Election 2026 Analysis

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com and Steve’s Tumblr.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

OK, so let’s get political. What does a Project and Program Manager think about Election 2026 and structural issues. I know you’re waiting to get to that. OK, maybe not, but trust me, I’ve been thinking about this awhile, and Election 2026 has actually fit my theories and then some.

So we saw a Blue Tsunami. Being upfront about my political preferences for democracy and freedom, I’m thrilled. But I also want to analyze what happened and what it means organizationally. I’ve been watching political changes for sometime, and 2026 is when “a lot of things came together,” where trends became realized – and it’s a change in American politics.

Let’s talk what we saw organizationally. Am I going to be fair? Not really, because I want to be blunt.

The Republican Party is essentially a party of media, and has been evolving that way since Regan (if not earlier). From the Influencer types ranging from seasoned political operators, to conspiracy theorists, to assorted “chuds” it’s grown up around media, showmanship, memes, and marketing. It’s no surprise Trump fit right in, and putting on a show is easier than governing.

Of course the party had to reconcile its conflicting elements – the monied class, religious masses, some outright bigots, and so on. But when you’re good at putting on a show you can do that for awhile. Also they had money and Citizens United and the like helped.

Meanwhile the Democrats have been a coalition party for a long time, to the point there’s jokes about it. They weren’t about unity, which is why I think people like Clinton and Obama, who could speak and build consensus (or at least triangulate) paid off. Democrats don’t have anyone banding them together unless they’re quite remarkable, but that conflict and difference can create a deep bench (note the many current and upcoming stars).

The thing Democrats had (that I think got missed) was networking and real grassroots effort, oft from independent and semi-independent groups. That had been around awhile but got turbocharged during the first Trump administration with groups like Indivisible, etc. But you have decades of organizing and networking and that kept coming together. Trump Administration 2 was even more of a driver to do something, so people rallied to protest and to resist – and that leads to political involvement. There was a lot of local work, and you’ll notice many candidates went very local in the party.

Also after losing to Trump TWICE, I think the Democrats wanted direction, and these networks helped provide direction and energy. Whether party leadership wanted it or not.

So you have widespread, interconnected networks against a top-down system around one guy and his donors/manipulators/sycophants. The people in a top-down system aren’t going to notice the networks as they think in terms of hierarchy. Worse the Republican party’s increasing media focus means they were thinking in memes, reality shows, and pithy statements which doesn’t deliver for people.

Trump knew how to run against a person and turn things into WWE. So did the GOP. But how do you run against a movement with no identifiable faces but a legion of them? I mean they wanted me to care about Hasan Piker and I keep forgetting who he is. I just know he’s got great abs and I have to work out more.

So they got stomped because they literally couldn’t see the opposition. In fact, I think they still can’t, because people seem stunned. What you had was a predictable network effect that you can see in modern times (Hungary, Serbia, etc.) as well as past activities (Civil Rights, etc.). People were pissed, they did something, and they leveraged existing networks and built new ones and that creates widespread organizational power with no one vulnerability that’s hard to assess.

Organizationally, it’s all kind of understandable – it’s similar to Agile methods in many ways. It’s basic organization and response, and it’s not like America hasn’t been surprised by distributed organizations before.. I’d say I’m disappointed in the mainstream media being surprised, but I’m just disappointed with them in general.

But now you’ve got other organizational issues coming up. The Republican Party is losing it’s strongman/figurehead/star one way or another, but their system is built for a Head Daddy Figure (I mean look at how Regan was treated). That means a battle for the position and the bench of candidates out there is not exactly inspiring.

But there’s also a large network of people out there who form a fractious but broad kind of Center-Left coalition that’s pro-democracy. It elected Democrats, but it is MUCH bigger than the idea of a Democratic Party. It also has a lot of people who got active or got more active as they felt actively threatened by the GOP. These people are networked and also will never vote GOP again and assume the party is a potential threat on their own, not because some talking head told them to.

Based on what I saw I expect 2028 to be 2026ish in that Democrats will outperform Republicans. I expect them to have all 3 branches of government and hold or expand their positions in States. How much depends on how elected Democrats respond and listen to the network out there – honestly if you’re lazy at this rate you could just sign off on whatever is popular and probably coast to victory.

As for the Republican Party? I think there’s about to be time in the Wilderness. I’m not sure what happens next because we have parties not just with different philosophies but completely different organizational structures. For the Republican Party to survive it could broaden, split, consolidate, etc. I have no idea at this time.

But I’m going to watch.

Steven Savage

The Unaccountability Machines

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

My regular readers will know that Dan Davies’ The Unaccountability Machine was a big influence on me. If you didn’t know this, well, you’ll probably keep hearing about it every now and then. Anyway, the short summary of this must-read book is that a lot of our systems (government business, etc.) go off the rails because they focus on a few metrics, insulate themselves and their leaders from impact, and become destructive.

There, I summarized an enormously complex book that sums up decades in a paragraph. Go me. Anyway, on to the subject.

I was reading a recent article in 404 media on how people are “staffing” companies with AI, or even discussing having entire companies that are just bots/agents. Yes, it won’t surprise you that people flush with cash or wild ideas imagine a world where they just automate everything and rake in cash. Yeah, you’re not surprised.

Nowhere’s many things wrong with this idea, from data center water burn to legal complications to AI being surprisingly crappy at many jobs. But I want to address something about what it’d be like to run a company with a bunch of stochastic systems doing work for you, because this sounds like the fears of The Unaccountability Machine taken to it’s logical conclusion. Or illogical conclusion.

Anyway, let’s imagine these AI companies, these automated companies, and what we know about AI. You have a lot of automated processes running things, running them with no moral agency because they’re not people. We know how sycophantic AI can be dangerous because it tells you what you need to know. All of this abstract and distant from real human experience, moreso because of the hype cycle.

What you’ve got here is, well, an Unaccountability Machine. A nearly completely automated company of AI agents spinning around one person is not going to get good, safe decisions. You may get something you can use to juice stock and sell off, but it won’t be safe.

What you have are devices that ape human awareness, using old data, telling people what they want, and when things go wrong the AI takes the blame. You have people insulated from real information, focused on limited measures, and using technology that will sound like it’s kissing up to them. All it is is amplifying what happens to various leaders anyway in our decaying government and business systems.

So, really, it’s just business as usual but faster. You can spin up bad ideas and unaccountability quicker.

Now I suspect a lot of this is just juicing stocks, posturing, and trying to ignore how AI costs are going to go up and legal issues will proliferate. So I’m more concerns what happens in the meantime and I doubt it’ll be good – and then of these “auto-companies” will need their work walked back.

Honestly, I hope most of them are scams. Maybe that’d be good.

I suspect Dan Davis is going to have to write yet another book.

Steven Savage

It’s A Matter Of The Day

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

So let me take a break from discussing heavy world issues to focus on organization. In this case a more personal experience – what day of the week should I do my planning on?

No, trust me on this. Let me explain.

For a long time I did my planning for my week on Sunday (being an organized person, of course I plan my weeks). However the more I did that the more onerous it became. I was using my weekend to plan things and not relax. Why end the weekend with bureaucracy?

Yet at the same time wasn’t Sunday the start of the week and the end of the weekend? Wasn’t it the perfect day to do this? As a professional Project and Program Manager I felt myself in a quandary. As an organized person in general I was also in a quandary. Double quandary.

I confess this felt ridiculous at first. Why did the day matter? Well as I thought it over it mattered quite a bit.

Think of much much specific days matter. There’s the day you start work and the day you end it. There’s the time off you have that you want to enjoy. There’s the day traffic is the least worse so that’s when you do grocery shopping. All of these things affect your life – and thus when it’s best to plan it.

After some thought and discussion with friends, I settled on Monday as my planning day – essentially my week began and ended on Monday. It was the start of the workweek, it wasn’t on a weekend, and it wasn’t so far along the week it made things confusing.

My Mondays often got busy, but I’d carve out the time to make it work. Know what? It did.

Monday fit my needs perfectly as planning day, even with other things happening. The need to plan on the weekend was gone. I had clarity on my week and weekend. Thinking about what’s the best day to plan made a huge difference – and it was much less stressful.

I even changed up how I did my planning. Now that I was more aware of my time usage and rethinking things, I asked what other things I might do differently. I start planning my months not at the end of a month, but in the middle of the previous month. That let me get a better view of my upcoming weeks, which made Monday planning easier. One change had led to others.

Of course this helped me at work, and made me think over what I did when at work. I have statuses and reports and meetings to do. Now I have an experience to guide me on selecting the best day for things, a way to explain it, and some insights to share.

It’s a simple thing, but in busy times, deciding when to do what, the ideal day or week or month to accomplish something, can make a huge difference. Small things make a big difference organizationally.

So what day, or week, or monthly planning might you want to switch up?

Steven Savage