Client ····· Crooked Media
Subject ···· Vote Save America
Formats ···· Voter guide
Subject ···· Vote Save America
Formats ···· Voter guide
For the Vote Save America 2020 Election Guide, I was hired by Crooked Media to research races & ballot measures across the country, then write a deep analysis of each.
The guide was customized to each voter's zip-code, delivering relevant write-ups & recommendations with humor, urgency and just a dash of relatable exhaustion.
The guide was customized to each voter's zip-code, delivering relevant write-ups & recommendations with humor, urgency and just a dash of relatable exhaustion.
THE JUNGLE PRIMARY
︎
This Jungle Primary's nabbed national headlines for being every bit the messy sideshow its name would entail. In late 2019, Gov. Kemp named entrepreneur & political newcomer Kelly Loeffler to fill resigning Sen. Isakson's seat. What Loeffler lacked in actual experience, she made up for by by owning over $500 Million dollars. As a side-note, many of those dollars were previously donated to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which then endorsed her for the seat. In Loeffler, Kemp sees a chance to regain women the GOP lost after backing locker room orator Donald Trump. Loeffler is Kemp's Take Me Back gift to women across Georgia—an animate #girlboss mug purchased from a drugstore & ready to consolidate loose change. Since entering office, Loeffler's loose change has already been scrutinized—like David Perdue, she received early Covid briefings, then traded a fishy surge of stocks in private, while downplaying the threat in public. It looks BAD, but of course that's not why her own party's challenging her.
Loeffler's own party is actually still Trump's party, which means she's the one who's off-brand now. As one of the president's most obediant House pledges, Rep. Doug Collins earned the White House's favor, and was pushed hard to fill Isakson's seat. When Kemp picked Loeffler instead, Trump let him know that it wasn't meant to be a suggestion. He pushed Collins again, this time on voters—to be chosen over Loeffler in a primary challenge. It sent a very clear message that neither candidate's backing away from: Collins has attacked Loeffler for donating thousands to moderate Dems (besides actual millions to Republicans), and of course committing the Original Sin of being friendly with Stacey Abrams. If you feel like there's no one to root for, the bad news is one of them's currently favored to eventually win the seat.
The two Dems running represent two sides of the same Left (it's roomy there): Rev. Raphael Warnock; current pastor of famed Ebenezer Baptist Church, and Matt Lieberman; permanent son of Joe Lieberman (yes....that one). Warnock has snagged big-time endorsements from half the Senate, including Elizabeth Warren, and a number of high-profile unions. Arrested in 2017 for protesting the budget in DC, he quickly became a force for organised activism, both nationally and locally. Warnock is advocating for putting workers' rights first in GA. Lieberman, meanwhile, is also a political newcomer, but is running because "the gap between what Georgians want and what Republicans reflect in Georgia is huge." It's a quote that keeps saying more, the more you read it. Despite calls from the NAACP to drop out (because of his self-published novel about a man and his imaginary slave) Lieberman persists - fighting for moderation, especially on healthcare. He currently trails Warnock in the polls.
It's unlikely any of these four will recieve over 50% of the vote, which means the two most popular candidates will move forward to a run-off in late January. And that's most popular overall - not one per party. The success forecasted for Republicans here is all based on this rule, so don't just choose your favorite candidate her - choose them loudly
Loeffler's own party is actually still Trump's party, which means she's the one who's off-brand now. As one of the president's most obediant House pledges, Rep. Doug Collins earned the White House's favor, and was pushed hard to fill Isakson's seat. When Kemp picked Loeffler instead, Trump let him know that it wasn't meant to be a suggestion. He pushed Collins again, this time on voters—to be chosen over Loeffler in a primary challenge. It sent a very clear message that neither candidate's backing away from: Collins has attacked Loeffler for donating thousands to moderate Dems (besides actual millions to Republicans), and of course committing the Original Sin of being friendly with Stacey Abrams. If you feel like there's no one to root for, the bad news is one of them's currently favored to eventually win the seat.
The two Dems running represent two sides of the same Left (it's roomy there): Rev. Raphael Warnock; current pastor of famed Ebenezer Baptist Church, and Matt Lieberman; permanent son of Joe Lieberman (yes....that one). Warnock has snagged big-time endorsements from half the Senate, including Elizabeth Warren, and a number of high-profile unions. Arrested in 2017 for protesting the budget in DC, he quickly became a force for organised activism, both nationally and locally. Warnock is advocating for putting workers' rights first in GA. Lieberman, meanwhile, is also a political newcomer, but is running because "the gap between what Georgians want and what Republicans reflect in Georgia is huge." It's a quote that keeps saying more, the more you read it. Despite calls from the NAACP to drop out (because of his self-published novel about a man and his imaginary slave) Lieberman persists - fighting for moderation, especially on healthcare. He currently trails Warnock in the polls.
It's unlikely any of these four will recieve over 50% of the vote, which means the two most popular candidates will move forward to a run-off in late January. And that's most popular overall - not one per party. The success forecasted for Republicans here is all based on this rule, so don't just choose your favorite candidate her - choose them loudly
“Loeffler is Kemp's Take Me Back gift to women across Georgia—an animate #girlboss mug purchased from a drugstore & ready to consolidate loose change.“
LINDSEY GRAHAM
V.
JAIME HARRISON
︎
Lindsey Graham's lack of shame is downright impressive. Not admirable, mind you, but naturally awe-inspiring - like a ladybug, or a slug, or any number of exotic invertebrates. Before 2016, Graham wasn't exactly the picture of integrity, but he honored the general spirit of bipartisanship. Unlike many southern GOP gentlemen, Graham was eager to work with Democrats on issues like climate change and immigration reform, preferring to be at the table instead of irrelevant. Since the arrival of Donald Trump, however, the senator's need for relevancy has fully eclipsed the meaning of his words. During the 2016 primary, Graham characterized Trump as a "jackass", "a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot". Trump responded by giving out Graham's cell phone number during a campaign speech. Graham concluded to CNN that Trump was a "kook" and "unfit for office", but like any buddy comedy, this was all just friendship foreplay.
After the president took office, Graham shifted his tone. Instead of attacking Trump to stay on camera, he began defending Trump to stay on camera. "You know what concerns me about the American press is this endless attempt to label the guy as some kind of kook, not fit to be president", Graham said, less than a year after doing exactly that himself, on camera. Most troublingly, the look on his face suggested he really believed himself. In 2020, South Carolina might actually, really, TRULY be done marveling at the natural splendor of Lindsey Graham. Democrat Jaime Harrison has been a challenger like none other, and closed the gap completely in this race. At this point, a scarecrow would be more palatable than Graham to most voters, but Harrison's run has been impressive all the same. A moderate Dem with friendships across the aisle, he was the first black chair of the South Carolina Democrats, and knows how to compromise - a skill Graham forgot on the way to the cameras.
After the president took office, Graham shifted his tone. Instead of attacking Trump to stay on camera, he began defending Trump to stay on camera. "You know what concerns me about the American press is this endless attempt to label the guy as some kind of kook, not fit to be president", Graham said, less than a year after doing exactly that himself, on camera. Most troublingly, the look on his face suggested he really believed himself. In 2020, South Carolina might actually, really, TRULY be done marveling at the natural splendor of Lindsey Graham. Democrat Jaime Harrison has been a challenger like none other, and closed the gap completely in this race. At this point, a scarecrow would be more palatable than Graham to most voters, but Harrison's run has been impressive all the same. A moderate Dem with friendships across the aisle, he was the first black chair of the South Carolina Democrats, and knows how to compromise - a skill Graham forgot on the way to the cameras.
“After the president took office, Graham shifted his tone. Instead of attacking Trump to stay on camera, he began defending Trump to stay on camera.”
MITCH MCCONNELL
V.
AMY MCGRATH
︎
Good lord this race has been ugly to watch - as anything involving Mitch McConnell obviously is. If history survives our current era, McConnell will be remembered as the man who almost ended it. Underneath a polite, Kentucky Koopaman persona, he's one of the most radical politicians Congress has ever seen; upending tradition just to stonewall one president, then upending democracy to advance another. All, of course, under the guise of preserving conservative values (to him, destruction is really the purest form of conservation). McConnell really has muted the word "hypocrisy" for himself in a way that approaches art, capped by two very different approaches to filling one Supreme Court vacancy. McConnell still manages to confound people with his political contradictions, but that's only because they're still listening to him. When it comes to action, he's always been consistent - he does what it takes to win. Even if it's unclear what he thinks he's really winning. Now, as the foundational damage McConnell (and a Koch brother or two) has done to the country becomes clearer and clearer, his approval in Kentucky has finally dropped, giving Democrats the opening they've always wanted.
Enter Amy McGrath, an ex-Marine fighter pilot who almost beat Andy Barr for his House seat in 2018. Losing by the slimmest of margins, and polling favorably throughout KY, McGrath was the Democrats' clear favorite to challenge McConnell. But the primary was contentious, as the moderate (some have called her conservative) McGrath faced a very stiff challenge from progressive Charles Booker. With the full weight of the DNC behind her, McGrath squeeked out a victory, but not without controversy - or bitterness. Since winning, McGrath has been flooded with donations. The problem is, there's not much excitement. As of writing, McGrath is trailing McConnell by double digits, even with her record fundraising haul. Whether it be resentment on the left, nihilism on the right, or any number of lies in-between, most voters in KY are still buying what Mitch is selling. Or, at least, not enough want to buy from McGrath. It might take a miracle to turn this race around, and unfortunately, McConnell's quite lucky at dodging those.
Enter Amy McGrath, an ex-Marine fighter pilot who almost beat Andy Barr for his House seat in 2018. Losing by the slimmest of margins, and polling favorably throughout KY, McGrath was the Democrats' clear favorite to challenge McConnell. But the primary was contentious, as the moderate (some have called her conservative) McGrath faced a very stiff challenge from progressive Charles Booker. With the full weight of the DNC behind her, McGrath squeeked out a victory, but not without controversy - or bitterness. Since winning, McGrath has been flooded with donations. The problem is, there's not much excitement. As of writing, McGrath is trailing McConnell by double digits, even with her record fundraising haul. Whether it be resentment on the left, nihilism on the right, or any number of lies in-between, most voters in KY are still buying what Mitch is selling. Or, at least, not enough want to buy from McGrath. It might take a miracle to turn this race around, and unfortunately, McConnell's quite lucky at dodging those.
“McConnell still manages to confound people with his political contradictions, but that's only because they're still listening to him. When it comes to action, he's always been consistent - he does what it takes to win.”
CALIFORNIA
PROP 22
︎
A YES VOTE
You support defining app-based transportation (rideshare) and delivery drivers as independent contractors, along with adopting labor and wage policies specific to these models.
A NO VOTE
You oppose defining app-based transportation (rideshare) and delivery drivers as independent contractors, along with adopting labor and wage policies specific to these models.
SUMMARY
Prop 22 is the next chapter in a nasty debate over the status of independent contractors in California. Last year's AB 5, which was meant to force app services like Uber, Lyft and PostMates into classifyng their workers as employees, wound up punishing a whole lot of other freelancers (namely CA's actors, writers & musicians); ending their livelihoods & ending business models that had run smooth for decades.
Now, the companies AB 5 meant to hit might be the only ones to dodge it: Prop 22 would exempt app-based drivers and delivery workers from being labelled "employees" under AB's rules, so long as they're allowed to work on their own schedule. Aside from all the companies mentioned, both the California State Sherrifs Association and the California Police Chiefs Association back Prop 22. In other words—all people who've gotten used to the new business as usual, and want to maintain it. Backers of Prop 22 say that if app workers are truly classified as employees, the structure will collapse—prices will soar while availability plumets. If this also sounds like a threat, then maybe it also sounds like a threat.
Independent researchers have pointed out that Prop 22's unique labor benefits still pale in comparison to what these workers are entitled to as CA employees. It's a sentiment echoed by Prop 22's high-profile opponents—from Joe Biden to Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and a host of labor unions, all of whom point out that as these companies make record profits, they deny their workers overtime, social security and a host of other traditional rights.
The other problem, however, seems to be no one has a solution to protect these workers in a new landscape. Prop 22's passage would be a big win for no one you wanna root for, but as the carelessness surrounding AB 5 has shown, efforts to protect workers can actually make them unemployable. Prop 22's passage might feel like a cynical life raft for a lot of workers who've grown to rely on these new models, ethical or not. But its defeat would put the task of dodging state-wide chaos onto companies rich enough to use chaos for publicity. In short, this might be the messiest prop on the ballot. Your vote here doesn't just come down to how you feel workers deserve to be treated in the future, but how these specific workers deserve to be treated right now: with no safety net to catch them, should more chaos ensue. However you vote here, be nice to yourself about it, because oof.
Now, the companies AB 5 meant to hit might be the only ones to dodge it: Prop 22 would exempt app-based drivers and delivery workers from being labelled "employees" under AB's rules, so long as they're allowed to work on their own schedule. Aside from all the companies mentioned, both the California State Sherrifs Association and the California Police Chiefs Association back Prop 22. In other words—all people who've gotten used to the new business as usual, and want to maintain it. Backers of Prop 22 say that if app workers are truly classified as employees, the structure will collapse—prices will soar while availability plumets. If this also sounds like a threat, then maybe it also sounds like a threat.
Independent researchers have pointed out that Prop 22's unique labor benefits still pale in comparison to what these workers are entitled to as CA employees. It's a sentiment echoed by Prop 22's high-profile opponents—from Joe Biden to Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and a host of labor unions, all of whom point out that as these companies make record profits, they deny their workers overtime, social security and a host of other traditional rights.
The other problem, however, seems to be no one has a solution to protect these workers in a new landscape. Prop 22's passage would be a big win for no one you wanna root for, but as the carelessness surrounding AB 5 has shown, efforts to protect workers can actually make them unemployable. Prop 22's passage might feel like a cynical life raft for a lot of workers who've grown to rely on these new models, ethical or not. But its defeat would put the task of dodging state-wide chaos onto companies rich enough to use chaos for publicity. In short, this might be the messiest prop on the ballot. Your vote here doesn't just come down to how you feel workers deserve to be treated in the future, but how these specific workers deserve to be treated right now: with no safety net to catch them, should more chaos ensue. However you vote here, be nice to yourself about it, because oof.
COLORADO
PROP 114
︎
A YES VOTE
You support a plan to reintroduce and manage gray wolves on designated Colorado land by the end of 2023.
A NO VOTE
You oppose a plan to reintroduce and manage gray wolves on designated Colorado land by the end of 2023.
SUMMARY
Prop 114 is a lively one in many senses, seeking a reintroducton of gray wolves to the Colorado wilderness. 30 years before becoming a federally-endangered species, CO's last gray wolf was killed. Now, recent data suggests large portions of state ecosystems have been failing ever since. In the absence of a key predator, elk and deer numbers have skyrocketed, eating away at so much vegation that erosion has become unmanageable—along with damage to natural songbird and beaver habitats. In short, CO wildlife's balance has tilted.
Proponents of Prop 114—including former Gov. Bill Ritter and author Tim Ferris—claim gray wolves could restore this balance, much like they did for Yellowstone's formerly threatened ecosystem. The measure contains strict guidelines and accountability to state and local governments, affirming this strategy would be carefully researched and barred from imposing any land, resource or water restrictions onto private landowners. Finally, the commission would be required to fairly compensate owners for any livestock lost.
Not everyone is thrilled by the idea—namely the Colorado Farm Bureau, which poured the bulk of fundraising into opposition efforts. After a pack of wolves was spotted in Northwest CO, Bureau VP Chad Vorthmann remarked that the measure's authors "should let mother nature work its magic, stop trying to impose their will on the natural world, and retract their ballot measure." The CFB's main argument isn't that Prop 114's an objectively bad decision, just that it's a bad decision to leave with voters instead of the experts (many of whom worked on the measure, actually). If you're reading this, it means Prop 114's still on the ballot, making that argument largely irrelevant.
Proponents of Prop 114—including former Gov. Bill Ritter and author Tim Ferris—claim gray wolves could restore this balance, much like they did for Yellowstone's formerly threatened ecosystem. The measure contains strict guidelines and accountability to state and local governments, affirming this strategy would be carefully researched and barred from imposing any land, resource or water restrictions onto private landowners. Finally, the commission would be required to fairly compensate owners for any livestock lost.
Not everyone is thrilled by the idea—namely the Colorado Farm Bureau, which poured the bulk of fundraising into opposition efforts. After a pack of wolves was spotted in Northwest CO, Bureau VP Chad Vorthmann remarked that the measure's authors "should let mother nature work its magic, stop trying to impose their will on the natural world, and retract their ballot measure." The CFB's main argument isn't that Prop 114's an objectively bad decision, just that it's a bad decision to leave with voters instead of the experts (many of whom worked on the measure, actually). If you're reading this, it means Prop 114's still on the ballot, making that argument largely irrelevant.
