The public's frustration with American politics is nothing new but last week's presidential election is spurring conversation about what kind of messaging voters have an appetite for.

A North Dakota expert said the outcome offers clues. Gaining support among Latino voters and backlash over inflation are cited as factors behind Donald Trump's victory.

Mark Jendrysik, professor of political science at the University of North Dakota, said Kamala Harris' campaign had a good ground game in swing states but appears to have been swept up in the anti-incumbent wave seen in elections elsewhere in the world. He also thinks Trump's simplistic phrases speak to those who feel out of touch with public institutions.

"I think part of it is a reality of society where so many things are impersonal, and so many things are done by machines now, you don't actually talk to a living human," Jendrysik observed.

He pointed out right-wing media influencers have increasingly zeroed in on those who feel "powerless," namely young male voters. The approach by Trump's orbit resonated with rural voters in 2016. Jendrysik acknowledged it feeds into narratives alleging people, especially low-propensity voters, are less interested in policy and are more persuaded by a candidate's vibes.

Trump's legal issues, including a criminal conviction, were seen as liabilities for his campaign. But Jendrysik noted because he was not part of the incumbent administration this time, Trump could narrow the focus on topics voters were concerned about. He emphasized lingering anger over government shutdowns during COVID played into the short-term memories voters sometimes have, possibly forgetting Trump was still in office during the first year of the crisis.

"He got a lot of people to pretend that his presidency ended in February of 2020," Jendrysik stressed.

He argued Trump's simple messaging, like "Make America Great Again," allows his supporters to fill in the policy blanks, rather than hear a candidate talk about them. Jendrysik added it cannot be ignored racism and misogyny factored into the outcome, given Harris' racial and ethnic identity and falling short of becoming the first female president in U.S. history.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

Minnesota and the nation are feeling the emotional weight of political violence after this weekend's assassination of a top Democratic state lawmaker and the attack of a fellow legislator.

Rep. Melissa Hortman, D-Brooklyn Park, who had served as Minnesota House Speaker, was killed inside her home along with her husband. In the nearby suburb of Champlin, Sen. John Hoffman, D-Champlin, and his wife were also shot and wounded. Police call the shootings "politically motivated."

The incidents follow a trend of political violence beginning with this spring's arson attack at the Pennsylvania Governor's mansion.

David Schultz, professor of political science at Hamline University, said the current mood somewhat mirrors the violence toward prominent leaders seen in the 1960s.

"Once violence starts to occur, people get used to violence or it becomes part of the game," Schultz explained. "That seems to be where we're degenerating right now."

The events follow last year's assassination attempt on President Donald Trump on the campaign trail, along with increased threats against poll workers. Schultz noted in a healthy democracy, ballots, elections and other engagement tools resolve differences, not violence. He worries the attacks will discourage elected officials from talking with constituents and curtail open meetings.

Schultz pointed out society has grown used to a more isolated way of life, pointing to shopping habits and some people choosing to live in areas cut off from those with different views. Making matters worse, he added, political messages spread through social media fuel misinformation and radicalization.

"Falsity travels more rapidly, more deeply than truth," Schultz observed. "The relative anonymity or distance of the social media also emboldens people to radicalize. Put all that altogether, that gets us part of the recipe of where we are in our society right now."

Schultz added he is not optimistic heightened tensions and political violence will end anytime soon. He said there are some encouraging signs younger voters will not embrace identity politics and demonize their political opponents, but he believes the patterns have shifted, delaying a return to a moderate political tone.


get more stories like this via email

It is estimated 3,000 to 4,000 Hoosiers marched around the Indiana Statehouse during the "No Kings" protest in downtown Indianapolis on Saturday.

The demonstration took place on President Donald Trump's 79th birthday and the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, two milestones marked by a military parade in Washington, D.C. Protesters in Indiana criticized what they called authoritarian behavior and attacks on democracy.

Micah Pulliam said the concerns drove her to the march.

"America hasn't had a king," Pulliam pointed out. "We rejected kings years and years and years ago, and Trump is acting like a king, like he can make all the decisions and what he wants. That's not how America works."

Indiana State Police detained one person after a scuffle with a counter-protester. No other arrests were reported. Supporters of the President said Trump is defending constitutional values and using lawful powers to advance his agenda.

The 50501 movement organized the "No Kings" demonstrations. The group began calling for nationwide demonstrations against Trump in February, organizing hundreds of protests throughout the previous four months.

Mary Sutton came from Carmel and called on elected officials to act.

"The people in the House and Senate need to grow a backbone and the courts need to stand solid," Sutton urged. "If a judge makes a judgment, then the people need to follow it or go to jail."

The protest ended peacefully by midafternoon. The Indianapolis event was one of more than 2,000 "No Kings" rallies throughout the country.


get more stories like this via email

A government watchdog group is joining others in raising concerns about last-minute additions to the budget reconciliation bill passed by the House of Representatives and now before the Senate. The Campaign Legal Center says one provision would weaken the power of U.S. judges to enforce contempt when the government defies court orders. It comes after federal courts have thwarted some of President Donald Trump's recent policies.

Trevor Potter, Campaign Legal Center president, said the "Founding Fathers" were trying to prevent a president from behaving like a "king" when they established three separate but equal branches of government.

"What's happened here is that members of the Republican party in Congress think their job is, or their duty is, to support the presidency whatever they do and not act as a check on the presidency," he explained.

Trump has repeatedly attacked judges who oppose his policies and his administration has refused to abide by their orders - even those issued by the U.S. Supreme Court. Potter believes the White House is trying to expand and consolidate executive powers over Congress and the courts - which he says poses major risks to American democracy and the rule of law.

A second provision inserted in the bill at the last minute has raised the ire of both Democrats and Republicans. It includes a 10-year moratorium on state and local governments to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in political campaigns and elections.

Catherine Hinckley Kelley, senior director, Policy & Strategic Partnerships with the Campaign Legal Center, said 20 states, including New Mexico, already have adopted such laws.

"States have acted, but now with this provision in the reconciliation bill, states would be unable to enforce those laws and limit the use of AI in elections," she explained.

Congress has not passed its own A-I regulation bill. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-GA, a fierce supporter of President Trump, said Tuesday she would not have voted for the bill if she had known about the A-I provision, contending it would violate state rights.


get more stories like this via email