I cringe every time I read someone say that in four years we will have a reset. That is extremely optimistic. Does any one actually think Donald Trump is going to leave the White House ever again once he is in it unless he turns the controls over to his son? And who would stop him from doing so? The Supreme Court? Congress? Of course not, there are no longer guard rails. I hope I am pleasantly surprised but after watching Trump over the years, I seriously doubt I will be.
Rod, I certainly hope that’s not the case. My assumption, and fear, is that Vance will inherit it all. He’s only 40. And he is truly scary. Way smarter than Trump (a low bar, I realize.).
I don't understand why Biden/Harris didn't visit the boarder more. It was a very hot topic that they seemed to avoid, yet blaming Trump for scuttling the bipartisan boarder bill. And I don't understand why Harris didn't talk about the economy in a more direct way instead of in abstract terms. And there were other topics that the Harris Campaign avoided altogether.
Do a search and you will discover that she did more than her part in visiting the countries that these desperate people were fleeing from. She hammered out agreements from these countries.
Apparently voters value performative stunts over actual work.
I agree Charlie Cook’s presentation made me feel a little better, too. The one thing he said that I disagree with was that Biden overplayed his hand legislatively and he should have gone smaller given the slim majorities in Congress. That may well have been true 10-20 years ago but recent history shows while voters like me prefer bipartisan legislation, our elected officials rarely do. Giving the “other side” a win is frowned upon by the base and by party leaders. Look what happened when Iowa Republican legislators tried to work with Dems to oppose private school vouchers. Nearly all were primaried at the direction of the sitting Republican governor. Opposing and obstructing just feels like the norm and it’s not a good place for our country to be.
PS It was nice to briefly meet you, Dave. I really enjoy reading your columns.
Nice to meet you, too, Jan. Thanks for saying hi and for supporting the column.
Now that I’ve thought more about Cook’s statement about Biden going too big without a landslide election behind him, perhaps it’s wishful thinking on his part. The country is so divided that landslides are unlikely to happen anymore. So when one side wins, this is their chance to go big or go home. Don’t waste the opportunity.
It’s a legitimate argument that the administration waited too long to do something about the border. But a reminder that the bill Trump ordered killed would have accomplished a lot to improve security at the border. Trump wanted to run on immigration and he guessed, correctly as it turns out, that voters would soon forget that he had spiked the best bi-partisan immigration bill in years. Too many people have short memories and don’t read enough about issues.
We now have two presidential elections where a woman was the candidate. Both were against Donald Trump. In my opinion, the percentage results include the gender bias present, as well as other factors. I believe that Kamala Harris (For the People) and the Second Gentleman are the perfect candidates to run against the extreme MAGA movement. I hope she keeps on running, again and again, at least as many times as Joe Biden.
Thanks for the summary of a smart man's speech. Your last mention in your take needs an addendum that was not in his speech. Two more reasons why Kamala Harris lost: She's Black, and she's a woman. Disturbingly high numbers of men in her race voted against her. Many women of all colors voted against her despite her championing women's bodily autonomy.
To ignore these two factors is to ignore a lot of the reasons why she lost.
Chris, there was a question from the audience whether Cook things race and gender played a role. He said to some extent they did, but he said not as important for many voters as the economy and the border. So he said it was A factor, but not the most critical one.
Thanks for this column, Dave. One of my disappointments in hearing Cook last night was that he spent all his time on the Democrats and our campaigns and losses. I had hoped to hear more from Cook about the Republicans, Trump, and the plans from Project 2025. I heard Cook's comment that the Trump campaign "machine" was well run even though more than a bit disconnected from the candidate and his appearances. As interested as I am in my party's future, I'm also scared about what's ahead.
True. I expected some more commentary about Trump. Maybe Cook read the room and decided that crowd really didn’t want to hear it. It is the Harkin Institute, after all.
I'm really disappointed. I visited with Kamala at DMACC in 2018 when she came to Iowa to campaign for six women running for seats in the Iowa legislature. All lost as I recall, but now one is the minority leader, another was re-elected to 2nd term the Senate by a huge margin. Another is entering her third term, two consecutive (having lost twice by small margins). Two have moved out of state. And, the sixth ran unsuccessfully against Zaun in 2016, who will now finally be watching from the sideline. So, perseverance must be the answer.
I agree that the perception that the economy was bad and lawless migrants were overrunning America were big, and promoted as fact, and also not fully understood. I wonder how much racism and misogyny were factors? Or transphobia? There were tons of negative ads claiming Democrats wanted trans girls, who they believe to be dangerously confused boys, competing in sports and using girl's locker rooms. Not to mention that trans people are about 1% and of those only a few want to do sports. It's a dilemma we should be able to work out.
PS. I loved Kamala as a candidate. What if Biden had chosen her to be AG and Merrick as VP?
I have been a big proponent of Garland since the SUPCO seat was stolen from him, but his glacial pace prosecuting Trump is impossible to defend. He let Trump run out the clock and it’s an absolute travesty of justice. Or, lack thereof.
In June 2022 Biden convened what's known as the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and protection (https://losangelesdeclaration.com) Which resulted in agreement among 20 or so countries in the Western Hemisphere to 1) Promoting Stability and Assistance for Communities of Destination, Origin, Transit, and Return; 2) Promoting Regular Pathways for Migration and International Protection; 3) Promoting Humane Migration Management. The "ministers" (Blinken for USA) have met in Washington DC, Chile, Guatemala, and Belize. There is evident progress.. Venezuela, not a member, has expelled nearly 8 million people, most waiting in Columbia hoping to return. One study said there were 20 M displaced persons in the Wester Hemisphere and Caribbean.
In October 6, 2023, Brett McGurk believed that a Middle East peace deal was within reach—that the Biden administration just might succeed where every administration before it had failed.
McGurk, the White House coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa, was meeting in his office with a group of Saudi diplomats, drawing up a blueprint for a Palestinian state. It was the centerpiece of a grand bargain: In exchange for a Palestinian state, Saudi Arabia would normalize diplomatic relations with Israel. At a moment when Israel was growing internationally isolated, the nation that styled itself the leader of the Muslim world would embrace it.
The officials were there to begin hammering out the necessary details. The Saudis had assigned experts to redesign Palestine’s electrical grid and welfare system. The plan also laid out steps that the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank would need to take to expunge corruption from its administrative apparatus.
*****Of course we know this agreement never happened. My wonderment is why these two important international phenomena were not generally known by news organizations and reported. They show Biden was not sitting around waiting for god to rescue him.
While I salute Harris’s campaign effort, it seems hard to conclude that she would have inevitably ended up as the nominee through a competitive primary. She struggled mightily to connect in 2020 and was among the first to drop out. She was an unpopular VP working for an unpopular president. She received almost 10M less votes than Biden in 2020, while Trump gained 1M from his 2020 count, more or less holding steady. Harris simply didn’t inspire people to get off their butts to vote. Of course, we’ll never know if the messenger or the message is mostly to blame, but a competitive primary would have battle tested both.
The main takeaway? It’s Joe Biden’s fault for not honoring his word to pass the torch and phase out gracefully after the 2022 midterms.
Nice try, Mr. Busiek. The true answer to why Kamala lost - decisively, btw - was 70,000,000+ people did not vote for Trump (a flawed human being if there ever was one), they voted against what Harris/Biden oversaw and propagated over the last four years: I won’t beat you up with the list of personal government-imposed issues Americans have been dealing with in that time. Feel bad, cry if you must and do continue to write columns trying desperately to explain the loss for some abstract reason other than the complete failure of Democratic policies. I look forward to you continuing to make excuses rather than confronting reality.
I would be interested in some specifics. From where I sit, I see skillful handling of a difficult economic situation they inherited, impressive investment in much-needed infrastructure, progress on climate change, hiring of competent department heads who were allowed to do their jobs, and two leaders with a moral compass.
What are the personal, government-imposed issues Americans have been dealing with?
This is under the heading of' gee, if only...' If Harris had won, it would have been the fuel for even more conspiratorial pearl-clutching if she, as the sitting VP, had certified her own election. So she would have probably deferred to the President Pro Tem, who is a member of the Senate's majority party. Any thoughts on which of the soon-to-be 53 Republicans (as of January 3, 2025) would have taken up the patriotic mantle, and have done the needful (as my Indian former co-workers termed it).
On banning cable news: Dave, do you think that if we still had the Fairness Doctrine broadcast outlets and programs would have to BE more "fair and balanced," to quote the old Fox News tag line? Rush Limbaugh went national about a year after it was abolished late in the Reagan administration. I know we had firebrand talk shows like Joe Pyne when I was a kid, but I don't know if anyone took them seriously except maybe folks who thought pro wrestling was real. Now a large portion of it is just like pro wrestling trash talk. Or just propaganda staged for whatever ideological group the host or network is trying to cater to. And that goes for MSNBC as well as Fox. I guess the easiest answer is to change the channel or go for a walk or find a home project to work on. There's only so much real "news." They're just talking about the news until something else happens. It's infotainment and it only gets you riled up more.
Pat, yes. Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine because Republicans thought, even way back then, that the media was dominated by liberals. Killing the doctrine opened the door to conservative talk radio and eventually Fox News. Keep in mind it only applied to over the air broadcasters, which are licensed by the FCC. It would not apply to,y to cable news outlets.
Dave - not this subject but perhaps of interest (and an idea for you?) is this documentary about your industry in Twin Cities history (I’ve split my 84 years of living 50/50 in DSM and Mpls.
This helps. However, I’m still convinced the electorate is stupid. A decent, smart person lost to … someone not even capable of decent.
I cringe every time I read someone say that in four years we will have a reset. That is extremely optimistic. Does any one actually think Donald Trump is going to leave the White House ever again once he is in it unless he turns the controls over to his son? And who would stop him from doing so? The Supreme Court? Congress? Of course not, there are no longer guard rails. I hope I am pleasantly surprised but after watching Trump over the years, I seriously doubt I will be.
Rod, I certainly hope that’s not the case. My assumption, and fear, is that Vance will inherit it all. He’s only 40. And he is truly scary. Way smarter than Trump (a low bar, I realize.).
I don't understand why Biden/Harris didn't visit the boarder more. It was a very hot topic that they seemed to avoid, yet blaming Trump for scuttling the bipartisan boarder bill. And I don't understand why Harris didn't talk about the economy in a more direct way instead of in abstract terms. And there were other topics that the Harris Campaign avoided altogether.
Do a search and you will discover that she did more than her part in visiting the countries that these desperate people were fleeing from. She hammered out agreements from these countries.
Apparently voters value performative stunts over actual work.
Right, I get that, and I know that she did the work, but it appeared that an actual visit earlier on might have been helpful.
I agree Charlie Cook’s presentation made me feel a little better, too. The one thing he said that I disagree with was that Biden overplayed his hand legislatively and he should have gone smaller given the slim majorities in Congress. That may well have been true 10-20 years ago but recent history shows while voters like me prefer bipartisan legislation, our elected officials rarely do. Giving the “other side” a win is frowned upon by the base and by party leaders. Look what happened when Iowa Republican legislators tried to work with Dems to oppose private school vouchers. Nearly all were primaried at the direction of the sitting Republican governor. Opposing and obstructing just feels like the norm and it’s not a good place for our country to be.
PS It was nice to briefly meet you, Dave. I really enjoy reading your columns.
Nice to meet you, too, Jan. Thanks for saying hi and for supporting the column.
Now that I’ve thought more about Cook’s statement about Biden going too big without a landslide election behind him, perhaps it’s wishful thinking on his part. The country is so divided that landslides are unlikely to happen anymore. So when one side wins, this is their chance to go big or go home. Don’t waste the opportunity.
It’s a legitimate argument that the administration waited too long to do something about the border. But a reminder that the bill Trump ordered killed would have accomplished a lot to improve security at the border. Trump wanted to run on immigration and he guessed, correctly as it turns out, that voters would soon forget that he had spiked the best bi-partisan immigration bill in years. Too many people have short memories and don’t read enough about issues.
We now have two presidential elections where a woman was the candidate. Both were against Donald Trump. In my opinion, the percentage results include the gender bias present, as well as other factors. I believe that Kamala Harris (For the People) and the Second Gentleman are the perfect candidates to run against the extreme MAGA movement. I hope she keeps on running, again and again, at least as many times as Joe Biden.
Thanks for the summary of a smart man's speech. Your last mention in your take needs an addendum that was not in his speech. Two more reasons why Kamala Harris lost: She's Black, and she's a woman. Disturbingly high numbers of men in her race voted against her. Many women of all colors voted against her despite her championing women's bodily autonomy.
To ignore these two factors is to ignore a lot of the reasons why she lost.
Chris, there was a question from the audience whether Cook things race and gender played a role. He said to some extent they did, but he said not as important for many voters as the economy and the border. So he said it was A factor, but not the most critical one.
Thanks for this column, Dave. One of my disappointments in hearing Cook last night was that he spent all his time on the Democrats and our campaigns and losses. I had hoped to hear more from Cook about the Republicans, Trump, and the plans from Project 2025. I heard Cook's comment that the Trump campaign "machine" was well run even though more than a bit disconnected from the candidate and his appearances. As interested as I am in my party's future, I'm also scared about what's ahead.
True. I expected some more commentary about Trump. Maybe Cook read the room and decided that crowd really didn’t want to hear it. It is the Harkin Institute, after all.
Thanks for your generous support, Mary.
I'm really disappointed. I visited with Kamala at DMACC in 2018 when she came to Iowa to campaign for six women running for seats in the Iowa legislature. All lost as I recall, but now one is the minority leader, another was re-elected to 2nd term the Senate by a huge margin. Another is entering her third term, two consecutive (having lost twice by small margins). Two have moved out of state. And, the sixth ran unsuccessfully against Zaun in 2016, who will now finally be watching from the sideline. So, perseverance must be the answer.
I agree that the perception that the economy was bad and lawless migrants were overrunning America were big, and promoted as fact, and also not fully understood. I wonder how much racism and misogyny were factors? Or transphobia? There were tons of negative ads claiming Democrats wanted trans girls, who they believe to be dangerously confused boys, competing in sports and using girl's locker rooms. Not to mention that trans people are about 1% and of those only a few want to do sports. It's a dilemma we should be able to work out.
PS. I loved Kamala as a candidate. What if Biden had chosen her to be AG and Merrick as VP?
I have been a big proponent of Garland since the SUPCO seat was stolen from him, but his glacial pace prosecuting Trump is impossible to defend. He let Trump run out the clock and it’s an absolute travesty of justice. Or, lack thereof.
Two more:
In June 2022 Biden convened what's known as the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and protection (https://losangelesdeclaration.com) Which resulted in agreement among 20 or so countries in the Western Hemisphere to 1) Promoting Stability and Assistance for Communities of Destination, Origin, Transit, and Return; 2) Promoting Regular Pathways for Migration and International Protection; 3) Promoting Humane Migration Management. The "ministers" (Blinken for USA) have met in Washington DC, Chile, Guatemala, and Belize. There is evident progress.. Venezuela, not a member, has expelled nearly 8 million people, most waiting in Columbia hoping to return. One study said there were 20 M displaced persons in the Wester Hemisphere and Caribbean.
2. Atlantic writer Franklin Foer has an excellent article in the September 25 2024 issue https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/09/israel-gaza-war-biden-netanyahu-peace-negotiations/679581/) a must read. Foer writes:
In October 6, 2023, Brett McGurk believed that a Middle East peace deal was within reach—that the Biden administration just might succeed where every administration before it had failed.
McGurk, the White House coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa, was meeting in his office with a group of Saudi diplomats, drawing up a blueprint for a Palestinian state. It was the centerpiece of a grand bargain: In exchange for a Palestinian state, Saudi Arabia would normalize diplomatic relations with Israel. At a moment when Israel was growing internationally isolated, the nation that styled itself the leader of the Muslim world would embrace it.
The officials were there to begin hammering out the necessary details. The Saudis had assigned experts to redesign Palestine’s electrical grid and welfare system. The plan also laid out steps that the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank would need to take to expunge corruption from its administrative apparatus.
*****Of course we know this agreement never happened. My wonderment is why these two important international phenomena were not generally known by news organizations and reported. They show Biden was not sitting around waiting for god to rescue him.
Question -- Was Charlie Cook's presentation recorded?
I live a number of miles from DSM, it would be nice to watch the presentation.
Thanks,
Ed
Ed, here’s the link:
https://harkininstitute.drake.edu/live-stream-links/
Dave:
Thanks, very much appreciated!
Ed
While I salute Harris’s campaign effort, it seems hard to conclude that she would have inevitably ended up as the nominee through a competitive primary. She struggled mightily to connect in 2020 and was among the first to drop out. She was an unpopular VP working for an unpopular president. She received almost 10M less votes than Biden in 2020, while Trump gained 1M from his 2020 count, more or less holding steady. Harris simply didn’t inspire people to get off their butts to vote. Of course, we’ll never know if the messenger or the message is mostly to blame, but a competitive primary would have battle tested both.
The main takeaway? It’s Joe Biden’s fault for not honoring his word to pass the torch and phase out gracefully after the 2022 midterms.
Nice try, Mr. Busiek. The true answer to why Kamala lost - decisively, btw - was 70,000,000+ people did not vote for Trump (a flawed human being if there ever was one), they voted against what Harris/Biden oversaw and propagated over the last four years: I won’t beat you up with the list of personal government-imposed issues Americans have been dealing with in that time. Feel bad, cry if you must and do continue to write columns trying desperately to explain the loss for some abstract reason other than the complete failure of Democratic policies. I look forward to you continuing to make excuses rather than confronting reality.
I would be interested in some specifics. From where I sit, I see skillful handling of a difficult economic situation they inherited, impressive investment in much-needed infrastructure, progress on climate change, hiring of competent department heads who were allowed to do their jobs, and two leaders with a moral compass.
What are the personal, government-imposed issues Americans have been dealing with?
This is under the heading of' gee, if only...' If Harris had won, it would have been the fuel for even more conspiratorial pearl-clutching if she, as the sitting VP, had certified her own election. So she would have probably deferred to the President Pro Tem, who is a member of the Senate's majority party. Any thoughts on which of the soon-to-be 53 Republicans (as of January 3, 2025) would have taken up the patriotic mantle, and have done the needful (as my Indian former co-workers termed it).
On banning cable news: Dave, do you think that if we still had the Fairness Doctrine broadcast outlets and programs would have to BE more "fair and balanced," to quote the old Fox News tag line? Rush Limbaugh went national about a year after it was abolished late in the Reagan administration. I know we had firebrand talk shows like Joe Pyne when I was a kid, but I don't know if anyone took them seriously except maybe folks who thought pro wrestling was real. Now a large portion of it is just like pro wrestling trash talk. Or just propaganda staged for whatever ideological group the host or network is trying to cater to. And that goes for MSNBC as well as Fox. I guess the easiest answer is to change the channel or go for a walk or find a home project to work on. There's only so much real "news." They're just talking about the news until something else happens. It's infotainment and it only gets you riled up more.
Pat, yes. Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine because Republicans thought, even way back then, that the media was dominated by liberals. Killing the doctrine opened the door to conservative talk radio and eventually Fox News. Keep in mind it only applied to over the air broadcasters, which are licensed by the FCC. It would not apply to,y to cable news outlets.
Dave - not this subject but perhaps of interest (and an idea for you?) is this documentary about your industry in Twin Cities history (I’ve split my 84 years of living 50/50 in DSM and Mpls.
https://www.minnpost.com/media/2024/11/broadcast-wars-chronicles-halcyon-days-of-tv-journalism-in-the-twin-cities/?utm_medium=email