Will Magnolia Tribune Use Fake Polls to Create Fake News?

I hope not. But watch for it. Because the Magnolia Tribune is polling its subscribers on issues on which it is taking a position. The questions are biased and the sample is hardly random. If the purpose is to probe subscriber views, that’s their own business. If the data are presented as more than that, it will be fake news.

I used to be a professional political pollster because I care about what people are thinking and feeling. It’s important in political campaigns and in understanding public dialog. I subscribe to the Magnolia Tribune because it tends to telegraph what I believe will be the right-wing messages in Mississippi this year and it is useful to know what those are. I have learned from the Magnolia Tribune that the right will attack Medicaid expansion as not helping the poor based on biased research from states that charged recipients of Medicaid coverage a premium, with the result in those states that lower income people dropped out. More recently, I have learned they will argue that more state help for schools will force up local property taxes, which is not necessarily true, especially as in lower income districts it will result in more Title 1 federal money. Finally, I have learned they will argue that if the state spends money on its Capital City, it should be able to overrule local leadership, although I suspect people in Tishomingo County want self government despite the money the state (and feds) spend there. Mississippi has a long history of strong local and county government.

Now the Magnolia Tribune is conducting a “poll” of subscribers on these and other issues. The questions follow a paragraph arguing one side and then providing a button so subscribers can express their opinions. Nothing wrong with that if the purpose is to see if active subscribers share the editorial opinions of the Magnolia Tribune. (I don’t share them but it wont surprise me to learn that most subscribers do.) If the results are presented as a poll of public attitudes, representing a broader population than those who answered it, it will be fake news.

Polls that mirror public or voter attitudes are much harder to conduct than in the past because response rates are low. Good pollsters reach out repeatedly to try to up the rate and try extra hard to reach those who are hardest to reach – young people, people of color, and people in the political middle. They then count those they do reach from harder to reach groups extra by “upweighting” their responses. There are problems with these procedures too as I have written about in this space but at least it is an honest effort to be representative. I believe the Mississippi Today poll early this year was an honest effort, although an imperfect one. Pretending self-selected subscribers are representative of anything else is not an honest effort at a professional poll. I hope the Magnolia Tribune does not present its results as more than they are.

I haven’t seen any in depth recent polls that address the issues at hand but I suspect the following is still true: Most voters are not policy wonks. They want good schools because it is good for kids and for the Mississippi economy to have them. If only they had political leaders who go about that effort honestly. If we are all lucky, they will get them. They are apparently pretty clear they don’t have such leaders now.

Presley’s Path To The Governorship

Not a full post but a more than Twitter-length response to the Magnolia Tribune piece on Brandon Presley’s path to the Governorship.

1. Not everyone is a Republican or Democrat. Much of the piece is about Presley needing to prove conservatism to win Republicans. The reality is that many Mississippians are neither Democrats nor Republicans but are about living their lives and taking care of their families. They may default to one party or the other but it is not a lifelong commitment. They really don’t much like politics.

Voters do need to believe Presley shares their values and perspectives. In Mississippi that means the importance of family, church and community – values that are shared broadly. They apparently already believe Governor Reeves isn’t quite with them on those.

2. Low Name ID. The Magnolia Tribune piece noted that just over half the people in polls showing Presley ahead knew much about him and that the Reeves campaign has the money to define Presley before he defines himself. Now, that is a good reason for those who do not like Reeves to contribute to Presley. It is also a reason for the Reeves campaign to proceed with caution here. It is pretty easy to respond to nastiness from someone people don’t like. Oftentimes, you can just shrug it off.

3. Comparison with Hood. The notion here is that both are white men from NE Mississippi and that Hood had more of a political base while Presley is more likable. I don’t know either man but that all seems true. It also may be that people want someone who is not a typical politician and that Hood’s “advantages” actually weren’t. Except for the money – which is correctable.

4. The National Democrats. The Magnolia Tribune piece says national Democrats, whose views are different than most of Mississippi, will not support a candidate who, like Presley, is pro-life and socially conservative. Don’t bet on that. Those decisions are pragmatic and political, not values-based approbations. That section read as a set up for a later suggestion that national support means closet liberalism. It doesn’t. Just good investment strategy.

Three points beyond the article: The first is a problem for Presley to which I am contributing. That is, that process stories help the incumbent. If the race is about polls and strategy, it makes it harder to make the necessary points about values and issues. A contest about dueling polls and pocketbooks doesn’t help Presley.

The second point is about gender. The voters in Mississippi who are not firmly aligned to either party are disproportionately white women. They are less aligned for a variety of reasons, including that many care more about their families than about legislation and that most candidates in Mississippi don’t do a good job communicating to them. I won’t say more about that in a public space but they are a big factor here. (Hint: They find neither nastiness not ads with trucks very relatable. They also aren’t interested in process stories.)

The final point is about race, on which the Magnolia Tribune story is characteristically oblique. So, yeah, Presley needs to generate depth of enthusiasm in the African American community and grow support among white voters (and mostly white women, I suspect). Got it. Some have looked at that as two campaigns. Another losing strategy. What I hope we have here is a candidate who communicates effectively about family, church and community versus one who continues to look like politics as usual. A lot more nuance to it that will, I’m sure, unfold. But seems to me Presley starts in a pretty good place.

Mayhem and Message in Mississippi

The opening month of the state legislature has been hard to watch. Our legislature is sending back federal money, taking away basic rights, and blowing dog whistles sent down from Washington and up from Florida. The Governor, in his State of the State address, assures us this is the best year yet here in Mississippi.

It is all making progressives here want to scream, or move, or at least tweet in outrage. I have had moments of all three of these myself. But it is probably time instead to hunker down and fight. The fight starts in the legislature where gerrymandering, corruption, and vindictiveness add to the problems. It will end at the ballot box. Those of us who don’t work in the legislature need to focus on the end game.

Think what you can do to help: Give money. Talk to your friends and neighbors. Organize a canvas. Raise money. Be strategic. Give more money.

Social media from the last few days is full of ranting and raving – and I have done a little of that myself. But the election will rest on the dynamics of turnout and on a relatively small group of persuadable voters who could go either way. They are not political, partisan, or ideological or they wouldn’t be in the middle. They are also mostly women, to whom neither party in Mississippi does a good job communicating. We need to get their attention without turning them off by how we talk about issues. A few examples:

The legislature’s taking away fundamental rights of self-government from those of us who live in Jackson is enraging me, and of course I see it as racially motivated. But it is also a set up so that we call out racism and Republicans benefit from the polarization. That’s what the whole Gov. v. Mayor fight has been about for them – deepening polarization to the Governor’s political benefit in his base. When you want to call them racists, pull out your checkbook and give to Democratic candidates to make yourself feel a little better. Meanwhile, you can note they are paying double for administration by having two police departments. And in other cities, community-based policing has been more effective than double-cost administrative layering. They are playing politics, not solving problems.

Speaking of playing politics, Republicans are making much of the problem of 11-year olds being forced into gender altering surgical procedures. Now, we all know that’s not happening. It’s an easy one to rant about but think about those persuadable voters. If friends and neighbors bring it up, note its not actually happening (never mind the motivation). Suggest that if the legislature really wanted to help kids they could address the lack of air conditioning/science labs/school nurses/full time librarians/AP Calculus – whatever is applicable – at the local high school. Instead, they are just playing politics by making things up. That’s what they do.

Which brings us to Medicaid expansion. Virtually no one wants to leave federal money on the table that would save local hospitals. But remember that a lot of swing voters – who are never policy wonks – do not know much about Medicaid expansion, although expansion and “medi” sound good together. Here’s what it is: money is available to insure more people treated at the local hospital so it can afford to stay open. The legislature won’t even discuss it. Instead, they are spending time and money on things people don’t want, like administrative costs and corruption. They could take care of the problems in our county/town if they wanted to – and without costing us any more money than we are paying now. But they are playing politics instead.

The legislative session is the first quarter of what will be a long game. In the final quarter, if there is a fight between Jackson and the rest of the state, or about whether minor children can choose surgery without consent, or about federal takeovers of anything, well, then it won’t be a very interesting game. If it is an election between a guy who sounds like a Mississippi version of Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and a crass politician playing games with our money, then it could be very interesting indeed.

I’ve long thought that persuadable voters choose the candidate who would be a good neighbor – who can be relied on to feed their cat over the weekend when they are out of town. Let November be about that. If not, come January of 2024 this crowd will strangle your cat for sure.

Humility Beat Hubris (For Now)

On November 8th, humility beat hubris. The election was not a triumph for professionals of either party who, with a few exceptions, didn’t see it coming. It is hard to claim credit for something you didn’t see. Meanwhile, voters, who generally lack hubris, quietly took a stand, particularly those in the middle who don’t talk to pollsters and just go do their thing.

There will be a lot of analysis forthcoming about who turned out and why, and how they all voted. But it is pretty clear that the “normal” people (see October 9th post), decided that Republicans were the riskier bet. They still don’t embrace either party – or politics in general these days – but when it came down to it, they decided that the Republicans go too far in ways that are more dangerous than the ways the Democrats go too far. That’s not approbation, but it is and was a choice.

It was quite remarkable. Midterm elections just don’t look this way, at least without a missile crisis 90 miles off our coast or an attack on New York City. President Biden’s numbers are “underwater,” as they say, and inflation is a problem. But given a choice between worse and worser, well, here we are, although it was a close call.

But humility will quietly recede and hubris will roar back. Hubris apparently runs rampant already in the state of Florida and will (no danger of a wrong prediction here), be back in DC any minute. So here are a few things for both parties to keep in mind if you don’t want the forces of humility to clobber you next time around.

1. Get Shit Done. Yeah, it is still a close divide, but that is no excuse. Democrats have enough of a mandate that no one wants to hear about how Republicans are the problem (even if they are) and, Republicans, neither standing up for Trump nor standing up to Trump counts as helping people who are still facing a wavering economy and high inflation. Cutting Social Security and Medicare and screaming about the Democrats – or about the election – is appealing to me as your chosen posture only because I am still a partisan Democrat and that posture is a loser.

2. Voting Rights. Almost all Americans take it as a given that every adult citizen in the United States has a right to vote and to have their vote counted. Republicans: If you are not for this, then you are not for our system of government and should not be a part of it. I get your strategic reasons for embracing racism and blocking voting rights – more of your people are uncomfortable with race than not. But even those who are uncomfortable with people whom they believe are different than themselves – and even those who have lingering attitudes of white supremacy – do not identify with ugly, screaming, violent and near-violent insurrectionists. You and yours variously led, encouraged, or tolerated that. If that is your brand, you will keep losing. Democrats: Do more and talk less. Starting every sentence with “regardless of race,” racializes. Failure to pass voting right legislation undercuts the argument that you stand for inclusive democracy. You need to act to protect free and fair elections and the right to vote.

3. Abortion. Americans did not approve of the Supreme Court decision taking away a right that women have had for two generations. Republicans: If you really believe that women should only have the legal right to make this decision only sometimes and in some places, you need a lot better messaging on it. Right now, it appears just a power play by a politicized Court of your making. And the argument that it is up to the states undercuts your message on the morality of abortion both to those who favor the right and to those who oppose it. It is logically inconsistent to say something is morally wrong in Mississippi but not in Colorado. Or morally wrong in Mississippi for those who cannot afford the flight to Colorado. Your arguments are mush. Democrats: Voters are with you on the legality of abortion. Most voters favor it being legal and don’t want to get into litigating details of circumstance. But most do not believe it is a morally neutral choice either; they are still with “safe, legal, and rare.” Don’t celebrate it; just keep it legal. Even in Mississippi.

4. The Economy. A little explanation and focus would help here. Blaming Biden, Putin, China, or immigrants really doesn’t make anyone more comfortable. Yeah, I know its a world-wide problem, but knowing that isn’t comforting to people. What is the focus and what is the government doing about it – in clear language that is oriented toward action not blame.

A final note to the news media: I have written plenty here to say polls don’t work the way they used to and forecasting just says what happened before will happen again. Next time, talk to fewer pollsters and forecasters, and talk more to the “normal” people. They knew what they were doing here, although they may not want to talk about it much.

The midterms, prophecy, and blood sacrifice

I am just back from two weeks in Greece. A visit to the cradle of democracy and contemplation of events Before the Common Era provides perspective. Besides, Greece is beautiful and retired people get to travel in October. But so much back here is messier now than when I left.

Despite all the polls, analytics, and forecasts, I think it is unwise to be too confident that any of us know what will happen in 11 days. A lot is close; in the last few election cycles, close polling has presaged a wave in one direction or the other, and the trend the last couple weeks has not been good for the Democrats. But the past is an imperfect predictor of the future, or even of the present. I am concerned, also, that such prophecies become self-fulfilling, creating rather than measuring momentum. Past performance is a useful predictor in targeting as well, but it does seem to me a bit overdone. Upsets do happen as a result of candidates or chemistry. The first U.S. Senate race for which I polled was Paul Wellstone’s in 1990, back when I was too new and naive to understand he couldn’t win. (For those who do not remember, he did indeed win.)

So, having learned from the oracle at Delphi how to be properly ambiguous my prediction is JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL NOT LOSE GROUND NOW. The meaning of that depends on how you see justice and whether you place the comma before or after the word “not.” Thus it’s correct – if interpreted properly.

If this is a wave election, there will be blood. It seems rather likely that many will call for a blood sacrifice of the pollsters. I do not think that will work any better than the blood sacrifices of pre-classical, pre-democratic Greece. True, if you sacrifice animals or even people after an earthquake, you are unlikely to have another earthquake right away but that may well have nothing to do with the sacrifice.

Now, I have been very clear in this blog and to anyone who asks that I believe people need to change and expand their research protocols. Polling is hardly the only form of research available, it does not work the way it used to – or the way people think it does. It also looks at the aggregate, which is less useful in the internet age, encouraging aggregate media like TV and lessening the emphasis on organizing on the ground, or by internet networks. There is utility in knowing aggregate attitudes but as an early step in a strategic process which now in my view over-relies on polling.

But the problems with polling should not swamp an examination of the problems with campaigning, which seems far less connected to people than in times past. And the media’s coverage of politics seems highly problematic and often destructive of the democratic process. It emphasizes polarization for the drama, forecasting and predictions for their ease, and in the process makes change, creativity, and conversation with the middle more difficult for everyone. The middle, which is bigger than some think and includes soft partisans, is increasingly non-participatory in polls and in reality, which also makes the polarization worse.

So, yes, we need better ways of doing research. But also a different attitude about listening to people and their views, more individual contact, less nationalization. And far less forecasting which does not, as far as I can see, contribute much to the dialog at all and risks creating a conversation from the top-down which alters results from the bottom-up. Besides, even if you sacrifice the pollsters, it wont affect the timing of the next earthquake.

JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL NOT LOSE GROUND NOW

The Midterm Election: Beware the “Normal” People

If you are reading this, you are not one of them. The “normal” people, for want of a better term, aren’t interested in politics. Normal people don’t see why anyone gets as excited as they do about candidates, parties, politics or issue positions. Normal people have their own ideas, but they aren’t passionate about them. They are passionate instead about their family, their hometown, their local football teams, and their hobbies. They vote – it’s something you are supposed to do – like going to church at least on holidays, or stopping at stop signs – but they don’t obsess over their vote; sometimes they don’t decide until they get to the booth.

Normal people used to find politics more interesting back when they could have a civil discussion about it. As I said, normal people have points of view. But they feel now its just so hysterical and overwrought – and that goes for both parties. Normal people may or may not have voted for Trump but now he seems to them to have lost it. A lot of people can get that way when they lose something they once had. But the Democrats are screaming all the time too. They are always crying racism, even when normal people don’t see it, not that they look that hard. And on abortion, they feel its better when abortion is legal because the sorrow of an unwanted pregnancy does happen, even among normal people. Abortion is not right, they say, but we can all forgive people who make mistakes. Still, women can walk, and talk; they haven’t lost control of their bodies and, really, people should be more careful.

As for the midterms, normal people aren’t sure what they will do. The Republicans really do seem to be on some kind of power trip but normal people have always worried about the Democrats on taxes, and the Democrats do seem to be on their own kind of power trip too – much more about screaming at the Republicans than saying what they will do about anything, except maybe abortion. Most normal people voted for Biden because they thought he would settle things down but things don’t seem very settled right now. Maybe its better to have Republicans in Congress so the Democrats don’t get out of control. On the other hand, they will all just scream at each other all the time and no good will come of it.

These days, normal people don’t take polls much. You hear a lot about the hard right anti-institutional crowd avoiding polls so everyone knows to make sure they have “enough” Republicans. But normal people don’t want to talk politics with a stranger for 15 or even 10 minutes either. And if they know your focus group is about politics, they really would rather not participate. Whatever they do in the midterms, it won’t be far off their center line, and they wont feel all that strongly about it. It’s football season, after all, and time to start planning for Thanksgiving.

To be clear, I’m not normal myself. I never have been. But they used to be willing to be in focus groups “about the community” and even to take polls. And while much of Mississippi is not normal by these definitions, a lot of it is – and more normal than Washington, although both D.C. and Jackson are football towns.

Entering polling’s silly season…

Soon there will be a plethora of “horse race” polls in various races and nationally, likely showing divergent results. That is a seasonal phenomenon plus the one-two punch of the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade and the compelling hearings by the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack have made the mid-terms more interesting and more contested. Plus, Republicans have nominated some truly dreadful candidates.

On the flip side, President Biden’s approval is low and the economy is perceived as weak. Last time there was a mid-term election with rising inflation (although rising less than now at that point) and a then unpopular Democratic President, the year was 1978. In that year, which almost no one under age 50 remembers, Republicans picked up three Senate seats and 15 House seats.

There are many differences between 1978 and 2022. So this year is looking interesting, but we cannot know what will happen based on polling alone, or even mostly. Here are two caveats on polling and then some things to watch for since polling isn’t going away.

The first caveat should be familiar to anyone who has followed this blog: No one is polling random samples. Polling simply doesn’t work the way it used to work. The rule for a random sample is that everyone in the population of interest – people who will vote on November 8, 2022 – has an equal chance of being included in the poll. Caller ID means no one has been able to do that since about 1990. Instead, pollsters mimic the electorate and aim for representative samples. Widely swinging turnout, extreme difficulties reaching some demographics, and response bias have made “representativeness” more and more difficult. Response bias is not unitary. It combines distrust of polls, distrust of the media, the desire to be seen as an individual not part of a labeled aggregate, the quality of the polling questions (which may cause terminations) and varying interest in politics. The response bias factor is greater among conservative voters than liberal voters but is greatest of all in the middle of the ideological spectrum, which is often the most interesting. Pollsters correct for the problems by “weighting” the data. Those weights rely on assumptions about the shape of electorate, predicated in part by mistakes of the past. There is no correction for “new” errors until after they have happened.

No poll, no matter how carefully constructed, should ever be seen as an absolute; an indication, yes, but not an absolute. If polls – even multiple polls – show Candidate A two points ahead of Candidate B, that does not mean Candidate A will win. That has nothing to do with the margin of error (which is addressed by multiple polls). It has more to do with common assumptions about turnout and perhaps new forms of response bias which we don’t know about yet. (On the other hand, if even two even semi-legitimate polls show Candidate A winning by 15 points, he or she very likely will win handily; this is all on the margins.)

Which brings me to my second caveat: Change is more often slow and incremental than sudden and dramatic. Small things happening slowly are worth attending to. Polls do not often pick these up, but deeper conversations with voters can at least create hypotheses ahead of the polls. I have found stories about how most Republicans still support Trump uninteresting. Of course they do; it is more important that the support appears less than it was. On the flip side, there is no question that many Democratic and independent women are deeply upset by the Roe v. Wade decision. The question is whether some of those who would not ordinarily vote in the midterms will turn out and vote as a consequence. Younger, lower propensity voters are not often included in polls, or not included in numbers that would allow analysis of them separately from the aggregate. In a close election, however, they could make a critical difference.

So, if you want to know what will happen, be skeptical but not dismissive of polls, be analytic about what small(ish) things may matter, and be curious about probing whether they will this time. Big upsets don’t come out of nowhere. They are also rare. But they do happen. Here are some things to watch for in polls and in the world outside them.

Small groups and sample sizes: Surprises may be produced by small groups in the electorate, like independent women, young voters, high propensity voters who stay home, low propensity voters who turn out. But an aggregate poll, even with a large sample size, cannot tell you much about groups who may be 10 percent of the electorate.

For example, the poll by Cygnal of the Georgia electorate led off the silly season. This Republican outfit put out a release on their 1200 sample Georgia poll, which included an oversample of 770 African American voters. First, they trumpeted that Republican Governor Brian Kemp led Democrat Stacey Abrams by 50 to 45 percent, which is pretty unimpressive for an incumbent Governor, actually, and they never defined their turnout assumptions which will matter a great deal in this race. Next, they declare that African American voters are not homogeneous, which really didn’t require a poll, and then declare that a quarter of African Americans under age 35 are supporting Kemp. Valid? Maybe, but maybe not. Even with a sample of 770 African American voters, how many were under age 35? I would guess maybe 150, and maybe fewer actually and upweighted to about 150. Was that small sample representative of younger African Americans? And who was the base sample of anyway, those who have voted previously or all African Americans? It may be true that Kemp is doing better than expected among younger African Americans – he has gotten a lot of press lately for not being as opposed to voting rights as other Republicans – but the conclusion, without adequate information about the sample, that this is somehow a prediction, seems a bit dubious.

Turnout assumptions: I have seen very few public polls (actually I cannot recall one) that have specified assumptions about voter turnout. First, if turnout is based on self-report (reaching people at random and screening for whether they are likely to vote), the poll is likely representing turnout as both higher than it will be (there is social pressure to say likely to vote) and more Democratic (see above on response bias). If they are selecting people based on vote history from a voter file, well, fine, but then say so, and even then is the assumption that turnout patterns are like those of 2018 (which was a Democratic year) or different. In any case, if the information on weighting and turnout is absent, the poll is really hard to read in a meaningful way.

Defining independents: With deeper party polarization, looking at voters who say they are independent is an important task. The thing is, who they are is often volatile and independents are often undersampled in polls. The image is that independents are people without party predilections, but there are independents who call themselves that because neither party is sufficiently liberal or conservative enough for them. They may be independent, but they are not up for grabs. Then there are those who don’t like either party because they feel neither party represents their moderate or centrist views. They are very important, but their distaste for politics extends to a distaste for polls, and so they are often undersampled even while many of them vote. People also float in and out of calling themselves independents, depending how they are feeling about the parties which creates exaggerated volatility – unhappy Republicans may say they are independent, making the category more Republican, or vice versa. Mushing all this together independents are still generally only about 20 to 25 percent of the polling sample. See the above on sample size. A poll of 500 with roughly 100 “independents,” of multiple descriptions won’t say much about them. (Except in some places, like California, where DTS – decline to state – voters can be a constant category.)

Extrapolating from national data: There are new national polls that show the generic match up between Democrats and Republicans far closer than it was in the spring even while President Biden’s numbers are low. It’s intriguing, and hints that the midterms may be less of a victory for the Republicans than previously thought. Hints at. Intriguing. I’m on board with both of those but not (yet) with any prediction. There is no reasonable way to extrapolate the national data into a number of house seats or to any particular statewide race. First, the national data may simply represent an even greater separation between “red” and “blue” places than was true even six months ago. Most of the national polls do not provide a time series by region, plus the above comment on turnout applies. National data often inadvertently oversample the coasts because there are more phones per person on the coasts. That New York, New England, and California are approaching political apoplexy matters, but doesn’t predict what voters will do in Georgia, Ohio, Wisconsin, or Nevada.

So what to do with all this if you are interested in the election? Well, that depends on your vantage point.

If you are a candidate, go figure out how many votes you need to win the election, how many you have already effectively banked by virtue of your party label or prior base, who are the additional people by demographics, geography, and perspective you need to win, and then go plan your campaign to win them. Whether you are ahead or behind, and by a little or a lot really doesn’t matter much in doing the intellectual work of how to win. Polling can help you understand your district better, and what people there may want to know about you and your opponent, but the strategic process of what you do with that information matters a lot more than the poll per se, which is only one tool in developing your strategy.

If you are a member of the press, use the polls to guide who you talk to, what you assess, and to enlarge your view of the range of what might happen. I wish you wouldn’t report on them as much but I recognize that is a losing battle. It’s too easy to report polls. But please ponder the questions that emerge from them: Will Republican voters turnout in droves because they are upset with Biden, or will more than usual stay home because they have new doubts about the MAGA crowd? Is there something happening that will cause younger people and lower propensity Democrats to turn out, whether that is something local or national? Are the individual candidates and campaigns perceived as interesting or distinctive enough (in ways both positive or negative) to break through whatever is happening nationally? And do voters generally believe they have relevant choices in the district or state on which you are reporting, or are the candidates boring, muting any opportunities for changing turnout dynamics or partisanship?

If you are an activist, well, go get to work. Whether your candidate is ahead or behind, by a little or a lot, door-to-door canvassing to discuss the election matters and has more of a lasting impact than most anything else, even for the next election. Read the polls if you like. But don’t let predictions become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as too often happens during the silly season.

My Vote in the MS-3 Run-off

Throughout my 40ish years in political consulting, I heard at least hundreds of times voters tell me they chose a candidate as “the lesser of two evils.” There was one they saw as “just a politician” to whom they didn’t relate, while the other was generally someone who by flaws of character or understanding would do them active harm.

Those who didn’t vote at all explained that there was no one running who had anything to do with them. There is an assumption that not voting means someone isn’t paying attention or doesn’t care. That is sometimes true. Other times people know and care but choose not to participate because they do not relate to either candidate.

I understand these rationales better than ever before as I contemplate whether to participate in the June 28th run-off election between incumbent Congressman Michael Guest and ultra right challenger Michael Cassidy.

Here in Mississippi, there is no party registration and so registered voters can participate in primary and run off elections if they “intend to support the nominee.” Despite that little clause about intent, people cross party lines for strategic reasons and vote in primaries and run-off elections in either party with impunity. Democratic participation on behalf of Senator Thad Cochran was likely decisive in his victory over ultra right challenger Chris McDaniel in 2014, although many of those Democrats may indeed have supported Cochran in the fall given that the Democratic challenger fell short of 40 percent.

This year, many people I know who often vote Democratic plan to vote for Guest in the run off because Cassidy is a newcomer to Mississippi, reputedly a McDaniel protege, and vows to make Marjorie Taylor Greene a role model should he be elected to Congress.

Given that Cassidy is of questionable legislative competence and shows signs of being a pro-violent crazy, I have little doubt who is the (slightly) lesser evil. Cassidy’s main complaint against Guest, a former prosecutor, is that Guest voted for a bipartisan January 6th Commission on the recommendation of the ranking Republican of the Homeland Security Committee on which he sits. To Cassidy, that makes him a RINO. Guest also, however, applauds overturning Roe v. Wade, voted against certification of the election, and is running in the runoff on his conservative credentials, which are ample, tweeting right-wing language and no doubt figuring that if he reassures Republican voters on his MAGA-ness, he might still pick up some more progressive votes given that Cassidy is Greene-lite.

I am frustrated by the situation. I am angry at the legislature who for politically unsavory reasons carved out my little blue Jackson precinct and kept it in the 3rd CD with some of the most conservative counties in the state. I am a tad annoyed by what seemed a random article in Mississippi Today, arguably our best press outlet, that if the NAACP redistricting plan had succeeded, Guest might have lost outright. He might have won outright if he had campaigned, even without his having a couple moderate Jackson precincts where voters disagree with him, so why point to the NAACP? And I am frustrated that one of these two men – Cassidy or Guest – is likely to represent my blue precinct in Congress given the nature of the district as a whole and the (thus far) lackluster campaign of the Democratic candidate who will almost certainly get my vote in the fall. Of course, I chose to live here so that’s on me. I wish I could move my house two blocks to the west to the state’s one Democratic district.

But I just can’t vote for the lesser of these two evils. He is not lesser enough. And while the clause on intent is toothless, and Mississippi tradition almost invites my participation in the run-off, a vote for Guest would be to my mind just wrong for me. I would squirm every time he posted some racially tinged tweet, or went on an irrelevant diatribe about socialism (which is no threat here). I would remember with each squirm that I had used the little power I have – my vote – in his behalf. Cassidy would be worse, but only a little, and maybe people here would be embarrassed either by his rhetoric, or by his inability to deliver for the district (although probably not).

I respect the fortitude of those of my friends and neighbors who agree with me on issues but will vote for Guest. Maybe I will build such fortitude over time. But I just can’t do it this time.

I will take my guidance from those who don’t vote. Neither of these men have anything to with me. And I can’t support either one of them. I will stay home June 28th. And I understand better than before why some people don’t vote. Not voting is a statement too.

Law, order, and dishonor

Many Republicans seem to me to be confused about law and order. I am hearing decidedly mixed messages on public safety and public corruption both here in Mississippi and from Washington, DC. It’s hard to figure exactly where that party is coming from.

First, here in Jackson the Governor used his line item veto to take money away from the local planetarium because there is too much crime in Jackson. The connection between crime and star gazing is loose, unless you know that the Governor likes to criticize the City of Jackson where the planetarium is located.

To be clear, the Governor (and the Republican state legislature) have a pretty soft commitment to public safety outside of the planetarium threat. State policies around COVID contributed to among the highest death rates in the world here in Mississippi and the near collapse of the health care system, which is starved for resources in part because of opposition to Medicaid expansion. The legislature is slow to spend infrastructure funds which could help provide reliable and safe water service in Jackson, nor does it do much for the city except occupy it a few months a year when the legislature is in session.

I conclude that these Republicans care about public safety from some threats but not from others. They like beating up on the majority African American capital city but don’t do anything helpful about public safety unless it helps make their, shall we say, “anti-urban” argument.

Next, two of the three Republican members of Congress from Mississippi were forced into run-off elections for what appear to be opposite reasons. Representative Steven Palazzo has been the subject of multiple accusations that he struggles with both truth-telling and campaign finance law. His failure to win 50 percent was predicted, although he came in first. He faces a local Sheriff in the run-off.

Representative Michael Guest, on the other hand, in whose district I reside, was forced into a runoff by a newcomer to Mississippi, Michael Cassidy, who accuses Guest of being a RINO because he voted for a January 6th Commission. So Guest, a conservative former prosecutor is accused of failing to represent Mississippi by a guy from the DC area whose principal complaint was that the prosecutor wanted to investigate a crime. Whatever.

That brings me to the main event of the week, the January 6th Committee hearings. Dramatic. Fact-based. Headed by a Mississippian (a real one; not like me and Cassidy) who acknowledged in introducing himself that Mississippi’s history and his own had prepared him for the moment. The hearing also featured two very tough women: the extraordinarily clear-headed daughter of a Republican Vice President, and a law enforcement officer who had put her life on the line for her job and for her country. The Committee presented hard evidence of a carefully planned and executed coup against the United States government and its peaceful transfer of power.

The Republican leadership response? They would rather address inflation than sedition. That seems non-sensical. Like announcing they can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. Or that Jackson’s crime rate means it can’t have a planetarium. High inflation does not make the attempted coup OK.

Representative Cheney’s statement that their dishonor will remain was the central quote of the night. And I really don’t know what the Republicans think they stand for. Its not public safety. I am clear on that. Chaos and violence? Greed and unchecked power? Or what I have euphemistically called here “anti-urbanism”? They really aren’t leaving themselves with much else.

At least most Republicans aren’t leaving themselves much else. I am sure I have many disagreements with Representative Cheney on matters of policy. But I admire her courage, toughness, clarity, and patriotism. I hope in the coming months to see that our country and my adopted state honor those qualities.

Authenticity

Congratulations to John Fetterman on winning the Democratic nomination in Pennsylvania. And kudos to you for being declared authentic.

Being authentic has long been a positive description in politics and is increasingly rare. What is it and why has John Fetterman won the authenticity award? Check out the dictionary and it means John Fetterman is an original. Not a copy. Not like everyone else.

Well, that really shouldn’t be that special, each of us being unique individuals and all. So why is only John Fetterman special in this way?

I have long believed that voters seeing individual candidate personality is critical to the candidate winning. Voters seem pretty good at getting a read on what candidates are about personally. In focus groups, I have asked questions about what a candidate would be like on a first date, whether, as a neighbor, they would look after your house when you are gone, and other questions to get at what the “guy” is like. People answer these questions easily. They do have that kind of read on people – even people running for office. Candidates who would be too polite or too grabby on that first date, or who, as neighbors, won’t pick up your mail, are less likely to win regardless of their issue positions. Even if campaign ads and messages declare them to be a fighter, if as a neighbor you can’t call on them in an emergency, you are clearly not buying they fight for you.

Now, plenty of ads describe candidates as growing up barefoot and poor, or the child of a single mother, or in some other way overcoming the odds just like most people have. But, would they feed your cat when you are away for the weekend?

In the olden days of polling (like in the 1990s), pollsters told candidates what people were worried about and then, on an individual basis, tried to connect what people were concerned about with the candidate’s thinking. In the modern era of independent expenditures, half the time the pollster hasn’t met the candidate, much less derived a sense of what makes them unique – as a person as well as politically. The result is too much messaging is pat regurgitated shit like how people deserve X, or at least how some people deserve X, and how the candidate knows they deserve whatever because he/she has also overcome odds. (The overuse of the word deserve is a pet peeve; it is fundamentally about entitlement and not respectful of what people earn.)

Not all candidates have visible tattoos, dislike suits and wear shorts and hoodies like Fetterman. He does provide more to work with than most. But every candidate has some attitudes that don’t fit the mold, or some aspects of their thinking that are original, or a real story about how they became interested in politics, or about how they are a good neighbor (told better by the neighbor, I suspect).

So, as the 2022 cycle gets going, if you want candidates to be deemed “authentic,” suggest they say some things in a way only they would say them. Messages and ads taken from common talking points will just produce an image that your candidate is a typical politician. And, believe me, those guys are never fun on a first date and while some might say they will feed your cat, they will get busy and forget and your cat may starve.

Now, in many cases, both the candidates would let the cat starve. Then people make a partisan choice between two cat-killers. Probably not a good year though for Democratic cat-killers. Even if they grew up poor and overcame the odds and therefore know what you deserve.