The Phoney War is Ending: Are We Ready?

Since 2021, Democrats and democrats have tried to change the subject and avoid one hard truth, but now that a Trump-Biden rematch is solidifying, we have to face reality.

Two-and-a-half years ago, in March of 2021, I wrote a post about “The Phoney War We’re Living Through.” Today, I think it’s just about over, and the real war is at our doorstep. And I’m kind of terrified. Let me explain.

For those of you who aren’t World War Two history buffs, the “Phoney War,” which the French called “La Drôle de guerre“ and the Germans “Der Sitzkreig,“ was the period between September 1939 and May 1940. That is, the months between the German invasion of Poland and their invasion of France and the Low Countries of Belgium and the Netherlands. Both sides knew they would eventually be at full-scale war, but apart from skirmishes at sea and some maneuvering around the periphery of Europe, they kept their powder dry during these months. Winston Churchill called it the Twilight War. People in the West knew they would eventually be fighting the Nazis, but for those long months they acted otherwise.

Back in early 2021, when I wrote that post, Democrats were in control of both chambers of Congress and in a position to make fundamental changes to our political system to protect democracy from an authoritarian demagogue and norm-breaker like Donald Trump. But the pro-democracy wing of the Democratic party wasn’t strong enough to overcome its corporate wing, where people like Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Krysten Sinema (?-AZ) took maximal advantage of their leverage in the closely divided Senate. And civil society defenders of democracy were divided, with far too much attention going toward well-funded and well-meaning efforts to do things like “ban surveillance advertising”--as if changing the business model of Big Tech would do anything to weaken the surging energies of the MAGA movement.

We also lost precious time because the first vehicle for protecting democracy, H.R. 1, the For the People Act, was overstuffed and poorly written, leading to a more focused and less ambitious replacement, John Lewis’ Freedom to Vote Act. But that was only introduced in September 2021 and thus had less time to gain traction. Meanwhile, at the state level Republican-controlled legislatures had moved quickly to pass their own versions of political reform, chiseling away at basic voting rights.

We also lost precious time because, frankly, our leaders were focused on “moving forward” and not looking hard at what had just happened. It’s not for nothing that Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) called his memoir of the Trump years and January 6th Unthinkable. President Biden didn’t want to dwell on the past either; he instead wanted to declare “victory” over COVID, which he did very prematurely on July 4th of that year. He also did little to focus attention on the continued push by MAGA Republicans to spread election denialism, apart from a late push around the issue in the fall of 2022 as the mid-term elections approached. (Neither of the State Department’s big international “Summits for Democracy,” in 2021 and in 2023, shined any light on anti-democratic movements at home.)

The fluctuation in the percentage of Americans who believe Biden legitimately won the 2020 is illustrative. In January 2021, 65% said he did, according to CNN’s polling. In July of 2022, after the prime-time rollout of the January 6th committee hearings, that percentage reached its highest point, at 69%. Three months later, with Biden and other Democrats continuing to talk about the threats to democracy, 67% believed he won legitimately. Now, that percentage has fallen to just 61% as of July 2023. (And, most worrisome, this shift does not appear to be solely because Republicans and Republican-leaning independents believe the Big Lie in larger numbers; some leakage seems to be coming from the other side of the aisle.)

For arguments sake, it might have been good politics over the last three years to mostly avoid talking about the threat former President Trump and his cult of personality poses to American democracy since there was a chance that he’d deflate of his own accord, or some Republican upstart would displace him. A year ago, a whole lot of smart people thought that would be Florida governor Ron DeSantis, remember?

What’s past is past and we are where we are. I think the Phoney War is ending because as of a few days ago, President Biden has signaled that he clearly expects to be facing Trump in next year’s election, and he’s speaking clearly about the dangers ahead. “There is no question that today’s Republican Party is driven and intimidated by MAGA Republican extremists,” he said last Thursday in Arizona. “Their extreme agenda, if carried out, would fundamentally alter the institutions of American democracy as we know it.” He continued:

They’re pushing a notion the defeated former President expressed when he was in office and believes applies only to him. And this is a dangerous notion: This president is above the law, with no limits on power. Trump says the Constitution gave him, quote, “the right to do whatever he wants as President,” end of quote. I’ve never even heard a president say that in jest. Not guided by the Constitution or by common service and decency toward our fellow Americans but by vengeance and vindictiveness…. Just consider these as actual quotes from MAGA — the MAGA movement. Quote, “I am your retribution.” “Slitting throats” of civil servants, replacing them with extreme political cronies. MAGA extremists proclaim support for law enforcement only to say, “We…” — quote, “We must destroy the FBI.”

It’s not one person. It’s the controlling element of the House Republican Party. Whitewash attacks of January 6th by calling the spearing and stomping of police a leg- — quote, a “legitimate political discourse.” Did you ever think you’d hear leaders of political parties in the United States of America speak like that? Seizing power, concentrating power, attempting to abuse power, purging and packing key institutions, spewing conspiracy theories, spreading lies for profit and power to divide America in every way, inciting violence against those who risk their lives to keep America safe, weaponizing against the very soul of who we are as Americans. This MAGA threat is the threat to the brick and mortar of our democratic institutions. But it’s also a threat to the character of our nation and gives our — that gives our Constitution life, that binds us together as Americans in common cause.

It's good to see Biden being this explicit. Even though “democracy” as an abstraction polls very poorly, connecting the dots and helping Americans see where the GOP is headed is critical work. I hope he keeps doing it and more importantly, that a lot of his surrogates do too.

Trouble Ahead

But here’s why I’m really worried about 2024. It’s not that Trump and Biden are head-to-head in the polls; it’s that once again the whole election will be decided in a handful of swing states. Biden may beat Trump by 10 million votes this time, but his landslides in super-blue states won’t matter. And the conditions are super-ripe for third-party spoiler candidates to scramble the results in key states. Not only is “No Labels,” the secretive vehicle for a “centrist” alternative ticket, in a position to play a disruptive role, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – a vaccine fabulist and crypto-anti-semite – is now reportedly considering leaving the Democratic primary to run for the Libertarian Party’s line. This would be a boon for the Libertarians, who have managed to garner ballot status in most states. And it could easily pull enough votes away from Biden to tip some states to Trump, especially if Kennedy plays up issues that appeal to younger voters like drug legalization and debt cancellation. And Cornell West, the left-wing professor and social critic, is likely to give the Green Party some new energy as its likely candidate, though at least some of his votes will come from people who never vote Democratic anyway.

Why are conditions super-ripe for third-party presidential wannabes in 2024? A major new survey by the Pew Research Center offers lots of answers. Trust in the federal government is among the lowest levels seen in 70 years. Almost three-in-ten Americans express unfavorable views of both major parties, the highest level seen in three decades. In 1994, the year that saw Newt Gingrich take over the House, just 6% felt that way. People under the age of 50 are more alienated, with 35% having unfavorable views of both parties. One quarter of all Americans do not feel well represented by either party. Two-thirds say they are not satisfied with the candidates who have so far emerged.

Until we change the rules to make third parties viable players in the political process, either by restoring fusion voting to its once ubiquitous presence in 1800s American elections, or by adopting proportional representation, the most any of the third-party presidential candidates now on the scene can do is represent a protest vote. Historically, such candidacies do well when the major parties are seen as failing. And Pew’s data suggests that we’re approaching another upswing in that sentiment. Outsider third-party candidates who especially emphasize the corruption of the system and how it is dominated by monied interests and lobbying could strike a Perot-sized chord next year.

Drought? WE’RE SWIMMING IN CASH!

Something else that caught my attention in the Pew survey was how few Americans think that volunteering for a political campaign, donating money to a candidate or party, or attending a political protest or rally can be “extremely” or “very” effective in changing the country for the better. Just 17% thought donating to a nonprofit or charity could be really effective; only 15% thought campaign volunteering was useful; a piddling 13% thought political donations mattered; and barely 10% thought protest rallies could change anything.

Pew doesn’t offer comparative data on this topic and a perusal of their website found no older surveys where this set of questions were asked. So I can’t say if these generally negative attitudes are new or a constant in American politics. But other soundings have found that many people are very turned off by the constant and shrill fundraising emails and texts they keep getting. I heard from one reader last week who got text messages from 35 different candidates in a single day, all begging for money as the third quarter of the year came to a close. No question this is contributing to the big drop in Democratic donations flagged by the Movement Voter Project and columnists like Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times.

But according to Maya Garcia of Mothership Strategies, one of the top Democratic fundraising firms and the one generally viewed by most observers and critics as THE NUMBER ONE source of abusive and deceptive practices in the field, things are going GREAT! “In 2023 we’re seeing consistent, accelerating fundraising growth across our clients — maximizing potential for a game-changing 2024 election cycle,” she writes on Medium. “Our clients’ early investments in their digital programs will allow them to run enormous grassroots field programs, massive advertising campaigns, innovative candidate training programs, and more from coast to coast​.”

Well, it’s quite possible Mothership’s clients are doing well despite the downturn. After all, the company has shown again and again that there’s no tactic they won’t stoop to if it generates a positive return. In her view, the overall drop in giving can be explained by external factors: the drop in donor enthusiasm after Trump left office (hello Phoney War!); the constantly changing ways that campaigns need to use to find their supporters; and changes in email delivery platforms caused by NGP’s purchase of Blue State Digital and Apple’s decision to kill email tracking. But, no matter, Mothership is still on TOP OF ITS GAME, she writes.

“Our proprietary tools make nitty-gritty data easily searchable and sortable so we can analyze performance. And we look at everything. Content, performance ratios, engagement, targeting, and more. At the drop of a hat we can reiterate, improve, and test. That process happens daily. Every day is an opportunity to meet the moment — to talk about what our Democratic donors are talking about. There is always a way to thread the needle from current news to your candidate or your organization.” Or, another way of putting that—there’s always a way of making people feel hysterical and panicked about the news and manipulating them into giving you money as a response.

A lot of people did not highly of Garcia’s post. Michael Whitney, a veteran digital political fundraiser, said it amounted to “@teammothership dancing on the grave of every other Democrat’s fundraising.” He added, “They admit to treating email deliverability as a shell-game, and solely chasing last night’s MSNBC stories for money. Just a chaotic money grab. And they’re proud of it?”

Leaving aside for the moment Mothership’s approach to digital fundraising, what about Garcia’s claim that her firm’s tactics were insuring that their clients could run all kinds of robust grassroots field programs, ad campaigns and candidate training programs coast to coast? I went looking at their client list, digging through the Federal Elections Commission’s records. And what I found suggests that little of the sort is happening. Instead, many of Mothership’s clients are themselves suspiciously close to the kinds of grifts the New York Times has been writing about lately: political action committees with impressive sounding names that spend equally impressive amounts not just on fundraising, but on their own operating expenses. Comparatively little money that Mothership helps raise makes it to “enormous” grassroots programs and the like.

According to the FEC, in the first eight months of 2013, Mothership Strategies was paid about $11.2 million by about two dozen clients: Ameripac, Brady PAC, CHC Bold Pac, Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Progressive Caucus, Defend the Vote, Demand Justice, Democratic Conservation Alliance, Democratic Strategy Institute, Elect Democratic Women, Elect Diverse Democrats PAC, End Citizens United, Equality PAC, Let America Vote Pac, Medicare for All, Moms Fed Up, National Democratic Training Committee PAC, Progressive Takeover, Progressive Turnout Project, Retired Americans Pac, SD Pac, and Stop Republicans. (Not all of that money stays in Mothership’s pocket, obviously, a big chunk gets paid to its own vendors.)

Some of these groups no longer appear to be using Mothership. Its payments from the Congressional Progressive Caucus stop after March. The Brady Campaign’s PAC appears to be paying off a debt it owes Mothership and receiving no new services from it. And some of these groups are significant organizations that do a lot of real politicking, like the Congressional Black Caucus, and the National Democratic Training Committee. But a lot of these groups look more like self-licking ice-cream cones that mostly spend money on themselves and Mothership.

CHC Bold PAC, which is dedicated to electing more Hispanics to Congress, has raised $3.3 million so far this year and spent $2.5 million on operating expenses (including nearly a million paid to Mothership). It has spent just $100,000 on donations to other candidates, plus $388,000 on independent expenditures all to help just one candidate, Sabina Matos, the Lieutenant Governor of Rhode Island, in her run for Congress, though one could argue that that money really only paid for TV advertising and production. No robust grassroots field operation there! (And Matos’ campaign is currently being investigated for submitting fraudulent campaign signatures.)

Defend the Vote, another Mothership client, has raised $1.1 million through the end of August and spent $744,000 on operating expenditures. These included $294,000 to Mothership, but also such interesting items as a $1,200 bill for the Hotel Terra in Jackson Hole, Wyoming at the height of the ski season in March and return stays in May. I suppose it’s possible that Defend the Vote is worried about protecting Democratic votes in Wyoming, a state where Trump routed Biden 70%-27% in 2020, but what do I know?

Moms Fed Up, a PAC that wants to elect more mothers to Congress, has paid more than half the money it has raised to Mothership, $317,000 out of $617,000. Just under $107,000 has gone to candidates. Medicare for All, a vehicle of National Nurses United and a close ally of Senator Bernie Sanders, has raised just $959,000 so far this year, of which a whopping $665,000 it has paid to Mothership. It’s donated a paltry $100,000 to supporters of expanding Medicare in Congress, plus a $25,000 independent expenditure on behalf of Aaron Regunberg’s failed congressional bid in Rhode Island. Retired Americans PAC paid $594,000 to Mothership, nearly half of what it has raised so far this year; its one political expenditure has been for an old $150,000 independent ad campaign against Hershel Walker in 2022.

Progressive Takeover mainly exists to funnel money to an affiliated PAC, Progressive Turnout Project. Of the $2.2 million it has raised so far in 2023, $1.2 million went there. Another $328,000 went to Mothership. And Progressive Turnout Project is a money machine; nearly all of the $8.5 million it has raised this year has gone to federal operating expenditures, including $2.9 million to Mothership.

In case you think I’m being unfair to these organizations by only using their 2023 fundraising reports to highlight how much of their income stays in the pockets of Beltway bandits, a glance at their 2021-22 reports for a full election cycle shows similar ratios: CHC Bold Pac spent 52% of their disbursements on operating expenses, Defend the Vote spent 54%, Moms Fed Up ate up 73%, Medicare for All 58%, Retired Americans 78%, Progressive Takeover just 33% (again, because it’s basically a pass-through vehicle), and Progressive Turnout Project a whopping 87%.

You get the picture. There’s so much noise in the digital fundraising arena that all kinds of PACs with nice-sounding names have set up shop to mine the emotions of gullible donors. The founders of Mothership all bought themselves million-dollar-plus homes in Washington DC years ago, when they first perfected their operation. Now they and their little universe of associated clients – or are they spinoff subsidiaries? – are sitting pretty. No fundraising drought for them!

P.S. If you are wondering what grassroots donors can do about this, one answer is to mark annoying fundraising emails as spam. Another is to name and shame the organizations that choose to rely on companies like Mothership. There are signs that some digital fundraising professionals are backing away—Courtney Sieloff, the founder of Asana Strategy, now Woolf Strategy, a veteran of the field, just posted on LinkedIn that “I am absolutely stepping AWAY from candidate email fundraising. The practices and culture and poor writing done is just not something in which I'd like to participate any longer. I truly hope that the spam and scare tactics done by our party will end, and the longterm implications of these tactics will be giving real consideration.”

Odds and Ends

—If there’s one thing to read about the fall of Kevin McCarthy as Republican House Speaker, I’d say this short essay in the Atlantic by Ron Brownstein gets the cake. As he writes, “the one sin that cannot be forgiven in the modern Republican Party is being seen as failing to fight the Democratic agenda by any means necessary.”

—I’m a big fan of Michael Lewis’ writing, but judging from this review of his new book on Sam Bankman-Fried, it looks like he may have gotten seduced by all the access he had to his principal. LA Times business columnist Michael Hilzik says, “Journalism schools will be able to use ‘Going Infinite: The Rise and Fall of a New Tycoon,’ … as a textbook on the imperative need to approach a subject with a healthy helping of skepticism. To make a long story short, in this book Lewis doesn’t exercise any.” Ouch.

—Remember PredPol, the creepy predictive policing tool? It’s now called Geolitica, and according to a new investigation by The Markup, it’s completely useless.

—On the other hand, check out Permission Slip, a new mobile app from Consumer Reports. It will help you discover what data companies are collecting on you, send them legally enforceable requests to companies to delete or stop selling your data, and strike a blow for data privacy. In other words, it’s completely useful.

End Times

I know there’s no Planet B, but enjoy the fantasy sometimes.