Where the Action Is

Hello, and Happy Thanksgiving! I hope that you are lined up to enjoy a wonderful holiday with friends and family. Evelyn and I are hosting family members – we’ve ordered a turkey to make sure that we don’t mess it up.

I’m writing about something you may have seen in the news; I’ve endorsed David McKinley for re-election to Congress in West Virginia. I’m very excited about it.

First some background - Congressional district lines are being redrawn, as they are once every 10 years in line with population changes in the Census. The way the math works is that the number of House seats – 435 – remains constant but the population shifts. Some states gain seats – this time Texas gained two seats and Florida, North Carolina, Colorado, Montana and Oregon gained one seat each. Some states lose a seat – this time New York, California, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia each lost a House seat.

Nationally, this probably makes the House a bit more Republican, as the states that gained seats are a bit redder.

Congressional lines are being redrawn in every state around the country regardless of whether the seat count remained the same or not. This process is controlled at the state level. In a handful of states – like Virginia and Washington – there is a bipartisan redistricting commission. This is, of course, vastly preferable. But for the most part it’s state legislators and party officials drawing the lines. If you are the party in control, you want to help your side by making formerly competitive seats ‘safe’ and reduce the number of competitive seats.

It turns out that neither party likes actually competing. The number of swing districts is declining fast, with 5 competitive districts already swapped out for a very blue or very red district. The 83% of non-competitive seats will rise to 90%.

That is life in a duopoly.

A lack of competitive races means that the vast majority of the action will be in the party primaries. That’s where 9 out of 10 of the races will be decided.

West Virginia lost a Congressional district. That means that two current members of Congress – David McKinley and Alex Mooney – will square off for one seat. It being West Virginia, as you’d imagine, both are Republican.

I met Rep. McKinley during the summer of 2020. Humanity Forward was looking for Republican members of Congress to co-sponsor a cash relief bill during the pandemic. David stepped up. He decided to co-sponsor the initial bill with Lisa Blunt Rochester, a Democrat from Delaware.

A Republican from West Virginia and a Democrat from Delaware made quite a formidable demonstration of the depth and breadth of support for cash relief. David’s leadership was one big reason that Americans got stimulus checks.

David led again when he became one of only 13 Republican House members to support the bipartisan infrastructure bill that just passed Congress. He knew it would help his constituents in West Virginia, in part because he’d worked in construction. He knew what the jobs, livelihoods and improvements would mean to the people around him.

Of course, this being 2021, he’s being criticized for doing what he thinks is right by Alex Mooney, his opponent, who has been backed by Trump.

David McKinley is exactly the kind of representative we need in Congress. Someone who has his own moral compass and will do what he believes is in the best interests of the people of West Virginia.

I’m supporting David McKinley’s re-election and I hope that you will too. His primary is on May 12th, less than 6 months away. In a race like his, every donation will make a huge difference.

Thanks for reading. I hope that you have a wonderful holiday with loved ones!! I’ve been looking forward to this holiday myself for a while now. I’m ever-thankful for the YangGang. :)

Yours gratefully,

- Andrew

Where the Leaders Are

Who do you trust in American life? 

I’ve been thinking a lot about this for the last number of years.  Recently, it has been around the pandemic – who do Americans trust for their medical advice?  But it’s been on my mind for a while. 

I’m 46, so the list of people that comes to mind for me is a little bit dated:  Oprah, Warren Buffett, Tom Hanks.  In an earlier generation you would have listed TV journalists like Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw.  Today, by the numbers Joe Rogan has to be up there. 

Of course, our politics shapes who we trust and admire.  The most admired Americans according to Gallup are the Obamas and Trump, with various other political figures making the list separated by party.  After them it’s a steep dropoff. 

On the podcast with Zach this week, I noted that we have something of a leadership vacuum in American life.  I have a theory as to why that is.  The market forces are so strong today that they shape our behavior in just about every aspect of our lives and careers – certainly in politics and the media.  Success means doing what the market demands.  If you do more of it, you do better. 

Yet true leadership probably, in many environments, would mean the opposite.  Think about the brave whistleblower or the conscientious objector. 

There is an essay penned by William Deresiewicz in the American Scholar delivered to cadets at West Point that laid out the case very convincingly: 

We have a crisis of leadership in America because our overwhelming power and wealth, earned under earlier generations of leaders, made us complacent, and for too long we have been training leaders who only know how to keep the routine going. Who can answer questions, but don’t know how to ask them. Who can fulfill goals, but don’t know how to set them. Who think about how to get things done, but not whether they’re worth doing in the first place. What we have now are the greatest technocrats the world has ever seen, people who have been trained to be incredibly good at one specific thing, but who have no interest in anything beyond their area of exper­tise. What we don’t have are leaders.

What we don’t have, in other words, are thinkers. People who can think for themselves. People who can formulate a new direction: for the country, for a corporation or a college, for the Army—a new way of doing things, a new way of looking at things. People, in other words, with vision.

Take the time to read the essay in its entirety – it’s powerful stuff.   

We like to think that the person who goes against the grain is then prized and elevated.  Sometimes they are.  But just as often, we read a headline about them and then they disappear, or there is no headline.  The truth is that going along and getting along, as Deresiewicz puts it, is not just the path of least resistance – it’s often the path to market-based rewards. 

Leadership, in my mind, often means walking away from short-term rewards and staking out your own path. 

The Forward Party is now about six weeks old.  One of the joys of the past six weeks has been meeting like-minded people who have been operating in the political wilderness for a number of years.  People who have been agitating for non-partisan open primaries like John Opdycke or ranked choice voting like Rob Richie, or for a fairer more representative government like Nick Troiano or Josh Silver, or for a better set of political incentives like Katherine Gehl.  These are people who have been making a difficult case for years with little reward.  Most of them left the well-lit marketplace of politics to fight for a cause that few cared about because they believed it is the public good. 

They are, in other words, people with real vision.  Leaders.  Some of the best I’ve met. 

Making common cause with them is a lot of fun. 

One of my knacks, I believe, is that I recognize leadership when I see it.  I’m attracted to it and emboldened by it.  I hope you are too. 

Of course, you don’t need to start an organization to be a leader.  Sometimes, just sending your friend an article or starting a conversation is exactly the right step.  Every person I've met who has professed excitement for the Forward Party has been phenomenal.  I can't wait for there to be more of us and to get us all together in an arena or conference hall.  

The country needs more leaders in a very difficult time.  Let’s provide them. 

- Andrew

--------

Excited about the Forward Party?  Sign up here!  Also please consider making a $5 donation as a sign of support - we'll be starting a campaign soon and want to get a jump on it!  

From Without or Within

I did an interview with Bari Weiss last week, and she asked me a question that I’ve been getting a lot for the past number of weeks: 

“Do you think you’re better off trying to reform an existing organization, or building something new?” 

Now, coming from Bari this is kind of a loaded question.  She famously left the New York Times to produce journalism on her own (her letter of resignation is legendary), and I’m sure many people asked her the same thing.  She also is now part of the founding team of the brand new University of Austin, so she has a penchant for trying to build from the ground up. 

I laughed and said that I’m a fan of both approaches, but I’m more of a build it up kind of person. 

It’s true.  And it made me reflect – how many times have we seen a major organization reform from within? 

America has faced a cascading loss of trust in many institutions over the past number of years.  The media, schools, and our political leadership come to mind.  You could also throw in the Catholic Church, Wall Street, or big tech.  Most recently with Covid, perhaps the CDC. 

Which of these institutions has seen meaningful reform or rejuvenation? 

It’s hard to say.  Most of the time, reform now takes the form of optics.  In a time of rapid news cycles, the most common plan is to hunker down and wait for the storm to pass and for people to get upset about something else.  Maybe you make a commitment to improve.  Maybe you try to recruit visible figures – say women or an underrepresented minority – who can help shield you from a certain sort of criticism. 

Genuine reform or accountability has been absent in most areas.  It is fueling our mistrust. 

Of course, the question posed to me was probably about politics.  And we certainly have seen political movements overtake political parties in the past number of years. 

Most conspicuously, Donald Trump took control of the Republican Party in 2016 in the primaries.  At the same time, Bernie Sanders vied for control of the Democratic Party with Hillary Clinton and lost narrowly.  The 2020 Democratic primary could be seen similarly, with Bernie losing narrowly again versus Biden. 

Donald Trump and Bernie both represented a certain form of institutional revolt - this set of establishment figures is not working for me, and I want to move on to something different. 

I drew a similar conclusion when I was writing ‘Forward’ – our political system is designed not to deliver results for us but to disappoint, divide and frustrate.  It’s why I now see the most urgent mission as reforming our decrepit political system so that it is more genuinely representative.  There shouldn’t be only 2 major parties – there should be 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7.  The Democratic Party and Republican Party each contains at least 2 parties at this point: Progressives and Moderate Democrats on one hand, Moderate Republicans and conservatives/Trumpers on the other.  Our country would almost certainly be functioning better if each of these parties could act independently, as you’d see different coalitions being built and a higher resistance to authoritarianism.  In an era of non-partisan open primaries and ranked choice voting, you’d see a much better set of incentives. 

Republican members of Congress are being criticized for voting for infrastructure, despite the party being historically for it, simply because it might help the other side.  What’s up with that? 

It’s the system itself that needs to be changed.  That’s a vision that will energize the people.  62% of us want to move away from the duopoly. 

Was it plausible to try to takeover and reform the Democratic Party?  I met thousands of Democrats when I was running for President.  They were, by and large, great people.  That’s not a trait exclusive to Democrats – most of the people I met on the trail were great. 

One interesting facet of the Democratic Party that I’ve noticed is that they tend to have an expectation of a certain sort of candidate and then back into it.  You saw it in Buffalo – the ‘wrong’ candidate won so at least some Democrats decided to run it back.  Bernie got sandbagged both times in different ways.  The DCCC and the DSCC have been known to put their thumbs on the scale to favor certain candidates – mainly those they think can raise money and seem ‘electable’ by their calculation or who won’t rock the boat. 

You do have to say this for the Republicans – there is no wrong candidate.  Now, this has its own set of issues.  

I have nothing against people who believe operating within a system is the best approach.  A lot of good can be done from within various organizations.  We need great people everywhere.  And sometimes it’s very difficult to do anything but work within a given context because crafting an alternative is too high a bar. 

But I am more of a “Build It” guy.  I think that’s what this era needs.  And the right movement can draw millions in a very short period of time.  

Let's build what the country needs.  

-------
This week on the podcast Zach and I discuss the infrastructure bill, Zillow, new universities and more.  And the Forward Tour is coming to New York City this Saturday at City Winery – it’s going to be a great event!  Zach and Evelyn will be there so you know it’ll be good.  I’ll take photographs and meet everyone and sign books.  Looking forward to seeing you there or tell your friends!  

The Duopoly is Unique – and Not In a Good Way

Hello, I hope that you had a great Fall weekend!  We had a full one ourselves that included celebrating marathon-running friends and a Memorial Service for a friend’s mother who was taken far too soon. 

This week on the podcast I spoke to political scientist Lee Drutman of New America.  Lee wrote a book that came out earlier this year called “Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America.”  In it, Lee breaks down why we should expect polarization and dysfunction because of our current setup.  In our podcast, Lee notes: 

“The US is really the only two-party system among advanced Democracies, and a bunch of countries use this system called proportional representation . . . and that allows for multiple parties to flourish.  That actually seems to work pretty well because then parties bargain together and coalitions are fluid, and those countries seem to be a lot better at solving problems.” 

It was invigorating talking to Lee because he’s spent years studying other democracies around the world, as well as years in D.C.  The fact that he’s reached these conclusions is a powerful statement.  Lee previously wrote a book on lobbying, which led him to painstakingly research the workings of Washington D.C.   It turns out that the U.S. is virtually alone in having a two-party system and then expecting it to work.  We truly are living through the greatest design failure in the history of the world. 

You can see some of Lee’s many articles on the duopoly in Vox, The Atlantic, Five Thirty Eight, and elsewhere here.

Lee champions the Fair Representation Act – a measure to convert to multi-member districts with proportional representation – as a way to transition to a multi-party system.  I agree, but acknowledge the difficulty of getting it passed through Congress.  In the meantime, Lee believes ranked choice voting and organizing a third party are immediate and practical steps we can take all over the country. 

People imagine that upending the duopoly is impossible.  But when enough people get together, the impossible becomes inevitable.  That’s where I think we are heading. 

Even in the past month, I see many more people waking up to the fact that our system right now is not designed to deliver results but instead to inflame us against each other and disappoint.  It’s also terribly subject to authoritarianism in part because the genuine loyalty either party commands is so low. 

Can we do better?  Of course we can.  We just have to keep spreading the word that other democracies have figured this out.  If they can, we can too. 

The social psychologist Jonathan Haidt said in a recent article in Politico, “The worst number of political parties to have in a country is one.  But the second worst number is two.” 

He’s right.  Let’s get that number up as quickly as possible. 

--

The Forward Tour is coming to New York City this Saturday at City Winery – it’s going to be a great event!  I’ll take photographs and meet everyone and sign books.  Looking forward to seeing you there! 

Lessons from Virginia

Tuesday night the political world was stunned by the victory of Glenn Youngkin as the next governor of Virginia.  Youngkin is a Republican who won a state that Joe Biden had won by 10 points just 12 months earlier. 

There are a number of takeaways.  First, the political climate seems very negative for Democrats nationally.  In New Jersey, a state that Biden won by 16 points, the governor’s race was neck-and-neck.  Biden’s current approval rating hovers around 43% with 71% of Americans recently saying that America is on the wrong track.  The enthusiasm among Democratic voters in VA was low, despite Obama, Biden, Harris and virtually every other Democratic luminary showing up in Virginia to rally the troops. 

The likelihood of Republicans winning back the House of Representatives in 2022 seems like a near-certainty if the election were held today.

Second, the dominant messages from Democrats – defeat Trump and managing Covid – are no longer working.  Terry McAuliffe tried to tie Youngkin to Trump, to little success.  The American public is tired of hearing about Covid, and candidates can’t run on it any longer. Democrats need a positive agenda that they can point to that might excite people. The stalled infrastructure and reconciliation bills certainly didn’t help as they gave a sense of a party arguing with itself rather than delivering results. 

Third, it pointed a path to a Republican future post-Trump.  Glenn Youngkin reminds many of Mitt Romney – a buttoned-up private equity executive who came across as moderate in terms of personality and social views.  Youngkin ran on education issues and curbing Democratic excesses – and that was enough to eat into the Democratic margin in suburbs.  Rural voters flocked to Youngkin in huge numbers.  A moderate Republican can retain the base while competing in swing districts, at least in Virginia. 

The results in Virginia, most of all, pointed to the fragility of any electoral results and the low loyalty voters have even after casting their vote.  Again, Virginia went to Biden by 10 points just months ago, and all of the signs have pointed to Virginia as a blue-leaning state as demographics have changed and suburbs expanded.  Yet Youngkin won.  The pendulum will keep swinging back and forth while people get more and more fed up. 

I can see very clearly the path to 2022 and 2024.  After that, it’s not clear what happens, because one of the products of this dynamic is that people grow more and more dispirited. 

A friend said to me, “The Democrats’ main emotional appeal seems to be fear.  But you can’t be afraid all of the time.  It wears off.” 

That’s as good a lesson as any to take from Virginia. 

A Trip Back to Iowa

Hello! I got back from Des Moines this morning, where I saw friends old and new:

Driving around Des Moines even briefly was a trip down memory lane. I saw the ice rink where we hosted Weezer and hundreds of supporters from around the country for Yangapalooza almost exactly two years ago. I saw the park on the way to Wells Fargo Arena where I stopped to rouse volunteers before speaking at the Liberty and Justice dinner for a crowd of thousands.

Most importantly, I met with staffers and precinct captains who had come to Iowa to fight for a vision of the country that centers on people.

One woman who came to my book talk said, “Thank you for coming back. And thank you for caring about the ordinary person like me.”

I’m glad I went back; I spent so much time there that it would feel odd not to return. My kids associate Iowa with fun in the snow and the science center where they let you actually saw things in half.

My trip to Iowa was a reminder of how great it is to reconnect with people. It’s the main reason why I’m eager to add dates to the Forward Tour – we will be announcing more cities shortly! We have already added an event in New York City on November 13th – that’s a Saturday if a trip to New York is appealing.

This week on the podcast Zach and I talked about something that I think is on a lot of people’s minds – the media. It’s a pretty big theme in my new book; 69% of Democrats trust the media, but only 36% of Independents and 15% of Republicans. It may be one of the defining elements of the parties at this point.

In Forward, I write about the different media incentives that push organizations to be more polarized in their news coverage. Ariana Pekary, an MSNBC producer, noted that they were more likely to show images of flames and violence, and they’d cut away if an event was peaceful. I also write about the demise of thousands of local papers, and social media rewarding sensationalism and giving rise to different versions of the truth.

On the podcast this week we discuss issues that touch cable news in particular: too much time to fill, a visual medium, a tone of judgment, Twitter narratives, etc.

One of the reasons I think so many people are pessimistic about the future of American democracy is that people are discouraged about the state of media. A friend of mine asked, “Where do I go for information I can trust?”

I started the Forward Party because I believe we need a new positive, unifying force in American politics that counteracts the polarization that threatens to tear us apart. We have many exciting efforts coming up – please join up to volunteer today!

But I also believe that we need an analogous positive, unifying force in the media. Messages that lift people up and also instill – and earn – a sense of trust. Indeed, this force in the media would make the political movement much more likely to grow and succeed.

These may be the two great projects of this time. I don’t know about you, but I’m eager to get to work.

- Andrew

American Optimism

Hello everyone! I am writing this from the Forward tour which has been phenomenal. I went on Bill Maher on Friday and had a blast. Then I met some amazing people in San Francisco yesterday:

Also while I was here my first Forward Party swag arrived!

The Bay Area was one of the first places to embrace my presidential campaign, I believe in part because the people here are more attuned to both technology and what is coming down the pike.  It’s a place of heightened possibility due to the culture of entrepreneurship here. 

In contrast, I had a call with a friend this week and she said something that struck me as a pretty good summary of the way a lot of people feel nowadays: 

“It’s like everyone can see the problem but no one thinks we can do anything about it.” 

She was talking about our politics, but she could have been referring to any number of things.
 
I’m an entrepreneur.  Most people find me to be very can-do and positive.  It’s part of what you do as a founder.  You take something that doesn’t exist, tell everyone it should exist, and then go make it happen.

Of course, a lot goes into this process. My first real brush with trying to start a company back in 2000 ended in failure.  It damaged my confidence quite badly, and everyone who knew me also knew that I’d failed.  That’s a feature of starting something new – at some point you tell everyone you know because you need them to help or get excited.  So if it doesn’t work out, it’s unlikely to be a private failure.

I picked myself up and worked for a series of small growth companies, eventually becoming CEO of an education company that grew to be number one in the country.  I saw firsthand how organizations can grow from modest beginnings to significant scale. I’ve been part of a series of unlikely successes, from a non-profit that I founded that grew to a dozen cities to a presidential campaign that grew into a popular movement. 

I try to tell people that entrepreneurship is just solving a problem or making things work better.  If you start a book club or a carpool, that’s entrepreneurship.  Most efforts won’t grow to the sky, but they’re still vital.  

I spent years trying to make entrepreneurship more available and accessible for young people in different communities.  It’s my favorite thing.  It’s magic. 

This is a tough time.  There’s a lot of struggle and a palpable sense of loss.  Lives have been disrupted.  People work remotely and sometimes get depressed (remote work is easier because it’s lower friction but it can also be isolating).  It’s a difficult time to be optimistic. 

Yet that’s when we need it the most. 

I’ve been struck by how much negativity pervades our politics.  There’s a lot of fear, a lot of “That’s not possible.” 

I spoke to a group of business leaders this week.  I said to them, “You would never accept this level of dysfunction in your companies or your industry.  Why do we accept them in our politics?” 

We can do better. We can move Forward.  

American Optimism.  We need more of it.  Let’s provide it. 

I am excited to have on this Monday’s podcast one of the most positive and entrepreneurial people I know, Xander Schultz.  Xander is the co-founder of One for Democracy as well as Give Us he Ballot, two initiatives that are investing millions in voter accessibility and strengthening democratic institutions.  Xander sent me a text a little while ago that gives you a sense of how he thinks:  “This is the first time in human history when abundance is possible and there’s more than enough for everyone.  We have to take advantage of it as quickly as we can.” 

Xander’s sense of optimism grew out of, or despite, personal tragedy.  His father, David Schultz, was a champion wrestler who was killed when Xander was a child.  This was documented in the movie ‘Foxcatcher’ starring Channing Tatum.   

I hope you enjoy this interview as much as I did.  I learn something from Xander anytime I talk to him.  He keeps my head up. 

This week the Forward Tour continues to Irvine, CA and then to Des Moines, Iowa, where I’ve spent a lot of time.  We have added a talk and signing in New York City on November 13th. 

You can of course grab the book anywhere and the swag at forwardparty.com.  

New dates will be announced soon – I’m loving meeting some of the most optimistic and hopeful people around!  Let’s grow the tribe.  See you soon.  

(Not So) Long in the Tooth

Hello and thank you for the support! I’m writing this from the road, where I just finished a book talk in the great city of Chicago:

I saw some amazing people that campaigned with us in Iowa.  It was a wonderful group.  Really pumped me up!  I must have done half-a-dozen rallies in Chicago that just got bigger and bigger.

This week I tweeted something that drew a lot of attention:

The average age of a Member of the 117th Congress is 58.4.  For Senators it’s 64.3.  House leadership is 81 and Senate leadership is 70.

Translation: our leaders are kind of old.

These are only averages.  Chuck Grassley is running again for Senate as an 88 year old.  Dianne Feinstein is 88 and has had reported issues with her energy and facility.  America is a gerontocracy.

Last week I wrote about how we are likely going to have a rematch between Joe Biden and Donald Trump.  They set a record in 2020 in terms of age – between them they were 150.  If there is indeed a rematch Joe will be 81 and Trump 77.

Our system is becoming absurd in terms of the age of our leaders, where the main variable is their health.

Why are our leaders so old?  In terms of electoral politics, a lot of it is that it takes time to build a following.  In many cases, literally decades.  By the time you get into Congress, you might have already been at it a while.  Climbing the ladder could take 10, 20, or 30 years.  Also, individual members have a re-election rate of 92% and the enormous moat of incumbency.

Congress itself is a seniority system.  The only way to assume leadership is to be there for a long time.  Nancy Pelosi got there in 1987.  Chuck Schumer in 1999.

When I spoke to Ro Khanna, who joined Congress in 2017, he said this:

Your power in Congress is very much based on relationships . . . who is going to have the best chance of convincing people to vote for them?  The people who have been in Congress the longest time . . . if you’ve been in Congress twenty, thirty years you probably know 150, 160 members of Congress.  So what you have is actually institutional static, basically a governing institution that is governed by people who won twenty, thirty years ago catering to people who won ten to fifteen years ago, and they actually hold the power in the institutions . . . Congress is being governed by people who won elections in the ‘80s and ‘90s.  The antidemocratic character of these institutions probably isn’t understood enough, that it’s so seniority based.

This has effects both in terms of understanding new developments like technology and data rights and also keeping the same leaders and ideas entrenched in place for eons.  Also, our representatives get progressively detached from the lived experiences of ordinary people.

So what can be done about this?  The obvious answer is term limits.

74% of Americans are for it.  They’re common sense.  If we send you to Washington, you shouldn’t be there until the day you die.  Do work on our behalf and then come home.

There was actually a significant movement toward term limits in the 1990s.  Voters in eight states in 1994 approved term limits for their members of Congress by wide margins.  Then, in 1995, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in U.S. Term Limits Inc. vs. Thornton that states could not impose term limits on their own members of Congress.  Also that year, the House of Representatives passed a bill 227 – 204 to impose term limits of twelve years in both the House and the Senate.  This fell short of the 2/3rds necessary to pass a constitutional amendment, but demonstrates just how serious the push was.

We should revive this by putting pressure on newly elected members of Congress to agree to support term limits.  And I’ve got a clever way to make its passage more likely: exempt current lawmakers.  They’re grandfathered in.  But eventually they’d age out while new members are subject to limits.  It would take a bit of time, but both the gerontocracy and the super-seniority system would fade.

If this seems like a worthy endeavor to you, term limits are part of the Forward Party’s agenda.  Let’s get behind leaders who want to do the right thing, including seeing to it that the system rejuvenates itself.  Representatives should do what they can for us and then, with our gratitude, gracefully step aside. Join us at ForwardParty.com.

Next up for the Forward Tour, I am heading to Denver, and then San Francisco and Irvine.  I'll be on Bill Maher while I'm in LA - should be a great time.  If you're in one of those places join us - these events have been amazing!

Biden vs. Trump II

There have been a number of pieces out recently projecting that Trump is going to run in 2024 and that he will be very difficult to stop. 

I agree.  He’s raised over $100 million.  He polls at 65% among Republicans, thirty points higher than others.  His base remains fervent.  And many of his strongest opponents will choose to sit it out rather than lose their luster among the most partisan.  Nikki Haley has already said that she wouldn’t run against Trump.  Ron DeSantis may be the strongest alternative, but Ron is young enough to wait out a cycle rather than risk it all against Trump – and he’s been telling supporters in private he wouldn’t run against Trump.  Trump might draw an opponent like Chris Christie and Mike Pence, but it will likely be a cakewalk.  The biggest obstacles to this in my view are his health – he is 75 – or an unlikely legal prosecution based upon some of his past financial dealings in New York.  

One big variable – does Trump the presidential candidate get his social media megaphones back?  It’s hard to exclude the nominee of a major party or even a contender.  This is an awful thought, to me, as things have felt saner with him off Twitter. 

Let’s say it is Trump.  Who will run against him from the Democratic side?  The logical choice is Joe Biden, the incumbent who already defeated Trump once.  The main issues are that Joe will be 81 and may be visibly flagging by then.  Joe also is relatively unpopular right now for a President at this stage in his administration – he’s running at around 43%, though this could obviously rebound over the coming months. 

Joe characterized himself as a bridge to the next generation.  Does that mean that Kamala Harris would be the most likely candidate in 2024?  Some would love the contrast between Kamala and Trump.  Kamala, however, regularly polls worse than Joe by a few points.  Her one big national foray – her presidential run – underperformed.  The team around her is shifting.  And she seems to have some elements of the political media that aren’t favorable to her. 

Kamala reminds me of Hillary Clinton – a deep blue state Senator who underperformed in a presidential primary and then is appointed to a very senior position by the Democratic President who defeated her.  Her native ability to win a national campaign is a total unknown with the existing data points somewhat discouraging.  Unlike Kamala though, Hillary had a very deep set of relationships among just about everyone in the Democratic power structure. 

Who does that leave?  After you go past Joe and Kamala, you’d likely have to run a competitive primary.  It’s not like they can just look around and say “Our nominee should be . . . Pete!” even if a critical mass of the party decides that’s what they want.  There are also the terrible optics of pushing aside Kamala, unless she were to make it seem that it’s entirely up to her.  It would be difficult to run a competitive Democratic primary in 2024 with a sitting President and Vice President right there – it would make the party seem fractious and introduce uncertainty that Democrats wouldn’t enjoy. 

In my opinion, the Democrats’ best bet might be a candidate like Jon Ossoff, who is a young Senator from a swing state who could energize a lot of voters.  Jon is social media savvy, media friendly and has been through two races that were nationalized with flying colors.  But again, Jon would have to go through a competitive primary that Democrats would, I believe, prefer to avoid. 

So that leads us back to Joe. I believe the biggest variable is Joe’s health.  Joe underperformed in early primary states where there was a lot of retail politicking in part because he wasn’t as strong a campaigner as some others.  He did much better in states where it was strictly TV.  Note that I had a front row seat to this.  Will he have the strength after 3 years of being President?  He would be the incumbent which would have many advantages – most of his campaigning would likely be on television from the White House or other presidential venues. 

One thing that many don’t understand is that Joe’s victory in 2020 was razor-thin; 42,000 votes in 3 states – Arizona, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania – decided the race.  Joe’s massive popular vote win was driven up in blue states like New York and California, and that margin is irrelevant. 

Joe will also likely be saddled with a Republican Congress after 2022.  The in-power party traditionally loses 10 -15 seats in off-cycle elections.  Right now the Democratic majority is only 5 seats, likely to be reduced by redistricting.  Note also that Democrats surprisingly lost 13 seats against Trump in 2020, in what they were hoping was a wave election.  Betting markets have the Republicans retaking the majority in the House in 2022 as a 74% likelihood.  This will almost certainly make Joe’s ability to have major victories to crow about in 2023 and 2024 leading up to the race almost nil. 

If you’re a Democrat reading this, perhaps you are shuddering.  A lot can change on a dime of course.  Maybe the reconciliation package will pass and be so popular that Democrats hold the House.  Maybe one of the people we are discussing could have a major health issue tomorrow. 

But based on what we know, we are likely looking at Biden vs. Trump II. 

I don’t think that would be welcome news to a significant body of Americans who would look up and say, “We’re running this back again?”  The advanced age of both candidates would be historic on both sides.  It truly would be a sign of how sclerotic our system and institutions are. 

But this is where the political incentives will lead. 

This isn’t even the main concern.  Bill Maher makes the case that the issue isn’t who the Democrats run or even what the vote totals look like – it’s going to be the integrity of the system itself and whether people stay home or take to the streets.  In an environment where millions of Americans don’t trust vote counts and can be encouraged to insurrection, the unthinkable is on the table: widespread violence and a contested election. 

The superficial script will be Democrats vs. Republicans.  The underlying challenge will be the continuation of a stable Democracy with peaceful transitions vs. an arena of political chaos in a time of record-high institutional mistrust. 

You can put me in the camp believing that this is a real possibility. 

So what do we do? 

People imagine that I am setting up a third party in order to set the stage for a presidential run in 2024.  That’s wrong.  I’ve founded Forward in order to provide a movement to reform a system that is increasingly setting us up to both fail and turn on each other. 

There has to be a positive, unifying political tribe that acts to reform the dysfunctional system in 2022 via ballot initiatives and elevating aligned candidates.  I hope you’ll join us!  This is our only chance before 2024 to introduce a different political dynamic and free a critical mass of representatives from complete adherence to party dictates.  It may mean the difference between election integrity and civil unrest. 

There is the battle between the 2 major parties.  And then there is the battle to modernize, preserve and sustain a functioning democracy in the time that we have. 

That’s our opportunity.  We don’t have long.  Let’s spread the word and work hard and fast.  2024 will be here before we know it. 

- Andrew

Breaking Up with the Democratic Party

I changed my voting registration from ‘Democrat’ to ‘Independent’ today. It was a strangely emotional experience.

I registered as a Democrat back in 1995 when I was 20 years old to vote for Bill Clinton’s re-election. It was a no-brainer for me. I went to a college that was very liberal. I lived in New York City. Everyone around me was a Democrat. Bill Clinton vs. Bob Dole? Clinton was one of the youngest presidents when he was elected and seemed more in tune to me, as a 20 year old.

Keep in mind that I grew up the son of immigrants and my family did not talk about politics at all growing up. I still have no idea how or even if my parents voted. I have a vague recollection of my Mom watching a debate and saying, “I don’t like him” but I can’t remember who she was referring to. She doesn’t remember either.

Throughout my twenties I remained a staunch Democrat, though like many others I was drawn primarily to national races. I co-hosted a small fundraiser for John Kerry’s campaign at a bar when I was 29 – I think we raised maybe $3,000. I thrilled to Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 and, to a lesser extent, his re-election in 2012. Around this time I was invited to the White House to receive recognition by the Obama White House as both a Champion of Change and a Presidential Ambassador of Global Entrepreneurship as the founder of a non-profit, Venture for America that helped create hundreds of jobs in the Midwest and the South. Bringing Evelyn to meet the President was a lot of fun.

In 2016, I donated to Bernie Sanders’ campaign – everything he said struck me as true – but then voted for Hillary Clinton against Trump.

When Trump won, I was surprised and took it as a red flag and call to action. Having spent six years working in the Midwest and the South I believed I had some insight as to what had driven Trump’s victory. I spent several years making the case for what I believed was the major policy that could address it – Universal Basic Income.

As you’d imagine, as a Democratic presidential candidate, I met a lot of Democrats around the country. Literally thousands. At first, many didn’t know what to make of the odd Asian candidate talking about giving everyone money. But over time I established deep relationships with some of the local leaders who have worked in party politics for years. Al Womble in Iowa, Steve Marchand in New Hampshire, Jermaine Johnson in South Carolina and others.

I also became friends with some of the other candidates out in the field. Cory Booker, Michael Bennet, Pete Buttigieg and Beto O’Rourke are people I’d consider friends who are motivated by the right things. As I’ve become more of a household name, I’ve worked with many senior officials. I headlined several fundraisers for the DNC and participated in fundraising appeals. I was a surrogate for Joe for months.

I spent weeks in Georgia trying to help win the seats for Jon Ossoff and Reverend Raphael Warnock, helping raise millions to do so. I’m proud of helping to activate Asian American voters in what I believed were historic races.

And running for mayor, I similarly met and became friends with activists and elected officials who are longtime public servants on the Democratic side. People like Grace Meng, Ritchie Torres, John Liu, Carlos Menchaca, Kenny Burgos, Vanessa Gibson and Dan Rosenthal are excellent.

Again, I have at this point dozens of friends and confidantes who are entrenched in the Democratic Party. I’ve been a Democrat my entire adult life.

And yet, I’m confident that no longer being a Democrat is the right thing.

Please, keep in mind that I am NOT suggesting that you also change your voter registration to Independent, as I have done. Doing so could disenfranchise you if you live in the 83% of the country that is very blue or very red. For this reason, I considered either not making this change or not talking about it.

So why do I feel in my heart that this is the right move?

While it was simply a small piece of paperwork, I genuinely felt a shift in my mindset as soon as I signed it.

My goal is to do as much as I can to advance our society. There are phenomenal public servants doing great work every day – but our system is stuck. It is stuck in part because polarization is getting worse than ever. Many of the people I know are doing all of the good they can – but their impact is constrained. Now that I’m not a member of one party or another, I feel like I can be even more honest about both the system and the people in it.

The key reform that is necessary to help unlock our system is a combination of Open Primaries and Ranked Choice Voting, which will give voters more genuine choice and our system more dynamism. It will also prevent the spoiler effect that so many Democrats are concerned about, which is a byproduct of a two party system with a binary contest and simple plurality voting.

I believe I can reach people who are outside the system more effectively. I feel more . . . independent.

Also, on a personal level, I’ll admit there has always been something of an odd fit between me and the Democratic Party. I’m not very ideological. I’m practical. Making partisan arguments – particularly expressing what I often see as performative sentiment – is sometimes uncomfortable for me. I often think, “Okay, what can we actually do to solve the problem?” I’m pretty sure there are others who feel the same way I do.

I’ve seen politicians publicly eviscerate each other and then act collegial or friendly backstage a few minutes later. A lot of it is theatre.

I’ve also had people publicly attack me and then text or call me privately to make sure that we were still cool. It just had to be done for appearances.

Perhaps it’s the nature of my upbringing, but I’m actually more comfortable trying to fix the system than being a part of it.

One very senior Democrat member of Congress texted me to say, “I’m sorry to see you go. But I know you’ll do as much good as you can from the outside. And eventually, remember the outsiders become the insiders.”

I’ve got to say it feels really good to be building my own team. This is where I’m most at home.

Recently, in an interview I commented that I wasn’t particularly driven by a desire to hold office. I’m working for impact.

Breaking up with the Democratic Party feels like the right thing to do because I believe I can have a greater impact this way.

Am I right? Let’s find out. Together.