate enterprise, the concept of sacrificing business profits to benefit society as a whole is equally unthinkable.

We are at the second great inflection point as a species. We once again face social deterioration and possible extinction, despite being at the apex of our success as a species.

Humanity's first inflection point was over 50,000 years ago when we almost became extinct. We were down to a very small number of survivors in Ethiopia. As a species, we were incapable of self-sacrifice to benefit the survival of the clan. This nearly caused our extinction. In this regard, we were much like many other species in this regard.

Consider the wolf. In the presence of a kill, the strongest wolf defends its right to eat its fill. It cannot eat less in order to save some meat for members of the pack who are starving. This is how evolution ensures the survival of the fittest among these top predators. But humans were never top predators. Our strength as a species is in our social bonds and the coordination of our collective actions. We, as a species, needed to suppress our self-preservation instincts to achieve our survival as a species.

We are told that this genetic alteration happened at this point around 50,000 years ago. It allowed individuals to sacrifice their personal welfare for the sake of the welfare of the group. This great self-sacrifice gene has carried us forward to the present. It has allowed us to create this massively interdependent human culture we enjoy today.

But now our more primitive personal greed tendencies are finding expression in an inability to sacrifice corporate profit (a hypothetical construct, and not an actual reality) to benefit the welfare of human society as a whole. Our inability to sacrifice corporate profits is once again threatening our existence as a species.

It is my curse to see this so clearly when so many seem incapable of seeing it at all.

The Centrist Threat to Democracy and the Globe

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW 

An editorial (and request for reader support) in The Guardian caught my attention because it so well states what is at stake for the United States and the world in the 2020 election. Please allow me to share part of it here and follow-up with an editorial comment of my own.

In his editorial, Hamilton Nolan of the Guardian writes:

"Even in our pitifully broken semi-democracy, rich people shouldn’t be in charge. The math is against them. There are, by definition, comparatively few rich people, and many middle- and lower-class people. In a two-party system where one party represents the interests of the rich and the other party is meant to represent the interests of everyone else, logic says that the rich people party should lose most of the time, based on sheer numbers. The political power of plutocrats should be arbitraged out of existence as parties seek a larger base." So true! This expresses in other words what I have been trying to say."

Here is the article:

THEGUARDIAN.COM

Bernie Sanders' real obstacle is not Trump. It's the Democratic establishment | Hamilton Nolan

More from the above Editorial:

"For the past four years, it has been clear that Sanders and Trump each represent a direct response to the severe (and warranted) disillusionment of average Americans, who have seen the American dream of economic mobility die during their lifetimes.
Trump represents the dark path of racism, nationalism, and division; Bernie represents the other path, of socialism, multiculturalism, and solidarity... Any sane and moral political party should want to do everything possible to make Sanders’ vision become a reality. The alternative is not a fresh flowering of centrism. It is something much, much worse.
America is at a tipping point, finely balanced between truth and lies, hope and hate, civility and nastiness. Many vital aspects of American public life are in play – the Supreme Court, abortion rights, climate policy, wealth inequality, Big Tech and much more. The stakes could hardly be higher."

Everyone, please hear me out!

We must reject the urge for safe, centrist candidates who believe they can still reach across the aisle for bipartisan support for their half measures and incremental steps. This didn't work in 2016 and it isn't going to work now. The number of disillusioned citizens far outnumber the entire Democratic Party, let alone the elites and centrists within it. A centrist candidate may feel safe, but we are beyond normal politics. We are in a war against a well funded, wells organized global authoritarian movement threatening democracies everywhere.

Donald Trump has had three more years to harvest disaffected "likely-voters" and 45% of all eligible voters who stopped voting for either party years ago. He is coaxing these folks to join his dark and vile plutocracy.

If the Democratic party doesn't boldly reconnect with poor people and the working poor (our traditional base), the opportunity to beat back the dark forces of fascist-style authoritarianism will be lost for a generation. The consequences will be atrocious, if not actually bloody. And a generation lost is enough time for the very worst effects of global warming to be baked into the future of the planet for a millennium.

Grasping the Scales of Wealth Inequality

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

The human brain has inherent limitations built-in when it comes to imagining the relative differences of huge numbers, whether they are describing the very small or the very large. Genetically speaking, we don’t have the intuitive capacity to handle very large numbers. We distort the scale and tend to group together orders of magnitude that aren’t at all alike. The best we can do is evaluate good, often visual comparatives.

Another brain limiting feature is that we tend to perceive things by putting similar things into the same buckets in order to make sense of a world of infinite variability. If we see a color that is red, slightly bluish red or slightly red-orange, our brain puts the visual input into the red bucket, and that is what we see.

In the same way, when we see big numbers or even bigger numbers we tend to group them in the big numbers bucket without really noticing just how out of scale our perceptions might be.

This human limitation doesn’t often matter in the day-to-day experience of most people, but it matters a great deal when it comes to understanding concepts such as our growing wealth inequality. There is at least a thousand-fold difference between a millionaire and a billionaire, yet most of us put them both in the “rich” bucket.

If we say that one dollar equals one unit of social power (social power being the ability to coordinate the actions of other, as a quick and dirty definition), then a “rich” billionaire is a thousand times more powerful than a “rich” millionaire, but it doesn’t seem that way to us. Many US billionaires have more than 20 billion dollars and they are major influencers in government policy and political decision making, yet we see them as merely rich.

So, this is an attempt to put wealth into a proper sense of scale using visual comparisons.

BASED ON THE WEIGHT OF A $1 BILL

$100 in singles

A single US dollar bill (a US Treasury note) weighs .04 ounces. Stack a hundred $1 bills together and they weigh just 4 ounces. In other words, a hundred dollars in singles weighs 4 ounces. That happens to be the exact weight of my favorite sandwich, peanut butter and jelly. I would never pay for my PBJ according to its weight in dollar bills, but to me, it tastes like a hundred bucks.



 



$1,000

A thousand one-dollar bills, or 10 stacks of one-hundred US Treasury notes, weighs as much as 10 peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, or 2.5 pounds. That weight is equal to a very full glass of water in a pint-sized beer glass. But, beer weights less than water in case you happen to be staring at your fresh pint of Guinness right now.





$1,000,000

A million dollars is a thousand times more than a thousand dollars. It’s a big leap, so all the weights go way up. A million one-dollar US Treasury notes weigh 2.5 tons (or the same as 10,000 PBJs). Your average pickup trucks couldn’t haul that much weight. You would need two ¾-ton pickups to haul a million one-dollar bills around town. And if you do, you really need to trust that other driver.


 

$1,000,000,000

A billion dollars is another giant leap. It isn't in the same bucket as a million bucks at all. It is a thousand times more than a million dollars. A billion US treasury notes would weigh a whopping 2,500 tons (ten-million PBJs). That is just shy of the weight of two fully grown Sierra Redwood trees with trunks so wide you could carve out a tunnel through them and drive the two pick-up trucks above right under the trunks. Keep in mind the weight of a million Treasury notes is only the cargo in the bed of two pickups, not the trucks themselves.  I visited the Redwood Forest last summer and I still can't imagine the weight of those trees.

The point here is to help everyone see that billionaires and millionaires are very different species. We must be put them in a very different bucket when we think about wealth and wealth inequality. Most of the billionaires in the world are here in the USA. We have over 500 of them. Together they control almost all of the wealth in this country.  They exsert an unimaginable influence over our government. If 90% of the people in this country want sensible gun control legislation and can't get it passed in Congress, it is because of the enormous power of a handful of uber-wealthy individuals who control enormous wealth and power.

So, the next time you pick up a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, remember that someone like Jeff Bezos privately owns the dollar-weight equivalent of a billion PBJs and Michael Bloomberg's wealth in the weight of a dollar bill is equal to the weight of 120 redwood trees.

BASED ON THICKNESS OF A $100 BILL

Instead of a US Treasury Note's weight, how do millionaires and billionaires stack up based on the thickness of a $100 dollar bill?  If you are of average height, make two stacks of $100 bills the hight of your knee cap. That is approximately one million dollars. Now keep stacking those two piles of $100 bills until they are about 400 feet above the Empire State Building. Congratulations, now you have your first one-billion dollars. And if you are Michael Bloomberg, you have about 160 stacks of bills higher than the Empire State Building.

And here is why it matters so much in our republic, in the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt:

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power." 

---------------------------------------------------------

2/28/2020 - I have added the following video link. It is a fantastic visual aid in understanding the scale of wealth inequality and I highly recommend you watch it.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1233405556796403714

And here are a few graphs to consider when thinking about Wealth and Income Inequality

A Solution to "Sh*t-Life Syndrome" in America

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

I shared on Facebook a recent article at the CounterPunch Website by Bruce E. Levine titled, “Sh*t-Life Syndrome,” Trump Voters, and Clueless Dems. I got back a surprising question from a conservative friend and Trump supporter. He asked, “What is your solution to this problem?

I will offer one solution below, but first, let’s define the problem. You can read the above article for yourself, but the premise of it is stated in the first sentence:

“Getting rid of Trump means taking seriously “sh*t-life syndrome”—and its resulting misery, which includes suicide, drug overdose death, and trauma for surviving communities.”

The author goes on to say,

“The Brookings Institution, in November 2019, reported: “53 million Americans between the ages of 18 to 64—accounting for 44% of all workers—qualify as ‘low-wage.’ Their median hourly wages are $10.22, and median annual earnings are about $18,000… For most of these low-wage workers… “Finding meaning in life is close to impossible; the struggle to survive commands all intellectual and emotional resources.” 

That last statement also explains part of the reason 91.7 million eligible voters didn’t vote in the 2016 election. So many of them are barely hanging on day-to-day. I have written elsewhere that for decades neither political party has addressed the needs of the 45% of all Americans who live below the middle-class. These are the people who stopped voting. Referring to non-voters, I have written elsewhere:

“For too long politics has failed to make any difference in their lives. It doesn't matter which party is in power. Nobody cares about them. For the past 30 years, politicians have only cared about the middle-class or special interest groups. Even after 10% of the voters voted for the first time in the 2016 election, 40% of all eligible voters still didn't vote. We can do better because much of this 40% were once a big part of the Democratic base. We stopped attending to the needs of the poor and working class.”

What is the solution?
No one has all of the solutions figured out, but we can start by valuing everyone who works for a living. We can start by paying the lowest wage workers a living wage for a week’s work. Hear me out.

A living wage is a market-based minimum wage index. It isn’t an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all government number. A living wage respects all regional economic conditions. A living wage in Biloxi would be lower than a living wage in the Bronx because of their different cost of living conditions. A living wage law would require business owners to provide their lowest-paid employees a sufficient wage package for full-time work so that a low wage employee is not dependent on taxpayer assistance for housing, food, essential transportation or medicine. It wouldn’t pay a mortgage, or for vacations or luxury items. It doesn’t replace competitive, merit-based wage compensation for the rest of the experienced or more skilled workforce. It sets a wage floor below which workers financially qualify for public assistance (aid to the working poor). It set the wage minimum at a level that makes an employee marginally self-sufficient and therefore it maintains the dignity of work.

Most people already agree that we must end wasteful taxpayer subsidies to wealthy corporations for all sorts of tax breaks they receive. We should start by ending labor subsidies for low pay workers in America. Let’s end government assistance to the working poor by making Corporations pay their low-wage workers enough so taxpayers don’t have to supplement workers’ income to pay the rent, put food on the table, care for their children while they work, or pay for a doctor and medicine every time their kid gets sick. When we pay a living wage to low wage parents, it frees them up to be better parents and good role models to their children.

Every time the government steps in to pay for necessities it is degrading for the workers who must request this assistance. It says to them that their employer doesn’t recognize their true worth. Their employers won’t even pay them the bare minimum it takes to live a life. This takes a toll on a worker’s self-esteem. It often forces them to work overtime or take a second job to make ends meet.
When the working poor and working-class families try and get off government assistance they are often forced to work more hours. They become absentee parents by degree. Without parental supervision, their children are less disciplined and more peer-influenced. Their children might stop doing their homework, for instance, or lose their focus on school making them less successful in school and in life. When parents aren’t home to structure their time children may start hanging out with the wrong crowd. They face greater temptations and risky behaviors that lead them into a vicious cycle of declining prospects, and the “sh*t-life syndrome” is passed along to another generation.

It traces back to the degradation and loss of dignity that so many Americans experience when they are unable to make a viable living in the world’s richest nation. The enormous wealth-gap and the huge compensation paid to CEOs in this country are all evidence that the money is there for the working poor. Paying the lowest wage worker, a living wage wouldn’t even leave a dent on the highest-paid corporate leaders or wealthiest Americans.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

And for the 40% who can't imagine attaining a middle-class life or a politician really caring about them or their community, I offer this poem read on video by its author, the late, great Maya Angelou: 

 https://www.facebook.com/brooklynphenix/videos/3484505501622790/

OH LORDY, THERE ARE TAPES!!!

OH LORDY, THERE ARE TAPES!!!

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

What do the tapes tell us so far? They show that just 18 months before Trump blocks aid to Ukraine, and a day after the first javelin missiles were delivered to Ukraine, Donald Trump hosted a dinner party at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s resort in Palm Beach, Florida. His guests include Don Jr, Donald Trump’s buddies Lev & Igor, some national security advisor and others, who knows who at this point.

Igor apparently tape records the whole dinner conversation, over an hour of tape recording. Trump Can be heard chatting about the javelin missiles that had been delivered and other topics. At one point in the conversation is heard asking, presumably, his security advisors how long Ukraine would last against Russia without US military aid. He is told that Ukraine would be quickly overrun.

Later during the dinner, Trump asks how things are going in Ukraine. It isn’t clear who the question is directed to, but Lev pipes up to say he is hearing how bad Ambassador Yovanovich is and that she is telling Ukraine’s officials that Trump is going to be impeached. Word of these rumors came to Lev through Igor, who had recently been to Ukraine.

Trump doesn’t ask one further question. He doesn’t turn to his advisers for validation. He instead goes into a tirade and immediately calls for Ambassador Yovanovich’s immediate removal.

We know now that the Ambassador was the victim of an insidious smear campaign by corrupt, Russian friendly former Ukrainian officials. Judging from Trump’s extreme reaction it seems apparent that this was not the first time Trump has heard these rumors against Yovanovich. So, the question becomes, who had been feeding him these planted lies about her before this diner that he would blow upon hearing Lev’s report?

These tapes were just released late last night by ABC news and haven’t been fully transcribed or vetted as of this moment. Still, it is looking more and more to me like the President’s moves to undermine Ukraine is the result of a Russian covert psy-ops operation targeting our weak-minded, Putin loving, paranoid President to act once again in service to Russia’s national interest. I want to know more about the origin of this tape, who made it, how it was released and who was in the room where it happened. Let’s start calling some damn witnesses and demanding documents from this strange administration.

Bernie/Biden Clash On Social Security Masks Real Differences

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

In an opinion piece by Paul Krugman, published by the New York Times on January 21, 2020, Krugman writes, “The Sanders campaign has flat-out lied about things Biden said in 2018 about Social Security… The last thing we need is another president who demonizes and lies about anyone who disagrees with him, and can’t admit ever being wrong.”

That is pretty damning. What did Sanders or his team actually do?

Krugman writes that the Sanders campaign promoted a doctored video clip that distorted Biden’s record on Social Security. He repeated a quote from another N.Y Times article from January 18th (and updated Jan. 21st) by Katie Glueck’s that said:

“There is a little doctored video going around,” Mr. Biden said, adding that it was “put out by one of Bernie’s people.”

But Glueck also wrote:

“Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Saturday accused Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign of distorting his record on Social Security, claiming without evidence that Mr. Sanders’ team was promoting a “doctored” video…” [emphasis mine].

In fact, the video clip linked to Krugman’s article is an unedited segment of an interview from January 7th between Senator Sanders and Anderson Cooper. While listing differences between Biden and himself, Sanders said:

“You know, Biden has been on the floor of the Senate talking about the need to cut Social Security, or Medicare, or Medicaid.”

That’s it! Sanders didn’t say exactly what Biden said or when he said it. Krugman’s comments about a doctored video, therefore, appear to convict him of the same false accusation that he accuses Senator Sanders of committing.

But in fairness to the truth, the released Sanders’ campaign materials Krugman refers to did make some misleading claims. As pointed out in the PolitiFact article linked to the Krugman article, item #1 on the Sanders campaign document said:

“BIDEN’S BRAGGED OF TRYING TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE”

So, from where did this accusation come? It came from the Congressional Record of the U.S. Senate, as did another article on the subject in the Intercept written by Ryan Grim on January 13, 2020. The lead sentence of Grim’s article reads:

“AS EARLY AS 1984 and as recently as 2018, former Vice President Joe Biden called for cuts to Social Security in the name of saving the program and balancing the federal budget.”

Grim then cites this excerpt is from the Senate Congressional Record just fifteen-years ago:

“When I argued that we should freeze Federal spending, I meant Social Security as well. I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the Government.”

In this case, it is Ryan Grim who distorted Biden’s record by taking it out of context. Biden was arguing that the budget sequestration under discussion should include all areas of the federal budget and not exclude the very popular and vital entitlement programs. In this same Congressional Record transcript, then-Senator Biden went on to say Social Security, “…is arguably the most important and most depended-upon program in the Federal Government.”

Joe Biden suggested taking Social Security off of the Federal Budget. He wanted to protect the billions of dollars in surpluses it generated each year back then, surpluses that Congress spent every year to cover deficits in other areas of the budget.

What this manufactured controversy misses, however, it the very significant point that the thrust of this and so many of Biden’s speeches always center on the middle-class. Biden has rarely ever focused on 45% of all Americans who live below middle-class economic standards. 

This is the real distinction.  Joe Biden is interested in maintaining stability in America by growing and sustaining the middle-class. Bernie Sanders, for his entire career, wants to bring hope and relieve the structural economic burdens of every American family living in or below the middle-class. It is this focus and message that is beginning to resonate in places around America where Biden's message just doesn't carry. It is this focus on economic inclusion for all segments of society that scares the heck out of the wealthy elites.

Here is one example of Biden's middle-class messaging. In his 2018 speech at the Brookings Institute, also cited in the same PolitiFact article to which Krugman linked his opinion, Biden said, “Folks, we’re here today for a simple reason: to talk about the middle class.” 

 He later goes on to describe the plight of a factory worker to make his point:

“Folks in the middle class are in trouble. It’s not just their perception. They are in trouble. Now it’s all about taking care of the folks at the top… take that guy working on the assembly line making 51 grand. We don’t talk about him anymore, by the way, if you notice politically. Not you, we in politics don’t. And his wife is a hostess at a nice restaurant, she’s making 28 [grand]. So they’re making almost 80 grand and they’ve got 2 or 3 kids, and they can’t make it if they live in Washington or New York or San Francisco.”

No one can seriously argue that the middle-class is in trouble in "high living" places like San Francisco and New York City, but how does this limited message resonate with half of all Americans in far-flung places who make way less than $80,000 per year. Wouldn't they love to have the financial problems of these middle-class families? What they get instead is a conspiracy of silence from politicians in both parties who are beholden to the donor class. These are many of the same families that responded to Donald Trump in the 2016 campaign. He spoke directly to them and they love him for that.

The real question before us now is which Democratic candidate for President has the message and credibility to take back that momentum?  Who has the spark to inspire the working poor to turn out and vote for the Democrat? It isn't the loyal base who needs to be motivated. They will "vote blue no matter who"(if we can believe that). It is the great mass of inactive voters we have been ignored for decades who will sweep Donald Trump and his Republican sycophants out of office if we offer them real change. 

------------------------------------

This reads as a companion article to one I wrote on the differences between Senator Elizabeth Warren, who I admire, and Senator Bernie Sanders, who I support at this time. In the Studebaker article I linked to that post the differences between Biden, Warren, and Sanders are discussed. That post and two important articles can be accessed here: 

https://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2019/08/differences-between-warren-and-sanders.html

HOW TO UNDERSTAND TRUMP RALLY-GOERS

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

Very low information voters who have avoided politics their whole life, who maybe never voted before 2016 or paid any attention to who was running, have found in DONALD TRUMP a politician who loves them unconditionally. He embraces them. He doesn’t care that they don’t know much. He is rich and powerful and he is going to take care of them.

Donald Trump talks to his fans like no other politician before. He doesn’t talk down to them or try to teach them stuff they don’t care to hear. He says amazing and unexpected things, things that thrill them and excite them. He makes them feel politically alive for the first time in their life. He doesn’t have to be accurate or truthful because they get what he is saying and they can read between the lines. No dog whistles required!

Donald Trump has turned politics into this incredibly entertaining blood sport and his fans love it. They have taken political sides for the first time. They are standing up against the old guards of both political parties who have ignored them in the past. They are standing up for their race, their religion and their traditional values. They only support the Republicans today because the GOP itself has gotten fully on board with their champion, and THEIR GUY IS GOING TO WIN because he does what he says and keeps his promises. He has made America Great Again.

This is what we are up against. No amount of facts or logic can dislodge Trump's loyal followers. The only hope we have of defeating Donald Trump is to overwhelm them at the polls. We need to put up the most exciting candidates up and down the line. We need candidates who best speaks to the greatest number of ELIGIBLE voters, not just Democrats or likely voters. We need to reach into the giant pool of those folks who don't normally come out to vote and get them as excited about our vision for America's future as Trump's supporters are for his outsized personality.

_________________________________________

Also see full video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v4ZWM2Q1jM

A Reaffirmation of Faith in Our Republic

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

This five-minute video message of actor Matthew Cooke, below, is worth a listen. It is a reaffirmation of faith in our republic at a time when it is most threatened and vulnerable. It articulates our founding principles, which contrasts sharply with current Republican behavior in Congress.

I try not to refer to Republicans as a "party" anymore because, despite any philosophical differences, political parties always maintain their fidelity to the nation's constitution. That isn't true of Congressional Republicans. Under Mitch McConnell, Republicans in Congress are more of a political movement to replace democracy with a plutocratic autocracy, a single "party" system that mostly represents a small but wealthy minority. So, it is time for each of us to stand up in unity to depose those for whom democracy, with its equitable distribution of power, is an obstacle to their corrupt designs.