Canvassing – R&R – Reachout and Rebuild

Zoom Time

David Posnett — Sat, 11 Apr 2020 18:32:04 +0000

I am not sure why, but for the first time, each day this past week found me on multiple Zoom conference calls. Each of these was for a different group that I belong to, from my local Southampton Democratic Club to the national grassroots women’s group, SuperMajority. It is as if we all collectively woke up to the reality that this lockdown is going to be a long haul and this is the new normal not just for a few weeks but for a few months.

Like everyone, I am shaky with anxiety over this pandemic, worried that the people I know and love could become a statistic of this disease. I live in the suburbs outside of New York City where we have our own rising cases, though nothing like the five boroughs of the city. I lived on the Upper West Side of Manhattan for 25 years and my heart is breaking for what I will always consider “my city.” But my worst, chest-tightening moments of panic come when I think of my family members who are nurses on the front lines of this crisis. How can it be that in the United States, a healthcare provider is now taking his or her life in their hands just going to work? Every single one of these heroes deserves more than thanks from a grateful nation, they deserve wartime hazardous duty-pay. In lieu of that, the least this government can do is have their student debt wiped off the books for the job they are doing, risking their lives to save ours. We need to all start a movement to make this a reality. What would be a great hashtag for this mission, #thanksarenotenough?

Two weeks ago my anxiety reached a maximum level when my husband, son and I all came down with a cold. How surreal that the common cold induced frantic days obsessively taking my temperature and sleepless nights of pure dread, kept awake by coughing that I could not determine if it was wet or dry. It was hard to get through to the primary care physician’s office, the line was always busy, but once I did speak to a nurse my question was, “at what point should we worry?” Since there was no fever, chills or shortness of breath, she told me it was probably exactly what it appeared to be, a simple cold, but if any of those three symptoms appeared, to call right back. Call right back, I thought? It took me hours to get through this time when I didn’t have fever, chills and shortness of breath. But each day the cold lessened and by week’s end had passed as colds are wont to do. But this simple cold left a residue of fear in its wake that made me reluctant to even go outside for a socially-distant walk.

So, I have asked myself if in the midst of this once-in-a-century public health and economic crisis, should I take a break from politics, if only to help maintain my sanity? On our Democratic Club call the focus was on how can we reach out and help those in our township who are really suffering because they can no longer afford to buy food. It felt good to be helping out with something that was not political. I also gave up watching my MSNBC line-up at night. I listen to music while riding my exercise bike rather than watching Rachel Maddow. Some nights we watch movies, particularly movies that make us laugh. I still read the newspaper each morning but I skim through a lot and I have tried not reading headlines on my phone all day. It has helped quiet some of the panic.

But even digesting a much lighter diet of news, I cannot escape one undeniable fact, that this crisis, all of it, from the number of infected and dead, to the dire shortage of personal protective equipment for our healthcare providers, to the shuttering of businesses and skyrocketing unemployment, to the food shortages for low-income families, every bit of this trauma the country is now enduring, has been made much worse by the incompetence, selfishness and corruption of the Trump administration. And this inescapable fact sits in the pit of my stomach and emits a rage so white-hot that I can’t ignore it. And because of that, I can’t stop worrying about politics and in particular, the election this fall.

The Washington Post put together a complete accounting of just how much of a mess the Trump administration has made of our preparedness for this crisis. The April 4^th article is entitled “The U.S. was beset by denial and dysfunction as the coronavirus raged: From the Oval Office to the CDC, political and institutional failures cascaded through the system and opportunities to mitigate the pandemic were lost.” It is a big, investigative deep-dive into the dysfunction. It is gut-wrenching and infuriating but maybe the most important article every single American needs to read.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/04/04/coronavirus-government-dysfunction/?arc404=true

On March 30^th the Editorial Board of The Boston Globe, put the blame for this failure of leadership squarely where it belongs. The title of the editorial says it all: “A President Unfit for a Pandemic. Much of the Suffering and Death Coming was Preventable. The President Has Blood on His Hands.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/30/opinion/president-unfit-pandemic/

To quote the editorial: “As the American public braces itself for the worst of this crisis, it’s worth remembering that the reach of the virus here is not attributable to an act of God or a foreign invasion, but a colossal failure of leadership.”

Much like The Washington Post article, the editorial goes through the entire timeline of failure on the part of the Trump administration and ends with the statement, “But come November, there must be a reckoning for the lives lost, and for the vast, avoidable suffering about to ensue under the president’s watch.”

It is this need for a reckoning that mandates we stay focused on politics and keep our eyes on the November election, despite the pandemic that rages around us. When Trump was elected, our outrage sparked the Women’s March and created the anti-Trump Resistance. That movement powered the blue wave in 2018. Despite the fears that now haunt our days and plague our nights, we must not lose sight of what has always been our prime directive, to make sure Trump is a one-term president. Our work in the Resistance was how we channeled our rage then and it must be how we channel our rage now.

But unlike the last three years, we cannot organize and attend rallies, we cannot knock on doors and speak directly to voters, we cannot even be together in a planning meeting or a Happy Hour social event. All last week, on every Zoom call with every organization, we struggled to answer the same question, “How are we going to get the public engaged when we are stuck in our homes?”

In an article on, April 5^th, The New York Times addressed this dilemma from a campaign’s point of view. “With Campaigns in Remote Mode, Pandemic Upends Battle for Congress: As retail campaigning has become all but impossible amid the public health crisis, candidates tread carefully in an uncertain political environment.”

This article did not address the dilemma from the non-candidate point of view, meaning how are we in the grassroots going to function this year if we cannot go outside? The next day, April 6^th, The New York Times corrected that oversight with an article looking at the impact on progressive campaigns and on the grassroots movement from the pandemic. “Progressives Built an Organizing Juggernaut for 2020. Then the Virus Hit: After a disappointing turn in the presidential race, grass-roots progressive groups focused on congressional races and down-ballot campaigns. In weeks, the coronavirus has destroyed their plans.”

To quote from that article: “The grim picture may have a profound political impact for the general election and beyond. Democrats were poised to have an organizing juggernaut ready for the 2020 election, with the goal of both reaching new voters and helping reverse the state and local losses they experienced during President Barack Obama’s years in power. Even more, liberal groups hoped this election cycle would formalize their political infrastructure, so the activism that erupted in response to Mr. Trump’s election could be harnessed going forward. That may still happen, but it will require creative financial and digital solutions, according to interviews with several leaders of progressive political organizations and left-wing candidates running for office in states like New York and Ohio. Optimists have called it a time for political innovation, while others worry the structural barriers could stymie the progressive movement at a critical crossroads.”

The article zeroed in on the bind we are all in. We spent 2017 learning how to get out of our houses and speak in person to voters. Then in 2018 we utilized that knowledge and those skills to propel the largest voter turnout for a midterm election in 40 years. Now we have to learn how we are going to be effective without person-to-person contact.

Below are a few initiatives that are trying to address that need. The first is an app called Outvote that is mentioned in this article. Here is the description on their website: “Outvote is an app that makes it easy to support the causes and campaigns you care about. The goal of the app is to promote voter participation within progressive campaigns. Our larger mission is to build a community of organizers that remain active between election cycles. By partnering with the biggest campaigns, advocacy organizations, and nonprofits, the Outvote community will be able to mobilize around current events, elections, and critical moments in policy formation for social equality and justice.” https://www.outvote.io/

But Outvote seems to be primarily for organizers, a valuable resource but not really a direct conduit to voters. Indivisible has an ongoing project with a direct line to voters that activists can participate in from their homes. It is called VoteFWD and involves writing letters to voters in swing states. Here is the description from the Indivisible website: ‘Want to get out the vote in key states from the comfort of your own home?Indivisible is excited to be partnering this election cycle with VoteFWD. VoteFWD provides activists with names, addresses and a data-driven proven template to write letters to voters in important states. Letter writers will save their letters and send them right before the election so that voters receive them at the perfect, most-strategic moment.”https://indivisible.org/resource/write-letters-voters-votefwd

On my Zoom call with SuperMajority, which joined with Pantsuit Nation, I heard about two projects. The first is called Turnout Tuesday where they are asking their members to call their state Secretaries of State and press them on how they are going to use the federal funds to make sure the vote in November is secure, particularly if they are going to invest in mail-in ballots. The second is text messaging to voters and they have been conducting training seminars to teach members how to do “rapid response textbanking” to alert voters about important issues. https://supermajority.com/

At my local Indivisible group, East End Action Network (EEAN), we were already planning postcard-writing parties, creating and mailing personal postcards to voters in our district, as we did in 2018. This will be a joint project with Indivisible North Fork. These events will begin in July, after the New York primary on June 23^rd when we have a Democratic congressional nominee. While it is certainly more fun to party together (you can read the descriptions of these events in my book, The Resistance and Me, available on Amazon), we can convert this initiative to home-based postcard writing rather than in groups if we are still not able to gather together by the summer. The end goal of getting the postcards out there can still be achieved.

These are all good ideas. But they don’t go far enough. The voter suppression outrage by the GOP in Wisconsin underscores the extreme lengths the Republicans will go to keep people from voting. We are going to need bigger and bolder ideas to take the place of speaking to voters in person if we are going to be able to counter those GOP schemes. Possibly because they are aware of this challenge, Indivisible will be hosting a series of training webinars in April for Indivisible leadership on how to better use the virtual space during this lockdown period. If you are a member of an Indivisible group, someone in your leadership has probably already received an email about signing up. If not, reach out to your Indivisible contact. I tried to find a link for these webinars on their general website and could not find one. I look forward to whatever ideas come out of these webinars and will include them in later blog posts.

I am particularly worried what happens to voter registration. Normally the spring and early summer are key periods to focus on voter registration but how can that be done digitally and from our homes? I have been wondering if it is at all possible to conduct a virtual voter-registration drive and I would love to hear back if anyone has any ideas about this. How can we reach residents in the district who are not registered to vote? Is that even possible? They wouldn’t be in MiniVAN but would there be a way to cross reference residents with voter registration rolls to determine constituents who aren’t registered? We could mail them personal letters including the voter registration form if they cannot register online through the state motor vehicle department. Is there any way at all we could create such a list?

Along with my fear that we are not going to be able to register new voters, is a concern that our digital efforts are not going to reach the Independents and Unaffiliated voters we need to win in November. Maybe we should think about sending postcards right now to these voters with the facts about how the Trump administration has mishandled the pandemic, facts that would break through the fog of misinformation that Trump and his propaganda machine at Fox News are spewing out. These postcards could also have contact information for services that many constituents need during this crisis, such as food banks and how to file for unemployment benefits. And these voters are in MiniVAN. We would have to figure out how to pay for printing the postcards and the postage since these would not be funded by the campaigns.

We know from the midterm election how much time, effort and boots on the ground it took to power the blue wave. It is a process that starts months before with voter registration, educating the public, supporting primary candidates and then getting-out-the-vote. We do not have the luxury of waiting for the crisis to pass, waiting until we are able to knock on voters’ doors, not while Trump and the right-wing media saturate the airwaves with lies about this pandemic while at the same time erecting barriers to voting. If we are going to hold Trump and the GOP accountable in November, we need to act now and to do that we need bigger and bolder ideas of how we are going to reach voters, counter the lies and protect the ability for every American to vote.

By Barbara Weber-Floyd

Author, The Resistance and Me: An Insider’s Account of the Two-Year Mission to Stop the Trump Agenda and Take Back the House

(Available on Amazon and at Canio’s Books, Sag Harbor)

Blog post also on:

https://sites.google.com/view/theresistanceandme

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/4/10/1936191/-Zoom-Time

“Deep Canvassing” and the Lessons Political Campaigns Can Learn From It

David Posnett — Thu, 05 Dec 2019 04:55:29 +0000

Submitted to this blog by Arthur Schiff.

By Gabby Weiss, November 22, 2019

Deep Canvassing has grown in popularity as an organizing tool in the past few years, but while most people have heard of it, many are still unsure exactly what it is. The fundamentals behind deep canvassing are not new, in fact, organizing has always been based on the simple underlying belief that human conversations have the power to change minds and spur action.

The modern form of deep canvassing was developed by the Leadership LAB of the Los Angeles LGBT Center. Their Project Director, Dave Fleisher,

“In a conventional canvass, campaigns try to control the message by sending volunteers out with a script to recite exactly as written. There’s this belief that if we just say the right words, the voter’s going to change their mind. With a deep canvass, we want to figure out what’s relevant to voters. There’s still a script, but it’s designed to help the canvasser build a good rapport with a voter. The distinguishing feature of a deep canvass is you take a lot more time to talk to voters and have a bona fide two-way conversation about real experiences that shape their thinking about the issues. Instead of a script that lasts 60 seconds, volunteers spend 10 or 20 minutes talking with each voter.”
While deep canvassing has primarily been used on issue-based campaigns, such as ballot measures for LGBT issues like gay marriage and transgender equality, many of the techniques and principles can be adopted to deepen the organizing practice of electoral campaigns as well.

1. Build connections on the doors

Every good organizer knows that building connections is the secret to developing an energized volunteer base for a campaign, and it’s important to remember that this principle can apply to everyone that a campaign interacts with. Deep canvassing encourages canvassers to prioritize building a connection with each voter they engage with, going deeper than a simple candidate or issue ID. Creating real connections makes voters more likely to remember the conversations they have with canvassers or phone bankers and take action based on them.

2. Spend time listening

Part of building a connection with voters means practicing active listening. Fully concentrating on what a voter is saying, leaving space for a voter to pause and think before responding (without immediately jumping in to fill the silence), asking follow-up questions, and displaying engaged body language are all important listening techniques that create more meaningful conversations on the doors. If a voter spends more time talking during a conversation than a canvasser does, you’re doing it right!

3. Ask open-ended questions

No one likes being treated as a checkbox on a list, and when a voter takes the time to talk to a canvasser at their door it’s because they care about the political issues at hand. Moving beyond simple yes or no questions and prompting voters to share the things that they care about and the reasons behind their positions shows that your campaign is invested in their wellbeing, not just their vote. Asking follow-up questions assures voters that you are actually interested in what they have to say, and can give organizers insight into effective ways to motivate and activate them.

4. Find common values

The goal of a canvass is to prompt voters to take action, whether it be voting, volunteering, becoming a caucus leader, or talking to their other household members about voting. People take action because they care about something, so use canvass conversations to find out what is important to individual voters. Knowing the values that a voter holds, such as safety, community, justice, or fairness, can help you communicate your candidate’s positions in a way that is relevant and impactful to them.

5. Don’t be afraid of the hard questions

Having real conversations about politics means that sometimes tough issues will come up. Many communities in the country today are facing sharply divided political landscapes and evaluating hard questions about the future. Canvass conversations are effective when, rather than shying away from these issues, they are addressed head on, through the lens of shared values. What are the issues that a voter is considering when making a candidate decision, and which decision is ultimately more aligned with their values?

6. Let voters persuade themselves

Most people don’t like being told what to do or what to think, and so rather than telling someone what the right answer is, asking voters to consider these questions for themselves can be a powerful tool for persuasion. The goal of deep canvass conversations is not to directly tell people how to vote, but rather to help walk them through the reasoning process of determining which candidate’s positions align best with their values. Using this process can help a voter truly connect with their motivation for political involvement, something that ideally will stay with them through election day.

A Lesson from Kentucky

David Posnett — Thu, 07 Nov 2019 00:20:56 +0000

Francesca Rheannon <rheannon05@gmail.com> writes:

Declaring #kygov election over with a 5,000-plus margin, Gov.-elect Andy Beshear appoints transition team chair and looks forward, as Bevin questions results.

Kentucky Democrats did not win the Governors race by launching esoteric attacks on Bevin about the norms and guardrails of Democracy or lofty ideals like freedom of the press even though Bevin is probably even more hostile to the press than Trump. They did it by staying lightning focused on the way that Bevin had hurt working class families.

Being back in the state was a big reminder for me about how non DC/NYC elites talk about politics. Just listen in this piece to how Teamsters Local 783 President John Stovall describes Trump. It’s way more effective than the Ukraine/Russia/norms and guardrails handwringing that you are hit over the head with here.

Krystal Ball@krystalball

When I was in Kentucky, I asked Teamsters Local 783 President John Stovall about how his members felt about Trump. The way he talks about it is soooo much more effective than national dems/media.

Stovall says that: His members who supported Trump are “starting to see that (the rhetoric) is not true. What he’s done is he’s hurt the middle class and lower income and his tax credits and all that have benefited the rich.” Simple. Straightforward. Connected to people’s lives. Not contempt-filled, judgey or condescending.

New polls this week of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan have shown that Trump is in position to win the Electoral College again. Dems shouldn’t use this Kentucky victory as an excuse to feel like everything is going fine with their impeachment strategy and national messaging, instead they should use it as an opportunity to learn from this “red state” that unexpectedly turned blue on the back of a working class populist backlash.

The Psychology of Trump Supporters

David Posnett — Wed, 10 Jul 2019 01:09:20 +0000

Bobby Azarian Ph.D. posted several months ago “A Complete Psychological Analysis of Trump’s Support” to help make sense of Trump’s apparent invincibility.

We should try and understand the emotinal underpinnings of those that we find difficult to rationally speak to or correspond with. For example, if volunteers are to engage in “deep canvassing” as discussed elsewhere on this blog, they need to understand what motivates the people they are talking with.

Azarian’s piece in the respectable journal Psychology Today is itself a summary of many publications in the psychology literature. It is interesting. It lists 14 categories which Trump supporters may fall in to. Here is a brief version, but feel free to read the full text and look at a video on Terror Management Theory by Azarian.

1. Practicality Trumps Morality

For some wealthy people, it’s simply a financial matter. Trump offers tax cuts for the rich and wants to do away with government regulation that gets in the way of businessmen making money, even when that regulation exists for the purpose of protecting the environment. Others, like blue-collared workers, like the fact that the president is trying to bring jobs back to America from places like China. Some people who genuinely are not racist (those who are will be discussed later) simply want stronger immigration laws because they know that a country with open borders is not sustainable. These people have put their practical concerns above their moral ones. To them, it does not make a difference if he’s a vagina-grabber, or if his campaign team colluded with Russia to help him defeat his political opponent. It is unknown whether these people are eternally bound to Trump in the way others are, but we may soon find…

2. The Brain’s Attention System Is More Strongly Engaged by Trump

According to a study that monitored brain activity while participants watched 40 minutes of political ads and debate clips from the presidential candidates, Donald Trump is unique in his ability to keep the brain engaged. While Hillary Clinton could only hold attention for so long, Trump kept both attention and emotional arousal high throughout the viewing session. This pattern of activity was seen even when Trump made remarks that individuals didn’t necessarily agree with. His showmanship and simple language clearly resonate with some at a visceral level.

3. America’s Obsession with Entertainment and Celebrities

Essentially, the loyalty of Trump supporters may in part be explained by America’s addiction to entertainment and reality TV. To some, it doesn’t matter what Trump actually says because he’s so amusing to watch. With the Donald, you are always left wondering what outrageous thing he is going to say or do next. He keeps us on the edge of our seat, and for that reason, some Trump supporters will forgive anything he says. They are happy as long as they are kept entertained.

4. “Some Men Just Want to Watch the World Burn.”

Some people are supporting Trump simply to be rebellious or to introduce chaos into the political system. They may have such distaste for the establishment and democrats like Hillary Clinton that their support for Trump is a symbolic middle finger directed at Washington. These people may have other issues, like an innate desire to troll others or an obsession with schadenfreude.

5. The Fear Factor: Conservatives Are More Sensitive to Threat

Science has shown that the conservative brain has an exaggerated fear response when faced with stimuli that may be perceived as threatening. A 2008 study in the prestigious journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological reaction to startling noises and graphic images compared to liberals. A brain-imaging study published in Current Biology revealed that those who lean right politically tend to have a larger amygdala — a structure that is electrically active during states of fear and anxiety. And a 2014 fMRI study found that it is possible to predict whether someone is a liberal or conservative simply by looking at their brain activity while they view threatening or disgusting images, such as mutilated bodies. Specifically, the brains of self-identified conservatives generated more activity overall in response to the disturbing images.

These brain responses are automatic and not influenced by logic or reason. As long as Trump continues to portray Muslims and Hispanic immigrants as imminent threats, many conservative brains will involuntarily light up like light bulbs being controlled by a switch. Fear keeps his followers energized and focused on safety. And when you think you’ve found your protector, you become less concerned with offensive and divisive remarks.

6. The Power of Mortality Reminders and Perceived Existential Threat

A well-supported theory from social psychology, known as Terror Management Theory, explains why Trump’s fear mongering is doubly effective. The theory is based on the fact that humans have a unique awareness of their own mortality. The inevitably of one’s death creates existential terror and anxiety that is always residing below the surface. In order to manage this terror, humans adopt cultural worldviews — like religions, political ideologies, and national identities — that act as a buffer by instilling life with meaning and value.

Terror Management Theory predicts that when people are reminded of their own mortality, which happens with fear mongering, they will more strongly defend those who share their worldviews and national or ethnic identity, and act out more aggressively towards those who do not. Hundreds of studies have supported this hypothesis, and some have specifically shown that triggering thoughts of death tends to shift people towards the right.

Not only do death reminders increase nationalism, they may influence voting habits in favor of more conservative candidates. And more disturbingly, in a study with American students, scientists found that making mortality salient increased support for extreme military interventions by American forces that could kill thousands of civilians overseas. Interestingly, the effect was present only in conservatives.

By constantly emphasizing existential threat, Trump may be creating a psychological condition that makes the brain respond positively rather than negatively to bigoted statements and divisive rhetoric.

In the video, the author expands and offers a potential solution to the problem.

7. The Dunning-Kruger Effect: Humans Often Overestimate Their Political Expertise

Some who support Donald Trump are under-informed or misinformed about the issues at hand. When Trump tells them that crime is skyrocketing in the United States, or that the economy is the worst it’s ever been, they simply take his word for it.

The Dunning-Kruger effect explains that the problem isn’t just that they are misinformed; it’s that they are completely unaware that they are misinformed, which creates a double burden.

Studies have shown that people who lack expertise in some area of knowledge often have a cognitive bias that prevents them from realizing that they lack expertise. As psychologist David Dunning puts it in an op-ed for Politico, “The knowledge and intelligence that are required to be good at a task are often the same qualities needed to recognize that one is not good at that task — and if one lacks such knowledge and intelligence, one remains ignorant that one is not good at the task. This includes political judgment.” These people cannot be reached because they mistakenly believe they are the ones who should be reaching others.

8. Relative Deprivation — A Misguided Sense of Entitlement

Relative deprivation refers to the experience of being deprived of something to which one believes they are entitled. It is the discontent felt when one compares their position in life to others who they feel are equal or inferior but have unfairly had more success than them.

Common explanations for Trump’s popularity among non-bigoted voters involve economics. There is no doubt that some Trump supporters are simply angry that American jobs are being lost to Mexico and China, which is certainly understandable, although these loyalists often ignore the fact that some of these careers are actually being lost due to the accelerating pace of automation.

These Trump supporters are experiencing relative deprivation, and are common among the swing states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. This kind of deprivation is specifically referred to as “relative,” as opposed to “absolute,” because the feeling is often based on a skewed perception of what one is entitled to.

9. Lack of Exposure to Dissimilar Others

Intergroup contact refers to contact with members of groups that are outside one’s own, which has been experimentally shown to reduce prejudice. As such, it’s important to note that there is growing evidence that Trump’s white supporters have experienced significantly less contact with minorities than other Americans. For example, a 2016 study found that “…the racial and ethnic isolation of Whites at the zip-code level is one of the strongest predictors of Trump support.” This correlation persisted while controlling for dozens of other variables. In agreement with this finding, the same researchers found that support for Trump increased with the voters’ physical distance from the Mexican border. These racial biases might be more implicit than explicit, the latter which is addressed in #14.

10. Trump’s Conspiracy Theories Target the Mentally Vulnerable

While the conspiracy theory crowd — who predominantly support Donald Trump and crackpot allies like Alex Jones and the shadowy QAnon — may appear to just be an odd quirk of modern society, some of them may suffer from psychological illnesses that involve paranoia and delusions, such as schizophrenia, or are at least vulnerable to them, like those with schizotypy personalities.

The link between schizotypy and belief in conspiracy theories is well-established, and a recent study published in the journal Psychiatry Research has demonstrated that it is still very prevalent in the population. The researchers found that those who were more likely to believe in outlandish conspiracy theories, such as the idea that the U.S. government created the AIDS epidemic, consistently scored high on measures of “odd beliefs and magical thinking.” One feature of magical thinking is a tendency to make connections between things that are actually unrelated in reality.

Donald Trump and media allies target these people directly. All one has to do is visit alt-right websites and discussion boards to see the evidence for such manipulation.

11. Trump Taps into the Nation’s Collective Narcissism

Collective narcissism is an unrealistic shared belief in the greatness of one’s national group. It often occurs when a group who believes it represents the ‘true identity’ of a nation — the ‘ingroup,’ in this case White Americans — perceives itself as being disadvantaged compared to outgroups who are getting ahead of them ‘unrightfully.’ This psychological phenomenon is related to relative deprivation (#6).

A study published last year in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science found a direct link between national collective narcissism and support for Donald Trump. This correlation was discovered by researchers at the University of Warsaw, who surveyed over 400 Americans with a series of questionnaires about political and social beliefs. Where individual narcissism causes aggressiveness toward other individuals, collective narcissism involves negative attitudes and aggression toward ‘outsider’ groups (outgroups), who are perceived as threats.

Donald Trump exacerbates collective narcissism with his anti-immigrant, anti-elitist, and strongly nationalistic rhetoric. By referring to his supporters, an overwhelmingly white group, as being “true patriots” or “real Americans,” he promotes a brand of populism that is the epitome of “identity politics,” a term that is usually associated with the political left. Left-wing identity politics, as misguided as they may sometimes be, are generally aimed at achieving equality, while the right-wing brand is based on a belief that one nationality or race is superior or entitled to success and wealth for no other reason than identity.

12. The Desire to Want to Dominate Others

Social dominance orientation (SDO) — which is distinct from but related to authoritarian personality (#13) — refers to people who have a preference for the societal hierarchy of groups, specifically with a structure in which the high-status groups have dominance over the low-status ones. Those with SDO are typically dominant, tough-minded, and driven by self-interest.

In Trump’s speeches, he appeals to those with SDO by repeatedly making a clear distinction between groups that have a generally higher status in society (White), and those groups that are typically thought of as belonging to a lower status (immigrants and minorities). A 2016 survey study of 406 American adults published last year in the journal Personality and Individual Differences found that those who scored high on both SDO and authoritarianism were more likely to vote for Trump in the election.

13. Authoritarian Personality

Authoritarianism refers to the advocacy or enforcement of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom, and is commonly associated with a lack of concern for the opinions or needs of others. Authoritarian personality is characterized by belief in total and complete obedience to authority. Those with this personality often display aggression toward outgroup members, submissiveness to authority, resistance to new experiences, and a rigid hierarchical view of society. Authoritarianism is often triggered by fear, making it easy for leaders who exaggerate threat or fear monger to gain their allegiance.

Although authoritarian personality is found among liberals, it is more common among the right-wing around the world. President Trump’s speeches, which are laced with absolutist terms like “losers” and “complete disasters,” are naturally appealing to those with such a personality.

While research showed that Republican voters in the U.S. scored higher than Democrats on measures of authoritarianism before Trump emerged on the political scene, a 2016 Politico survey found that high authoritarians greatly favored then-candidate Trump, which led to a correct prediction that he would win the election, despite the polls saying otherwise.

14. Racism and Bigotry

It would be grossly unfair and inaccurate to say that every one of Trump’s supporters have prejudice against ethnic and religious minorities, but it would be equally inaccurate to say that few do. The Republican party, going at least as far back to Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy,” has historically used tactics that appealed to bigotry, such as lacing speeches with “dog whistles” — code words that signaled prejudice toward minorities that were designed to be heard by racists but no one else.

While the dog whistles of the past were subtler, Trump’s signaling is sometimes shockingly direct. There’s no denying that he routinely appeals to racist and bigoted supporters when he calls Muslims “dangerous” and Mexican immigrants “rapists” and “murderers,” often in a blanketed fashion. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a recent study has shown that support for Trump is correlated with a standard scale of modern racism.

Deep Canvassing

David Posnett — Sun, 28 Apr 2019 14:30:50 +0000

What is “Deep Canvassing”?

Changing the Conversation Together (CTC) is an organization of concerned citizens working to combat the politics of hate and uphold checks and balances.

Using the evidence-based strategy of deep canvassing CTC played a critical role in helping Democrat Max Rose achieve an unlikely victory in New York’s 11th Congressional District.

Now, they will build on that success to mobilize a corps of deep canvassers in swing states to elect qualified and candidates in 2020.

Here is an example of Deep Canvassing puyblished in The Nation by Adam Barbanel-Fried who is a professional organizer with over 18 years of experience organizing throughout the United States and abroad.

The Conversations Democrats Need to Be Having

The danger of a continued Trump presidency is too dire to spend our limited resources on internal fights. April 12, 2019

This November, the day before the midterm election, I spoke with a retired police officer in Staten Island, New York, who’d voted for Trump. Let’s call him Tom. Tom didn’t regret voting for Trump. He was a Republican-leaning swing voter. Most progressives would have moved on. After a year of talking to swing voters in this swing district, however, I sensed tension within Tom.

“Are you satisfied with Trump when it comes to basic decency?… Does he meet the standard of decency you set for yourself?” I asked. Tom said no. We talked. We listened. We swapped stories. We bonded over shared concerns, specifically as fathers of daughters. As we bonded, he opened and allowed that Donald Trump is a nasty bully encouraging extremism. Eventually, Tom went from saying he didn’t regret voting for Trump, to joking that he voted for Trump in jest thinking Trump couldn’t win, to finally, uncomfortably, admitting that he couldn’t look his teenage daughter in the face and say he was proud of his choice. Originally leaning Republican, he found himself agreeing with the need for checks and balances and leaning Democratic.

The technique I was practicing in my 15-minute conversation with Tom is called “deep canvassing.” There is a growing body of work pointing to it as the way to engage swing voters and nonvoters, and move them in the progressive direction. While most door-to-door canvassing focuses on speedy interactions with your base to increase turnout, deep canvassing is a more relational form of voter engagement which leads to respectful conversation. It is also the most effective form of voter persuasion ever measured. In 2017, I and my colleagues launched Changing the Conversation Together, and spent 13 months “deep canvassing” swing voters helping Democrats win one of the biggest upsets in the midterms. We trained volunteers in storytelling, empathetic listening, and engaged conversation to help voters connect their personal experience to politics. We spoke to nearly 1,900 voters, helping the Democrat win Staten Island by 1,100 votes. Despite the trend to vote Democratic, our post-election study showed that the voters we canvassed were 14 percent more likely to vote and 20 percent more likely to vote Democratic than their non-canvassed neighbors.

In targeting voters traditionally neglected by Democratic campaigns, we exploded the myth that Trump voters are unmovable. While some fit that description, we also found Trump voters and nonvoters regretting their decisions. We met people with traditional leanings that hadn’t digested how the president emboldens hate groups and undermines a basic sense of decency. Many, upon reflection, were frightened by all the trends unleashed and agreed on the need to put these trends in check.

Since November, our young organization’s success has led to inquiries from around the country. Activists, organizations, and campaigns from Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and West Virginia have reached out for advice. Some traveled to New York to train with us. They, like us, want to do this work and want to do it now.

Meanwhile, the presidential election is 20 months away. Unfortunately, while scientific studies consistently show high-quality, in-person conversations outperforming every other form of voter engagement, the Democratic nominee will likely raise over $500 million and spend it mostly on TV ads in the few months before the election. Before the nominee is chosen, millions of dollars will be targeted at Democratic primary voters, but most of this activity will not engage the swing voters who frequently decide the general election. The eventual nominee will likely hastily assemble a team in the last three or four months of the campaign focused on mobilizing the Democratic base. While the midterms showed the Democratic nominee may have a good chance to win, incumbent presidents often bounce back from midterm losses to win reelection. In this high-stakes environment, there is important work to do.

Democrats, ask yourself this: With all that is at stake, are you going to wait until fall of 2020 to think about reaching swing voters who may decide the election? There are millions of volunteers who want to help—will they be offered the highest quality training to convert their energy into meaningful action?

While Democrats have an important decision to make about who can best lead them, the danger of a continued Trump presidency is too dire to spend our limited resources on internal fights. We need to start training volunteers and talking to prospective voters about what’s at stake now. We are getting to work. We hope we’re not the only ones.

The Blue Wave in CD-1

David Posnett — Sat, 06 Oct 2018 22:34:33 +0000

I have always wanted to know whether our efforts of canvassing and voter registration are actually paying off!

Now we have some data. Suffolk County Board of Elections collects data on new voter registrations on a monthly basis. I have compared data published in Feb 2018 with data published on October 1st 2018. New Voter registrations are definitely up (Fig. 1). And it turns out that they are heavily skewed towards Dem. party registration (see Fig. 2). The numbers are actually about 2x higher than in comparable midterm election years from the past. This bodes well for a “blue wave”.

Fig. 1. Data on new voter registrations for Feb 2018 (light blue) versus October 2018 (dark blue).

Fig. 2. New voter registrations are heavily skewed towards the Dem. party, data from October 2018. Not shown are percentages of C, II, WP, U, etc.

These numbers have to be considered in the context of general population changes. It turns out that the general population in Suffolk County has been shrinking steadily. For the period of 2/2018 to 10/2018 the numbers are:

Date 2/2018 10/2018

Suffolk 961,409 954,150 -0.76%

NY-CD1 472,989 470,344 -0.56%

NY-CD2 320,104 316,739 -1.05%

NY-CD3 168,316 167,067 -0.74%

This mirrors a similar decrease in the total population comparing 2015 to 2016 (-0.76%) and 2016 to 2017 (-0.6%). There are still more births than deaths, and more international arrivals than domestic arrivals. Thus, the decrease in the population on eastern Long Island is most likely due to young people leaving Suffolk county, a well-recognised phenomenon. Are these young people that are leaving Suffolk, mainly democrats? Are they being replaced by newly registered people that are also mainly democrats? If this were the case the overall percentages of people in the Dem party would not have changed much. But the data show that the Dem party has been growing faster than any other party in NY CD-1.

Here are the numbers of total registered Dem and Rep voters in NY CD-1 from 2012 and from Oct 2018:

Date 2012 10/2018

Dem 132,683 144,211 +8.7%

Rep 156,075 159,184 +1.99%

All voters 445,374 470,344 +5.61%

Comparing data for all political party registrations between 2012 and 2018, Dems are up +8.7%, Rep +1.99%, Con -2.13%, Indep +5.95%, Unaffiliated +5.32%, Working families -0.32%.

Sources:

Voter reg Oct 2018

https://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/enrollment/congress/congress_nov12.pdf

https://resistancesuffolk.blog/2018/02/08/new-registrations-favor-dems-in-cd-1/

Typographical Mistakes and Voter Information: Why you Should Worry!

David Posnett — Thu, 03 Aug 2017 10:50:03 +0000

I just posted two relevant articles from the Patch.com

Anyone who has ever volunteered to do some canvassing (or even phone banking) based on voter information, which ultimately comes from the BoE, knows how a very large number of entries are in error. The errors range from

is no longer at current address
address doesn’t exist
has different party registration than what is stated on the record
has changed their name
name not accurately spelled
recently deceased. etc.

In fact, maintaining accurate records is a “Sisyphus task” as you can easily imagine. Volunteers that go door-to-door have an important role. They report to the BoE that a given voter is no longer at the indicated address, for example. This is done electronically via voter data programs. The BoE should be constantly updating their info, but it takes them a long time…

I know a personal story regarding a mistake by immigration. A Swiss friend applied for citizenship but was denied based on a mistake regarding citizenship. They had confused birth place (in Africa) with citizenship (Swiss). Quotas for immigration, based on citizenship, have existed for a very long time. They differ depending on the country of origin. They are differently enforced depending on the political party in power. My friend, a green card holder in the US for 26 years, waited 10 years after applying for citizenship in part due to the clerical error. Good legal help was required (not available to everyone).

Why should you worry about NYS BoE sharing their voter info with the Trump administration’s task force on “voter fraud”?

Just imagine that you are a registered Republican. BoE however has erred and lists you as a “U” (unaffiliated), or even worse a “D” (Democrat). These are not fictitious examples! Perhaps, because your name sounds foreign or raises a red flag, Trump’s commission now flags you as a potential person having committed voter fraud and your right to vote is placed on hold… Ofcourse this shouldn’t happen to anyone, “R”, “U” or “D”. But voter fraud didn’t happen either. The “voter fraud” commission is all about disenfranchising targeted voters.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. (please share with your Republican friends)

I checked the lawsuit against the voter fraud commission brought by “Common Cause”.

Here is a quote:

“The Commission’s first project is to assemble a national voter file and compare this information to data sets maintained by other federal agencies (including the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration) in order to discover the names of individuals that it believes are ineligible to vote.

To carry out this review, it initially gave all 50 states and the District of Columbia a deadline of July 14, 2017 to comply with a sweeping request for their residents’ voting and other personal data, including information regarding the quintessentially First Amendment-protected activities of voting history and party affiliation”

So, if you are on the Board of Elections List but for some reason not on the SS list or the Homeland Security list, you are in trouble. Which brings me back to errors! THESE LISTS ARE FULL OF ERRORS. How many errors?

Social security lists the wrong person as dead in numerous cases every year:

That fatal mistake affects about 6,000 people a year, according to the Social Security Administration’s Office of the Inspector General. And that figure is actually lower than the estimated 12,000 inaccurately reported as dead in 2011, the last time the inspector general did an audit of the data.

And Homeland Security makes errors too:

“Recent data suggests that in 2010 well over 4,000 US citizens were detained or deported as aliens, raising the total since 2003 to more than 20,000,..”

The Populist Surge – Analysis from Across the Pond

David Posnett — Sat, 01 Jul 2017 10:03:07 +0000

On June 27th, Martin Wolf in the Financial Times writes:

Why has the appeal of populist ideas grown in western countries? Is this a temporary phenomenon? In the wake of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, the collapse in support for established political parties in France and the rise of the Five Star Movement in Italy, not to mention the surge of authoritarian populism in central and eastern Europe, these are important questions.

What, first of all, is a populist? The abiding characteristic of populism is its division of the world into a virtuous people on the one hand, and corrupt elites and threatening outsiders on the other. Populists distrust institutions, especially those that constrain the “will of the people”, such as courts, independent media, the bureaucracy and fiscal or monetary rules. Populists reject credentialed experts. They are also suspicious of free markets and free trade. Rightwing populists believe certain ethnicities are “the people” and identify foreigners as the enemy. They are economic nationalists and support traditional social values. Often they put their trust in charismatic leaders. Leftwing populists identify workers as “the people” and the rich as the enemy. They also believe in state ownership of property. Why have these sets of ideas become more potent? Ronald Inglehart of the university of Michigan and Pippa Norris of Harvard Kennedy School argue that the reaction of older and less educated white men against cultural change, including immigration, better explains the rise of populism than economic insecurity.

This is part of the truth but not the whole truth. Economic and cultural
phenomena are interrelated. This study considers immigration a cultural shift.
Yet it can also be reasonably viewed as an economic one. More important, the
study does not ask what has changed recently. The answer is the financial crisis
and consequent economic shocks. These not only had huge costs. They also
damaged confidence in — and so the legitimacy of — financial and
policymaking elites. These emperors turned out to be naked.

This, I suggest, is why Mr Trump is US president and the British chose
Brexit. Cultural change and the economic decline of the working classes
increased disaffection. But the financial crisis opened the door to a populist
surge.

To assess this, I have put together indicators of longer-term economic change
and the crisis, for the G7 leading economies, plus Spain. The longer-term
indicators include the loss of manufacturing jobs, the globalisation of supply
chains, immigration, inequality, unemployment and labour force participation.
The indicators of post-crisis developments include unemployment, fiscal
austerity, real incomes per head and private sector credit (see charts).

The four most adversely affected of these economies in the long term were (in
order) Italy, Spain, the UK and US. Post-crisis, the most adversely affected
were Spain, the US, Italy and the UK. Germany was the least affected by the
crisis, with Canada and Japan close to it.

It is not surprising, then, that Canada, Germany and Japan have been largely
immune to the post-crisis surge in populism, while the US, UK, Italy and Spain
have been less so, though the latter two have contained it relatively
successfully.

Thus the rise of populism is understandable. But it is also dangerous, often
even for its supporters. As a recent report from the European Economic
Advisory Group notes, populism may lead to grossly irresponsible policies. The impact of Hugo Chávez on Venezuela is a sobering example. At worst, it may destroy independent institutions, undermine civil peace, promote xenophobia and lead to dictatorship. Stable democracy is incompatible with a belief that fellow citizens are “enemies of the people”. We must recognize and address the anger that causes populism. But populism is an enemy of good government and even of democracy.

We can tell ourselves a comforting story about the future. The political
turmoil being experienced in a number of large western democracies is in part
another legacy of the financial crisis. As economies recover and the shock
dwindles, the rage and despair it caused may also fade. As time passes, trust
may return to institutions essential to the functioning of democracies, such as
legislatures, bureaucracies, courts, the press and even politicians. Bankers
might even find themselves popular.

Yet this optimism runs into two big obstacles. The first is that the results of
past political follies have still to unfold. The divorce of the UK from the EU
remains a process with unfathomable results. So, too, is the election of
President Trump. The end of US leadership is a potentially devastating event.
The second is that some of the long-term sources of fragility, cultural and
economic, including high inequality and low labour force participation of
prime-aged workers in the US, are still with us today. Similarly, the pressures
for sustained high immigration continue. Not least, the fiscal pressures from
ageing are also likely to increase. For all these reasons, the wave of populist
anger is only too likely to be sustained.

If so, those who wish to resist the rising tide of populism have to confront its
simplifications and lies, as Emmanuel Macron did in France. As he
understands, they must also directly address the worries that explain it.
Cultural anxieties are relatively immune to policy, except over immigration. But the economic anxieties can and must be addressed. Of course, politicians can also do the opposite. That is what is happening in the US. That will not end the populist surge but promote it. This is, no doubt, their intention.

Note: the italics and bold text are mine! Addressing economic anxieties is paramount. We would do well to remember this. D Posnett

Working-Class Trump Voters Open to Appeals

David Posnett — Fri, 12 May 2017 20:27:57 +0000

Working America: Front Porch Focus Group Report. AFL-CIO

100 Days into the Trump Era, Working-Class ‘Searchers’ Who Voted for Him Are Having Doubts, Open to Appeals.

Everyone who is canvassing this year (2017) should read this report! Here is the summary:

Face-to-face conversations with 976 working-class swing voters in Ohio reveal half of Trump swing voters differ with him on one or more issues, shows the importance of direct outreach

We have come away with evidence that many of Donald Trump’s swing voters can be moved with a progressive message. This conclusion summarizes the lessons we learned during our 100 Days canvass, and offers some thoughts on how progressives can reach out to working-class voters.

Working-class swing voters are open to progressive ideas — if they hear them. Our canvassers found that with door-to-door contact and a persuasive message, we can cut through the rightwing megaphone that has all but drowned out progressive voices in so many working-class homes.

When talking to voters, tell them something they don’t know. Don’t tell them that what they know is wrong. This classic insight helped shape our outreach efforts. Our canvassers found that it didn’t work to dispute Fox News’ talking points on well-worn issues such as the ACA.Rather, offering new information about Trump’s policies broke through and showed just how out of step they are with the needs of working people.

We can’t assume that the 2012 Obama voters who swung to Trump in 2016 will automatically swing back if he disappoints them. Trump’s working-class base may already be eroding in his first 100 days, but their declining support for Trump won’t inevitably lead to growing support for progressives. We saw in our canvass that many Trump swing voters are deeply disenchanted with politics. That’s why they cast a ballot for him in the first place. If Trump fails them — and progressives don’t offer an authentic alternative — they are very likely to give up on politics in upcoming election cycles.

This canvass focused on swing voters, but to win in 2018, Democrats will need to do better with both swing and base voters. A perfect storm hit Ohio Democrats in 2016. Base turnout dropped at the same time that swing voters abandoned them. In Ohio’s urban counties, where the base is strongest, Hillary Clinton received 162,000 fewer votes than Barack Obama did in 2012. And in the nonurban counties, where so many swing voters live, Clinton got 272,000 fewer votes than Obama. Given those numbers, progressives can’t afford to ignore either base or swing voters.

Ultimately, to win in Ohio and elsewhere, progressives need to reach out at all times to our base — to communities of color, millennials and women — as well as the white working-class voters open to a progressive agenda. That is how we’ll take back vital battleground states and elect a Congress and a president who truly represent the interests of all working families.