Reflections on Botswana

It's hard to not notice the kids. They are everywhere. Something like 60 percent of the population is under 35, but it feels like 50 percent is under 18.

Yet it is the kids here that give Botswana great hope. Every secondary school kid we met was optimistic, forward leaning & ambitious. As I told our hosts, it's easy to be optimistic about Botswana after visiting schools. But the mountain to economic opportunity for all is still steep, as our trip to Dibeke demonstrated.

On the last Saturday of the trip, we traveled two hours or so to the small village of Dibete. The road from the Capitol feels like most two lane roads in the southwestern USA, endless miles through desert and scrub brush, before turning off the road and walking into a place seemingly stuck between the modern and traditional world.

This was the visit we spent eight days waiting for. We had come for a traditional Kgolta, essentially a town meeting convened by the tribal Chief. Typically Kgolta's dealt with local community issues, airings of grievances or even criminal justice issues, but on this day they came together simply for our visit. It felt like the whole village showed up for our official visit. I'm sure for most, it was the pure novelty of their guess - surely for 99% of Dibeke residents & children, we were so different that we might as well have been from Saturn.

The scene upon arrival was jarring. The heat & the poverty hit you immediately. There's no grass, and the only pavement is building where the Kgolta is held - that and a 20 spot parking lot that the government had built for some inexplicable reason. The parking lot was so useless the village fenced it off.

And then there are the kids. Everywhere.

The villagers here lived up to the Batswana tradition of friendliness, and for the three-plus hours we were there, in spite of their lacking, they cooked us food, provided us water & performed for us.

A local politician heard about the gathering, stopped by and gave a nice speech, but it's clear that other than glad-handing, government services - other that the parking lot - are mostly nonexistent. They are on their own. You feel driving around that by and large, the Botswana government is failing the people.

But it's the kids that day who I think we will all remember. Universally well behaved - imagine most 5 year olds you know sitting through a 2 hour meeting in 100 degree weather - they were happy and curious. Many just wanted to touch us, and it was clear from people wanting to feel our hair and touch our skin, that not many white people had ever been there.

One woman reminded me of a lady I met in the Philippines, who similarly asked me to come close to the child in her arms, so the kid could touch me, as if somehow that brought good luck. Others ran away. It's experiences like this that drive home the true blessing that is American birthright.

There is a real path forward for these kids. One thing the government has done well is making education compulsory & students here have access to school. The schools we saw were taught by competent teachers. Diamond royalties make college free for all, so those kids have a real shot of breaking the poverty cycle, if the economy can generate enough jobs. That's the big IF.

But back to the village, kids here travel a mile or two to school, but when they come home, there is no library or other place to study. And the one room homes many call home aren't conducive to homework, nor is the 100 degree heat. In face, the town doesn't even have a computer or a printer. People asked for my card, but had no idea what email was. They left us with a laundry list of polite requests for help.

But their lacking of things hardly means they lack for talent. Most people were at least functionally bilingual - particularly the kids, and the drama troupe that performed for us had kids that could make a living in the US in the arts. Ask any kid what they want to be, and the most typical response is some kind of scientist.

Later in the day we headed to Stepping Stones, a bilingual school that prepares kids from all walks of life to learn in the US. We held a mock political debate with them, and again, were amazed by their skills. One student living in that rural community who I particularly bonded with - see selfie above -told me he aspired to be a scientist after at studying Yale. I wanted to take him home.

So many of the kids we met would be on a trajectory for great success if they lived almost anywhere else. But simply working hard here is not a recipe for guaranteed success. It's just not that easy. There are major structural problems with the government, which many fear could fall apart if the current President refuses to leave office at end of his term. It's hot here, and the drought is draining the country, quite literally. An economy that is entirely dependent on mining and tourism has led to a nation where unemployment and inequality are way too high. One study showed 30 percent of Batswana went without sufficient food in the last year. Traffic laws are seen as suggestions, not laws. The place, as I told a friend, feels raw.

That being said, in someways unlike Namibia, there is a real sense of nation here. Even though tribal affiliations are rightfully important, being Batswana means something. You see the flag everywhere.

And there is evidence of change. We saw a younger generation of emerging to break the one party strangle on government, while other young leaders inside the ruling party are working to reform that institution. We met a pair of opposition leaders, one a graduate of Harvard, the other from Wharton, who have teamed up to mount the first significant threat to the ruling party since independence. And like Namibia, NGOs, like our wonderful hosts at the Organization of Youth and Elections in Botswana (OYEBO) are being stood up by locals to address areas where government has fallen short.

There isn't a ton of time. Over the next decade, roughly a million Batswana will join the workforce, arguably better educated & prepared than any before them. The economy is no where near ready for that. Tourism is a real hope, but it's going to take more than that alone, particularly if the diamond mines, as some fear, start to run dry.

That being said, it's a place really worth rooting for. As one of my colleagues on the trip said, Botswana is the great underdog story. The people here are proud, friendly and welcoming. Even the immigration officer at the airport as we left asked why we were leaving so soon and when we're we coming back. I think we all left there truly wanting to see them succeed and trying to figure out what more we could do - particularly for those kids.

As I told many and wrote here, coming to Africa for me has been a 30 year dream in the making, and I understand today better than ever how and why people who come here just want to come back. I'm truly grateful for the American Council of Young Political Leaders for the honor of escorting this trip, the first such trip for the organization to Botswana, for the friendships made within the delegation and in Namibia and Botswana, but mostly for the chance to live out a dream.

Hope at the end of a dirt road

Botswana is Africa.

If Namibia is, as described "Africa Light," it didn't take long after getting here to realize that this place was different.

It's gritty and worn.

The Capitol city of Gaborone (Gabo-row-nee) is built out of the desert bush, and by build out of it, literally everything that isn't building or pavement still is desert bush. There is no grass. Drinking the water isn't an option - not even to brush your teeth, rolling blackouts occur, and walking around at night is strongly discouraged. The 3* hotel might pass for 2* in the US, though thanks to being in a hotel, at least we aren't subject to the severe water rationing in the rest of town. This isn't Kansas.

That being said, the more of this work I do, the more hopeful I am for humanity. People here define friendly. The town, in spite of its rough appearance, is clean and welcoming.

On Thursday, we did the usual spate of meetings, toured the House of Chiefs, an interesting body which convenes the tribal chiefs a few times a year to consult on key issues. More than just a sign of respect, I suspect in the early days of the nation, the Chiefs were needed to convey legitimacy on the government.

But on these trips, there are always those unique experiences that define the journey, and on Thursday, we found one at the end of a dirt road, some 70km west of town.

We drove out to a village to visit a public secondary school (high school). We arrived about 2 hours after school ended, but in the 'library' we're about 50 kids, representing multiple schools - all in their uniforms.

Now to put this in some context, rural Botswana is poor. Very poor. The metrics which measure income inequality in a nation ranks Botswana in the top 5 worst. And you can't miss it. You could forgive a rural Matswana girl for lacking hope.

Yet in that classroom we found kids just like kids everywhere, full of energy and hope. Students stood up and talked about their dreams of growing up to be accountants, lawyers, doctors and one girl, of being the first woman President of Botswana.

That girl actually rose to thank us for showing the courage to come to her village. I challenged her. It doesn't take courage for a guy like me to come up Africa, it just took someone giving me a plane ticket and understanding clients. No I responded, courage is being a girl from a poor village strong enough to dream of leading her country - a place that is sadly quite tough on women seeking public office.

In a lot of ways, this place is far worse off than Namibia. Even though per capita GDP is much higher here, it's due to that inequality. And you can see it everywhere. Parks are just dirt fields, traffic is much more third-worldish, and public and private buildings are worn down. For example, in spite of having similar populations, the budget of Gaborone, Botswana is roughly 1/8th the size of the budget of Windhoek, Namibia.

But there seems to be a stronger sense of national pride. Granted the country is 30 years older, but even during its years as a British protectorate, it managed to avoid the same racial discrimination policies that places like South Africa & Namibia will be dealing with for generations, thus you don't sense the same huge fault lines here that you see Namibia.

Or maybe it's just harder to see those same challenge after spending an hour with the kids of Thamaga Secondary School.

Goat heads, chicken feet, and moving forward

"You must forget to move forward"

The last night in Namibia, we were invited to a traditional meal in the Apartheid-era township of Katatura, a place whose very name translates loosely to "the place where you don't want to be." Dinner that night consisted of all kinds of unique tastes, such as goat head, tripe, chicken feet, and a healthy dose of Windhoek Lager, the town's surprisingly good beer.

Joining us were a cross section of community leaders, electeds & government officials. More than a handful were former Freedom Fighters, and I ended up spending time with one such man, who by this time wholly responsible for my elevated blood alcohol level. He eagerly told the stories of pictures on the wall from that era, and as a white man, I listened uncomfortably as described being beaten by South African police. Remarkable, he bore no sense of ill will. So I asked - how do you move on, to which he says, "you must forget to move forward."

This is a place where bad things happened - and not that long ago. Yet in 25 years since independence, they've built a country that is safe, functional and growing.

The City of Windhoek symbolizes that growth. At the time of independence, 80,000 called it home. Today official population is 320,000 - though driving around, it's much bigger. One city official pegged as "probably over 400k."

The city is clean, public services are delivered efficiently, the police are trusted, and it's very competently run. Yet the challenges there are remarkable. Several hundred people a week move into the informal settlements, fleeing the rural areas in search of work. With each new arrival, the city must absorb them, provide security as well as basic water & sewage. And the scope of their work here is immense, Windhoek itself is one of the world's largest cities in terms of geography, and a classic case of urban sprawl.

But like everyone else here, they just seem to figure it out.

The CEO of the city is another Apartheid-era freedom fighter, a former school teacher who went to college after independence when he was 40. He is a self described technocrat, though the word is an unfair descriptor: he was easily one of the more charismatic people I spoke with.

He summed up Namibia's progress & challenges in one sentence: "We've spent 25 years building a country, now we must build a nation."

You can see where it could fall apart. 90 percent of the wealth is held by 10 percent of residents, and not surprisingly, that falls largely on racial lines. As the Prime Minister described it: "we are a rich country of poor people." Unemployment is over 20 percent, and over 40 percent among youth. Housing costs are shockingly high: a three bedroom in Windhoek can cost $3 million Namibian, or roughly $250k in the US - arguably more pricey than my community of Tallahassee, despite being a nation where per capita income would fall at about 70% of the US poverty line. Gender-based violence is a major issue. Way too many people have HIV. Access to sanitation here is worse than places like Angola, and the percentage of undernourished people rivals failed states like the DRC and Zimbabwe. There are major land reform issues to be resolved, a looming water & power crisis, and as one elder described it, a "restless youth." You can sense corruption remains a problem. It's a staggering list. It's understandable to predict a bad outcome.

But I don't think it will suffer the same fate as many of its neighbors. There is a commitment to democracy here and freedom of press. It's not transparent by western standards, but it is by African. But most importantly, I think it's going to work because everyone here seems committed to its success. There is a real pride here, a sense of community key to the concept of national identity. The boundaries here were drawn by foreigners, but again, Namibians seem willing to forget.

People should come here. It's a beautiful country, with warm and welcoming residents. The food is amazing. It's easy to get around and plenty safe. Now I'll admit, it's a little of to see streets named after Castro and Mugabe, which pay homage to those dictators that supported the revolution. But this place isn't like those. You should also come here because they've earned our support. They is largely a free market, democratic state.

The Windhoek CEO also was a big beer fan (if you are a non-drinking vegetarian, this place is not for you). As he kept plying me with even more Windhoek Lager, he left me with another thought: "we must just keep moving forward." And that's the sense you get from everyone.

The nation is overwhelmingly Lutheran, which as one observer suggested, probably has made reconciliation easier. But I think it's more basic: there is almost a chip on the shoulder of leaders, a sense that they have something to prove. I'm willing to bet on it.

The Namibian Conundrum

Our ACYPL crew has only been here two days, but a couple things stand out about Namibia: It's complicated, it faces huge challenges, but nonetheless it is working.

In the 25 years since independence, Namibia has gone from a poor undeveloped nation with little infrastructure to a functional place, with improving infrastructure. It's also reached "middle income status" meaning that per capita GDP is over 6,000US a year.

It's clear that one of the keys to success is the intentional effort to empower NGOs, who could supplement government spending by accessing grants designed to support countries that are on the path to development.

And in many ways, it's a model for Africa. The place is competently run, they've had multiple peaceful transition of power, corruption doesn't seem to be as bad as other developing countries, and education & youth empowerment is a priority.

Foreign investment is at the root of much of that success.

Here's the thing: That success has put Namibia in a tough space. They no longer qualify for much of that funding because of the aforementioned middle income status. Their success has turned off the spigot that helped them get to here.

And here's the problem: despite that income number, there is no discernible middle class. Poor here is as bad as I've seen in Manilla or Guat City, but because of the income growth at the higher end, the average fails to tell the story. As a result, both the government and the NGOs stand to lose millions that would allow them to do their work.

This really is a hopeful & innovative place. Yet the future still feels tenuous. They haven't dealt with inequality or land reform, issues that have felled success elsewhere. But there seems to be a commitment to make it work.

From kids working on HIV prevention to others building leadership trading programs for new officials, there is a forward lean to the place. And it's a warm & welcoming place.

But what does the next 25 look like? Will the international community continue to invest? Can the country deal with the big issues?

It could go either way & hopefully the next two days will give some clarity. There is definitely a risk of the Zimbabwe model taking root, though I don't think so. This feels like a place to bet on, if for no other reason that this government endorsed NGO structure seems determined to get them to the promised land.

Africa

Some kids look into the sky and dream of riding in a space ship, but for me, my sky was a globe, and my hours were spent dreaming of places that were so far from a child's life in Kankakee, IL that they might as well have been the Moon.

For some reason, I've always been drawn to the obscure & remote places of the earth, far more curious about the rougher corners of the planet than I've ever been about places like London or Madrid.

My "bucket list" has always had far more places like Timbuktu and Tibet than its had Tuscany or Tahiti.

While I've spent countless hours researching travel to places like that, alas life got in the way of much of that. I never did the study abroad or Peace Corps thing. Nikole was good enough to pacify my curiosity with a ten day trip to Guatemala (and more pedestrian locales like Ireland & France), but for most of the last 15 years, I was to busy chasing professional ambitions to chase any personal dreams.

A couple of years ago, I took an ACYPL trip to Southeast Asia, which rekindled that spirit of adventure. But there remained a big hole in the dreams of that kid - Africa

A couple of hours from now, probably 35 years after I first dreamed of it, starts a 17 day journey across three countries. We start in Namibia, then go to Botswana & my journey ends in South Africa. And despite a lifetime of planning, I have no idea what to expect.

But 6 hours from landing in Africa, I'm as excited and curious as I was when I was a kid with his globe, in his upstairs room on Budd Blvd.

Hope you will follow along.

A short take on what should be next for the state party

Soon the Florida Democratic Party will release its review of the 2014 elections and recommendations for the future.

I am not a member of said committee writing the report, though I've been a part of ten election cycles, and fortunately more wins than losses. I could write for hours on the path forward, but I'll keep this to the high points. With that, here are my two cents.

Dear Committee: 

1. Drop the pointless "left vs moderate" debate and build bench with candidates who can win where they run.

I'm admittedly over the handwringing over what a "real Democrat" means. In a nutshell, what a "real Democrat" means to me: an individual with a servant's heart, focused on the middle class and social justice...and who can win.

The latter is what matters. And guess what, one size doesn't fit all. In 2006, when we won seven seats plus two more specials, our winning candidates were all over the ideological spectrum, from NRA members on the right to those on the far left of the scale. They won not because they fit into a box, but because they had a real relationship to their district - meaning they had some following & ability to raise money, had resumes that sounded like state legislators, and had a world view that fit the community they lived in. Two of my favorite people in Congress, Gwen Graham and Debbie Wasserman Schultz would be unlikely candidates in the other's districts. But both work where they are. We need to embrace that.

2. Control what you can control.

State parties can't control the national mood, or for that matter the state mood. They can't define the narrative. And they can't control national waves.

What they can control is this: registering voters, maintaining good voter data, recruiting good candidates and make sure local activists are doing things that matter. Everything -- and I mean everything, is secondary. I would argue this should be the extent of what this committee focuses its report on. 

Having a lot of good candidates means in good years, you have lots of options, and in bad years, you can stop the bleeding. Having local parties focused on real party building efforts mean that those candidates always have a strong & growing voter base to work from.

And you need good candidates to win, and down the ballot. Sure, lightning struck in a bottle in a few places in 2012, but we should look at 2004 as a more relevant cycle. The previous legislature had been a mess, Kerry had run a very base centric campaign, and the Dems lost three seats in the House. Why? With a few exceptions, it was a narrow and somewhat underperforming Dem field of candidates. Recruiting is hard. But it has to be the priority. It's also hard to tell good people you can't help them. But for the state parties, the only metric of success is winning.

For local parties, we have to get back to a focus on meaningful activities, starting with voter registration.  For all the folks who think demographcis will fix this alone: Here's a stat to give everyone real pauseL  since the day we sent the 600 or so Obama kids home in 2008, the Dem voter registration advantage in Florida has dropped from just over 700k to just over 400k. Let's collectively focus on turning this around as a goal for the state and local parties.  Demographic change isn't a long term strategy. 

3. Break down our own echo chambers.

When we only listen to others who reinforce our own world view, we become limited in our ability to understand the electorate at large. We complain about Republicans who only get their news from the alternative reality that is Fox News, yet we are often guilty of the same. The partisan chattering class only represents the partisan chattering class. And even if everyday voters share lots of our goals, they don't share the partisanship. There is a reason why people aren't joining political parties - on either side. Who can blame them?

I often tell candidates to view a trip to Publix as a good take on the space we operate in. People in there are busy, often distracted & typically just want to be left alone. When talking to voters, you have to be able to break through to them in same way you would try to connect with the guy behind you in line at Publix. Voters already don't trust parties - or frankly politics. Don't reinforce that.

4. Money matters.

Winning campaigns usually spend more. It's just a fact.

Winning candidates usually raise more. Also a fact.

When candidates raise more, the party doesn't have to spend as much helping them get across the line to win - meaning they can win more races.

5. Stop blaming the party for everything.

The state has 20 million people, 12 million active voters, and 10 media markets including 4 of the top 10 in the nation for political spending, while combined the GOP & Dem parties probably have 50 full time staff. It's not their fault it rains on Saturday. Most of the thing the parties get blamed for are actions candidates and potential candidates take on their own accord.

With Presidential campaigns this is even more true. The modern presidential is its own machine, dwarfing party resources.

Moreover if you don't like what the FDP does, go do something else. Go help candidates you like, go register voters, go recruit smart people to run for office.

6. Don't overthink it.

As I said before, there are lots of things Democrats should be doing, but only a few they must do.

Focus on the one percent of common sense things we have to do to win: candidate recruitment, voter registration & voter turnout.

Candidates must have their own compelling reason for running. Their job is to find the message to get over 50 percent. The party job is to get them as close to that number as possible. Again, all the rest of is secondary.

7. Get out of Tallahassee

Part and parcel to #3, there is no reason for the FDP to be located in Tallahassee. It's geographically misplaced and it's an echo chamber that isn't representative of the state.
Go to the Orlando media market. That is where the state is most dynamic right now. Lay down a marker and start organizing.

8. Have fun.

Not all fun campaigns win, but virtually all dysfunctional and miserable campaigns lose. Politics is supposed to be fun, and if you aren't having fun, you are doing something wrong. As Gandhi said "be the change you want to see in the world."

You are engaged in the 240 year struggle to keep our democratic republic afloat. That's a damn cool thing. If you are enjoying it, others will come along.

Sincerely, 

Steve

So what's new with Hispanics in Florida?

These days, every single conversation about Florida and 2016 generally starts and ends with the Hispanic vote - and for good reason, it is easily the fastest growing segment of the population. 

The Hispanic vote in Florida is critical, though I would caution election observers, it isn't the silver bullet. One place where most GOP and Democratic strategists agree, the path to a win in Florida for both parties is a complicated puzzle, where both parties are trying to manage their winning and losing margins in a myriad of different population centers and ethnic voting blocks.   That being said, it is a population where margins are movable, which makes it important.

This is the first of a series I am hoping to work on this summer that looks at some of the key voting blocks in Florida and how the world is changing within each as we line up towards another likely barnburner Presidential contest here. I chose to start with Hispanics because it is the piece that gets the most attention, and these days, it is is also the most dynamically changing group.

This piece will look at how the potential Hispanic vote has changed, just over the last six years, starting with 2008, which was the first year that Democrats really dominated the Hispanic vote in a statewide election, carrying the statewide Hispanic vote by 14% according to the exit polls --  which in all fairness, I think was a few points optimistic. 

The data for this piece is largely voter registration trends, which will give a fairly clear sense of where Hispanic vote growth could or will have an impact, both on a regional and partisan basis.  However, there is a huge caveat to looking at registration numbers – besides the obvious that registration doesn’t equal turnout – the Hispanic tag on the voter file is a self-reported indicator.  Not all Hispanics self-identify themselves as Hispanic. and prior to 2006, there wasn’t reliable data on Hispanics, since many counties counted Hispanics by the racial background:  white or black.  That's another reason for using 08 as a starting point.

But nonetheless, the trends between the 2008 general election and the 2014 general election are pretty instructive and interesting, and they certainly help explain why Hispanics at the statewide level are performing better for Democrats.  However, as I will point out later in this piece, and more thoroughly in my next few summer projects, the growth among Hispanics is only good news for Democrats if we as a party can claw back some of our losses among whites.

So back to Hispanics.  Here are some key toplines:

• When the books closed on 2008, Hispanics added up to about 1.35 million registered voters.  This was just over 12% of the electorate.  Again, remember the caveat above – this under represents the total Hispanic vote in Florida, which I think was 14-15% of the total electorate in 2008.
• When the books closed on 2014, Hispanics had risen to 14.5% of the state’s registered voters, or just under 1.75 million voters.
• The total increase in active registered voters – that is all voters of all races and ethnicities --between 2008 and 2014 was just under 700,000 voters, from roughly 11.2 million voters to 11.9 million.  Of the increase in the election pool, about 400,000, or 56% can be attributed to Hispanics.
• In 2008, Democrats held a 67,000 voter registration advantage over Republicans among Hispanics.  Six years later, it had risen to over 191,000.  If you go back to book closing 2006, the GOP in those days held a 40,000 voter advantage over Democrats.  Any way you cut it, that is a remarkable shift among a group that makes up less than 15% of the total registered voters.

Two other noteworthy things happened over that same time:

• Self-identified Hispanics now outnumber self-identified Black voters (African American and Caribbean American) by over 120,000 voters.  In 2008, Black voters had a 100,000 vote edge over Hispanics.
• Further, non-Hispanic white voters only made up 13.5% of the change in voter registration between 2008 and 2014.  Put it another way, 86.5% of the change in voter registration can be attributed to racial and ethnic minority groups.  Granted, a lot of this was due to the global economic meltdown which significantly slowed the migration of whites to Florida from other states, however, this trend lines up with what we are seeing in census numbers too.  The population growth in Florida is being driven by racial and ethnic minorities.

The growth is also happening in some predictable places – and a few places that aren’t so obvious: 

• 39% of the growth in Hispanic registered voters has happened in the Miami media market.  Nothing surprising there. But what is interesting about Miami – there are 150,000 more Hispanics on the voter file today than there were in 2008, but only 115,000 more total voters.  In other words, since that market is largely built out from a population standpoint, Hispanics are disproportionably becoming a larger share of the voter pool, with the Hispanic share of the registered voters growing by almost 5%, compared to 2.5% statewide.  Plus it’s not just Miami-Dade – about 1/3 of this growth is from Broward County. And if you want to know why Democrats are winning in Dade and Broward by bigger margins:  of the 150,000 voter growth among Hispanics in the Miami media market, Republicans saw less than 1,000 additional Hispanics join their rolls between 2008 and 2014.  

• To a question I get a lot – what is going on with Cubans, the last point above is quite important. There is a pretty strong correlation between exile era Cubans and GOP registration/performance.  And while it is tricky because nation of origin is not a voter file field, the fact that Hispanic registration growth has basically stopped in Dade County is a sign of two things:  new Cuban voters are not monolithic like their early generations – and just as important, Cubans are no longer the only Hispanic force in Dade. 

• 24% of the growth happened in the Orlando media market, which is showing the most acute partisan impact.  As I mentioned in a previous post, if you look at the two recent GOP Presidential wins (2000 and 2004), Bush carried the three county metro-Orlando area by an average of 22,000 total votes.  In the two Obama wins (2008 and 2012), he carried the same counties by an average of just under 100,000 votes.  The challenge in off-year elections for Democrats – these voters are some of the lowest turnout populations in off-cycle years (I have a theory on this for another day). 

• The Tampa market is also seeing a large growth – almost ¾ of the growth in voter registration between 2008 and 2014 can be attributed to Hispanics, and half of that is in Hillsborough County alone, where Hispanics grew from 11.8 to 15.2% of the voters.  This is one of the reasons why Hillsborough has looked much more Democratic in statewide elections the last 4 cycles. But don’t lose sight of Polk, where Hispanic growth is outpacing the statewide growth. 

• Lastly, the West Palm Beach media market, which counts for under 9% of all the statewide Hispanic growth, but where Hispanics make up 2/3rds of the voter registration growth.  The dynamic there is very similar to the Miami market, where particularly in Palm Beach County, the growth among Hispanics actually outnumbers the total growth in registered voters, meaning that as the white population shrinks due to slower population growth, and frankly mortality, they are being replaced in larger numbers by Hispanic voters.

So what does this mean for partisanship?

On this front, the evidence is pretty clear:  While the majority of new Hispanic voters are rejecting both parties, they are really rejecting the GOP. 

• As noted above, between 2008 and 2014, Hispanic voter registration numbers grew by just under 400,000.  The number of Republican Hispanics grew by just 25,000, or roughly 7% of the total.  Democratic Hispanic registration grew by 150,000, or about 40%, with the rest going to neither party. To view it another way, of the newly registered Hispanics who are chosing a political party, they are signing up with the Democrats at a rate of 6 to 1.  The only two markets where GOP Hispanic growth outnumbered Democratic Hispanic growth were Panama City and Pensacola, and the total GOP advantage in those two markets grew by 400 votes. 

• The Democratic numbers are very encouraging particularly in the Miami and Orlando media markets.  In the tight equilibrium that is Florida Presidential politics, higher Democratic margins in Dade, combined with higher margins in Orlando – and Orlando in general taking up a bigger share of the electorate, truly does shake the balance of the state’s electoral pie.  This demographic shift has taken Florida from a state where in 2008, many questioned the state's competitiveness to one where today, one can argue Florida fractionally leans Democratic in a Presidential cycle.   And without Florida, there is no GOP Presidential math, unless your name is Calvin Coolidge.

• The trends are helping Democrats among Hispanics, at least at the top of the ticket, at the ballot box.  Simply:  Obama won Hispanics by a bigger margin in 12 than 08, and Crist out-performed Sink.  And most of the reason why can be attributed to demographics.

• Frankly, while trying to be fair, there really isn’t a bright spot for the GOP anywhere among Hispanics, but before my team declare too much of a win, keep in mind that NPA/other party registration among Hispanics grew faster than Democratic registration in every media market in the state.  The new Hispanic voter may be rejecting putting the GOP label on their name, but they aren’t sold on us yet. 

Two last points:

All of this works for the Democrats under one really basic condition:  we claw back to 40% among whites.  If you believe the exit polls – and I think they aren’t that far off – Obama won Florida winning about 37% of whites, down from the low 40’s in 08.  Crist lost Florida winning about 36% of whites, down from Sink in the low 40s in 2010.  Obama was able to hang on in 2012 due to the inertia of the demographic change – and a turnout operation that took advantage of it, while Crist rode demographics to a race as close as Sink.  That being said, had either one of them matched the previous election share of the white vote, Obama would have won in a walk and Crist would be Governor today.

Here is why.  Even under the rosiest of Democratic demographic models, whites will still make up nearly 5x the number of voters as Hispanics in 2016. That means, all things being equal, losing a point among whites means winning Hispanics by about 5% more just to make up that loss.  Now, before I get into an argument with people who like to argue, some of that is made up by rising vote share among Hispanics and Blacks, but it is nowhere near one to one.  Let me put it another way to my Democratic friends – if we can win over 40% of the white vote in 2016, the math becomes much harder for Republicans – even in a scenario where a Jeb Bush was to cut the Democratic advantage among Hispanics.

With one last caveat.  Marco Rubio scares me. I’ve been pretty consistent on this one. If you are a Democrat, he should be the one you don’t want to face, because I do think, if he is the nominee, he is the one who could significantly change the Hispanic math in Florida and the Latino math out west.  Why?  I truly believe he will benefit from the same identity politics that galvanized African American voters behind Obama.  And before you tell me this won’t happen, I would remind folks that in 2007, there were a lot of skeptics that African Americans would really embrace Obama, a notion that frankly I found insane and one that got flipped on its head the minute he walked into South Carolina.  If a Rubio wins Hispanics in Florida by 8-10 points, the white win number for Democrats starts moving towards the mid-40s, and while I do think a Hillary Clinton candidacy will excite higher support among white women, it is still a pretty big hill to climb.  

Granted, that is a lot of information, with a lot more to come.  Next up, a look at the changing African American and Caribbean vote. Until then, your comments are always welcome.  You can email me at steven dot schale at gmail dot com.

Early Primer on Florida 2016

Earlier this month, I took at look at where Florida fit in the pantheon of battleground states. This one is more of a primer on the state heading into 2016 in terms of the keys to past Democratic and Republican wins since 2000.

Like the last piece, this examines the data by aggregating data, in this case, county level data from the two wins by President Bush (2000 and 2004) and the two wins by President Obama (2008 and 2012) to look at how voting patterns differed between Bush wins and the Obama wins, and to take a look at a few regions where we can look for 2016 clues over the next 18 months.

From a top level, the data sets are pretty similar.  The Bush wins were by an average of 190.000 votes, while the Obama wins were by roughly 155,000. Both Bush and Obama won an average of 50.7% of the vote in their wins.   

For the sake of this exercise -- namely because I am writing it, this piece will be written from the standpoint of the difference between the Democratic wins and losses.  I'll also offer my thoughts on a few counties to watch for 2016.

Toplines:

From a media market standpoint, the keys to a Democratic win can be seen in three media markets:  Miami Dade, Tampa, and Orlando.  In the two Bush wins, in these three markets, the Democratic nominee won by a margin of just under 193,000 votes.  In the two Obama wins, the margin of victory was an average of 468,000 votes. 

In the other seven markets combined, the Republican margin of victory was an average of 284,000 in their wins, and 296,000 in their losses.  

However, it isn't as simple as focusing on three media markets, and ignoring the rest.  

In the two Obama wins, the President Obama received an average of 50.7% of the vote.  In the two Bush wins, the Democratic nominee won an average of 47.9%, a difference of 3.2%.  

From a factor of vote share, President Obama received a higher share of the vote in seven of the state's ten media markets.  The improvement in vote share looked like this:

Miami:           +4.4% (from 58.6 to 63.0%)

Orlando:        +3.9% (from 46.0 to 49.9%)

Jacksonville: +3.8% (from 36.5 to 40.3%)

Pensacola:    +3.7% (from 28.4 to 32.1%)

Fort Myers:   +2.9% (from 38.6 to 41.5%)

Tampa:         +2.8% (from 47.9 to 50.7%)

Gainesville:   +1.7% (from 51.6 to 53.3)

There is a lot of data that should make Democrats feel good about the state in 2016, but its not all rosy. 

At this point, I could make an argument for either party to carry the state.   For this exercise, its I'll look at just two elections: 2000 and 2012.  In addition to serving as an effective range, both were very close: 2012 was inside of a percentage point, and the 2000 election where, well, we can argue over who actually won.  

If the state was constant, these two elections should have very similar county level outcomes - and if you just look at counties won and lost, they do. But when you analyze the county level margins, it becomes clear that nothing is constant

Good News if you are a Democrat:  

Two words:  Orange and Dade.  In just a few years, Orange County has gone from a swing county to a place where Democrats can run up the score.  It is hard to believe that in 2004, George Bush only lost to John Kerry by 500 votes in a county that delivered 85,000+ vote margins for President Obama in two consecutive elections.  Add in Dade County which President Obama carried in 2012 by 170,000 more votes than Al Gore in 2000, and there is a dynamic base trending your way. Other counties, such as Hillsborough, look more blue than purple as well. This is all being driven by demographics.  The state is getting more diverse every four years, and this diversity is driving these growing urban margins, and there is no reason to believe the 2016 electorate won't be even more diverse than the 2012 -- even if voting is down among African and Caribbean Americans.  And to this point, Democrats are right that if the GOP doesn't solve its diversity problem, they will continue to have a math problem in Florida Presidentials. 

Good News if you are a Republican:

The 2012 election saw the GOP gain generally across the state compared to 2008. The GOP improved their margins in 57 of Florida's 67 counties, and in 7 of the 10 where Democrats ran stronger than 2008, the Democrat's picked up a total of less than 1,000 votes compared to their 08 margins. In fact if you compare 2000 to 2012, the GOP improved its margins in 53 of 67 counties. The GOP gains are most clear in Florida's suburban/exurban counties in SW Florida, on the I-4 corridor, and particularly around Jacksonville -- and are frequently more than offsetting Dem gains in urban areas.  For example, President Obama carried Hillsborough -- a county which makes up 6.5% of the statewide vote, by roughly 36,000 votes, whereas Gore lost it by 11,000 -- a net gain of 47,000 votes for Democrats.  Yet in just the three counties that touch Duval: Clay, Nassau and St. Johns -- which make up only 2.9% of the statewide vote, Romney carried them by almost 51,000 votes more than Bush did in 2000.  To this point, the GOP is right that if the Dems can't claw back some of its traditional support among working and middle class whites, all the diversity in the world may not matter.

So this me to this.  Where are the counties to start watching:

Hillsborough:  Want to know who will win Florida?  Go to Hillsborough County. Except for 1992, this county has gotten it right in every election since 1924, which as readers of this blog will remember, is also the last time Republicans won the White House without winning Florida. The average Bush margin of victory: 21,000 votes, while President Obama carried the county twice by virtually identical margins and percentages (36K votes/8%).  And lest Democrats get too excited about some of the demographic trends, in winning Hillsborough in 2014, Crist still did not get to 50 percent.  A Republican might be able to win Florida's 29 even losing Hillsborough by a few votes, but it is hard to see a path for a Democrat without winning here.

Miami Dade:  While I would like to think that guys like me helped break the code in Dade in the two Obama wins, the reality is every Democratic nominee for President since Gore has done better than the last, and every Democratic nominee for Governor since McBride has done better than the last. Personally, I believe a lot of what is happening here is largely the inertia of demographics.  The real question for both Republicans and Democrats:  What is the upper limit for Democrats?  If Obama won 61% of the vote in 2012 after winning 57% in 2008, could the Democrat get to 64% in 2016?   If so, the margin grows to 245,000 votes, 35,000 more votes than 2012.

Duval: In terms of stark differences, few places jump out like Duval County. In the two Bush wins, the GOP margin of victory was an average of 53,000 votes.  In the two Obama wins, that margin dropped to an average of 11,000 votes.  Looking at it another way, the GOP won the county by 17-18% in their wins, and by roughly 3% in their losses. Why is this important for Democrats?  The Democratic path to victory means running up the score in a few counties, where the Republican path means winning several counties by 30-50K votes.  Take away a few of those places, and their math gets hard.  On the flip side, a flag for Democrats.  Allowing Duval to return to Bush level margins would on its own, virtually wipe out any demographic improvements in Dade.  

Metro Orlando: It is easy to think about what is happening politically in Central Florida as an Orlando phenomenon, but the demographic shifts that have occurred in the region really spread out over the three county metro Orlando area (Seminole, Orange and Osceola).  The difference from the Bush wins to the Obama wins has been stunning: In the two Bush wins, he carried the three county area by an average of 22,000 votes.  In the two Obama wins, the President carried them by a margin of roughly 100,000 votes -- a nearly 122,000 vote margin improvement for the Democrats.  But my Democratic friends shouldn't get too confident, all of the regional growth happened between the 2004 and 2008 elections, and in 2014, Orange and Osceola were two of the lowest turnout counties in the state.  In other words, maintaining the Presidential margins means maintaining the Obama coalition turnout.

Volusia:  Count me in the camp that believes strongly that my party's long term success requires clawing back some of our losses among working whites and rebuilding our broader coalition.  From my perspective, no place demonstrates our struggles there quite as clearly as Volusia County.  Mitt Romney carried Volusia in 2012, becoming the first Republican since President George HW Bush in 1988 to win the county, and this should be an alarm bell for Democrats.  In Governor's races, at least going back to 1966, Volusia County has always gotten it right, and Scott carried the county in both 2010 and 2014. Republicans have won the county in three consecutive statewide elections.  If Democrats are going to make inroads again with working white voters, its going to have to show up in the results of places like Volusia County

As the cycle evolves, I'll dig a little deeper into the media markets, but as always, hope you enjoyed the piece and I always appreciate the feedback. 

I'd also remind folks that at this point in the 2008 cycle, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Gulianni were battling it out for Florida's 27 votes -- and as late as the spring of 08, McCain led by 15 points over Obama.  There is a lot of silly season between now and when the voting starts, but one thing I am sure of, Florida will once again be the biggest battleground prize.

If you have thoughts or questions, I can be reached at steven DOT schale AT gmail.com

So Just How Close is Florida? The 2016 Version

Four years ago, I wrote a piece looking at how Florida stacked up to the other battleground states, a piece I wrote that one largely in response to a bunch of reporter calls questioning Florida's swing state status.  At least we are past that debate.  This piece is largely an update to that one, looking at how the 2012 results either have or have not shaken up Florida's place in the pantheon of competitive Presidential states.

I am going to write this in two parts, with this one taking at look at how Florida stacks up compared to the rest of the country.  The next one will take a look at how Florida itself performs, what has evolved, and what has not. 

For this effort, I am going to compare Florida to the rest of the country two different ways:  From 1992 through 2012, choosing 1992 because that year signifies Florida's entrance into the national ranks of battleground states, and then from 2000 to 2012, since the national map we operate under today has largely been frozen in place since 2000.

Before I get started, when doing this research, I looked up a bunch of old national election results to test a hunch -- a hunch that if we go back to the Reagan days, that the country had pretty much split 50:50.  Well, that hunch was pretty darn close.

I actually went back to 1976, adding up the election results from 1976-2012. Moving back to 1976 didn't change the topline numbers much, but it did give it a very cool benchmark: just over 1 billion ballots cast in Presidential elections over that span -- ten elections that split 5 Democratic and 5 Republican.

Here's how it looks -- All votes counted for President, 1976-2012: 

Republicans: 498,073,887 (47.8%)

Democrats:  493,452,066 (47.4%)

Total Ballots: 1,041,089,910 (GOP advantage: 4,621,821)

That's just hard to get your head around.

Back to the point of this piece. Looking at the same comparative, nationally, in the six elections from 1992 to 2012, just under 689 million ballots were cast for President. with Democrats holding an advanage of about 26 million ballots over that time (roughly 49-46%). 

Nationally, state outcomes broke down like this:

Republicans 6-0:  13 states

Republicans 5-1: 5 states

Republicans 4-2: 7 states (AR, KY, LA, MO, TN, VA, WV) 

Even 3-3:  2 states (Colorado, Florida)

Democrats 4-2:  2 states (Ohio, Nevada)

Democrats 5-1: 3 states

Democrats 6-0: 19 states

For the sake of this exercise, looking at which state is most competitive over time, I'll narrow this piece to those eleven states that either split 3-3 or were carried by each of the two political parties at least twice. 

Immediately, we know that six of these states are not likely competitive at the Presidential level at this point: Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri (more on this later), Tennessee and West Virginia, which leaves us with five states:  Virginia, Colorado, Florida, Ohio and Nevada.  The 2011 edition included Missouri, and I debated keeping it here, but given its performance in 2012 for Democrats, its status as a top tier Presidential bellwether is in question, though in fairness - due to its strength for President Clinton in the 90s, had it been kept in, it would have finished third in this chart.

The 12 readers of this blog may well remember when I did this same analysis in 2011 that Colorado edged out Florida as the closest state between 1992 and 2008. 

Does that still hold true?

5.  Nevada.  Since 1992, just under 4.4 million votes were cast for President.  Republicans carried the state twice (2000 and 2004), with Democrats winning the state four times (92, 96, 08, 12).  Driven by President Obama's large 2008 margin, Democrats won 48.6% of all the votes cast, to 44.9% by the GOP, a 3.7% Dem margin.  It is the least competitive of these five, just as it was going into 2012.

4. Ohio.  Since 1992, over 31 million votes were cast, with the Dems holding a 47.7 to 46.0 advantage. Just like Nevada, the GOP won it in 2000 and 04, with the Democrats winning the other four. 

3.  Virginia.  Virginia is new to this list, with the Dems carrying the last two elections after losing the previous four (and many more than that).  Just under 18.5 million ballots were cast over the last six Presidentials, with Republicans holding a 48.6 to 47.2 (1.4%) advantage, placing it in the middle of these rankings. 

2. Colorado.  The closeset state going into 2012, it is the closest no longer. Each party has won the state three times in the last six (Dems 92, 08, 12; GOP 96, 00, 04), with the Democrats winning 154,000 more of the state's just under 12 million ballots over that time, giving them a 47.4 to 46.1% advantage.

1.  Florida.  No state in the union has been closer over the last six Presidentials, with Democrats winning the state in 1996, 2008 and 2012, and the GOP the other three (I will continue to dispute one of them!).  Over those six elections, a total of just over 41 million ballots have been cast, with the Democrats holding a 130,664 vote advantage (47.8-47.5).  To put it another way, under state law, we'd be in a mandatory recount of 41 million votes. 

Now in fairness, the country is different today than it was in 1992.  Many southern states which were in play for President Clinton have over the last few cycles have moved into a predictably Republican position. 

So how does this realignment change the electoral map?

Nationwide, it breaks down like this. Out of a total of just under 489 million ballots, Democrats have won 50.3% of all votes cast, with the GOP carrying 47.9%, or a Dem margin of just over 12 million ballots. In terms of states, the scoreboard looks like this:

GOP 4-0:  22 states

GOP 3-1: 2 states (Indiana, North Carolina)

Split 2-2:  5 states (Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia)

Dem 3-1: 3 states (Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico)

Dem 4-0:  19 states

As a result, our five top battlegrounds remain unchanged.  Not surprisingly, all five went with the national winner each cycle. And they rank like this, with the percentage margin for the leading party among all ballots cast in the 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012 elections:

5. Nevada (Dem +4.3)

4. Colorado (Dem +1.2)

3. Virginia (GOP +0.73)

2. Ohio (Dem +0.67)

1. Florida (GOP +0.23)

In the case of Florida, 30,458,980 ballots were cast---ugh 2000 ---were counted, with Republicans winning 15,086,978 votes to the Democrats 15,015,920, a difference of just 71,058 votes.  At this margin, we would be in both a mandatory recount of all ballots, as well as a mandatory hand count of all over and under votes. I think most of us remember what that looked like.

So in the immortal words of Tim Russert, it remains, "Florida, Florida, Florida." 

Granted, there are other states which are competitive and becoming moreso.  There are "blue" states that potentially get more competitive over time (Michigan, Wisconsin, etc), just as there are "red" states, like Georgia and Arizona, that could enter the conversation.  But speculating those isn't the point of this work -- the goal here is to look at the places we know are competitive, because at least in recent history, they have remained that way.

Later this week, I will publish a second piece that looks at what makes Florida as close as it is -- and what has and hasn't changed over time.  And for the sake of making the work of our outside press friends a little easier, I'll take a stab at the counties they should start getting familiar with as they look for clues to how the state might go in 2016.

And remember this one fact, no Republican has gone to the White House since Calvin Coolidge without carrying Florida.  The state's central position on the road to the White House remains the state's great revenge for all of the fun the rest of the country gets from reading about Florida Man! 

Anyone want to join me for a trip to Pakistan?

The morning after the election, tired and a little dejected, I stood with five Indians and four Pakistanis inside the Tampa International Airport, seeing them back off to Washington, DC. When I signed up for this, I didn't know what to expect. What I didn't expect was what two of them said to me: "you have changed my entire view of your country."

I didn't know how to react. So I cried.

I've started and trashed this piece four or five times. Chalk some of it to post election exhaustion -- for the better part of 18 months, I've been engaged in what became the most competitive Congressional and the most competitive Governor's race in the country. Mostly, like my trip to Asia last winter, I walked away from this experience more unsure of the world than ever before -- but in a good way. I write to process information, and this is one I haven't been able to fully process. Even as I finish this, I find it hard to put to words.

As my friends know, last December, I spent nearly three weeks in Southeast Asia as part of a delegation of Americans visiting the Philippines and Malaysia. That experience was nothing short of life changing. You can find my writings from that trip on this site.

As a result of that trip, the organization that arranged my Asia delegation, the American Council of Young Political Leaders, asked if I would host a group of foreigners in Florida to observe the US elections. Despite it being a fairly hectic time, saying yes was the least I could do in appreciation for the opportunity the organization gave me -- plus in reality, the last 72 hours of an election for a guy like me is mostly about conference calls and riding out the anxiety in an office. Conference calls in a van with 9 strangers was a welcome relief from sitting in an office.

When I said yes to hosting, I reached out to my host in Malaysia, the treasure to world humanity known as Jack Lim. Besides some very good advice, Jack said that he got far more out of hosting than the delegates got from their trips.

I was assigned a delegation from Pakistan and India, to arrive on Halloween and stay through the Wednesday after the election. The goal of the trip, from my perspective, was twofold: give them an introduction to American-style elections, as well as give them a chance to experience some ole fashion US culture, and interact with everyday Tampa area residents.

The agenda was packed, from attending a Tampa Bay Lightning game, to church at a historically African American parish, an Orlando rally with President Clinton, dinner with local Indian and Pakistani Americans, and even a lunch in downtown Lakeland with former Senator and ACYPL alum Paula Dockery. They got a good taste of Florida.

The Indian delegation was made up entirely of young elected officials. They came from far reaching corners of the country. The Pakistani delegation was comprised of leaders working around government. At first, the two country delegations were polite to eachother, but largely separate, as the tensions between the two nations are well documented. The two groups kept to themselves, riding in separate busses, sitting at separate tables, and generally keeping to themselves. Over time, walls came down, and everyone grew close. That's the goal of these trips - expand cultural understanding and build bridges that become lifelong relationships.

The Indian delegation was a ton of fun. All young electeds, all heading off to do great things in their country, and all who will be lifelong friends. I can't wait to visit them in their country soon -- and I will talk them in a separate post.

But in this post, I will focus on the Pakistani piece of the puzzle.

So how do we think of Pakistan?

Failed state. Extremists. Terrorists. Fanatical. Unsafe. Unstable. Backwards. Radical. Untrustworthy.

For me, the only human perspective I had previously of Pakistan was through a fellow from graduate school at FSU. He was thoughtful, moderate, bright and bullish on his country. He suggested I visit. That seemed a bit crazy, plus maybe he was the exception. He didn't fit the frame. All I know is I had a lot of questions.

Again, unlike the Indian delegation, the Pakistani delegation was entirely made up of people outside of elected office. Asif is a journalist who covers their Parliament and the Pakistani Defense Department (how's that for a beat), Saubana works for an anti-corruption agency, Adnan is deeply involved in the energy industry and Nisar works for an NGO that encourages civic engagement and fair elections.

On the second night of the trip, inside a luxury box at a Tampa Bay Lightning game, we started talking. First it was me: why is there religious extremism, why should we trust your government, and why the hatred of the west....then it was them: drone strikes, the sense that the invastion of Iraq was rooted in religion, and their view that the US only wants to use Pakistan, not help it. It wasn't until the last two minutes that I even knew the score of the game.

The conversation continued -- in the minivan we drove around Tampa and Orlando, outside of a primarily African American church on Sunday morning, and even over absurdly spicy Indian food late the eve of the election. And what became apparent - most of our mutual preconceived notions of the other's country were based in narratives rooted in just parts of the truth. And just like my friend from college, I found them each to be thoughftul, moderate, and driven to create a different future for their nation. We frequently didn't agree, but that was ok.

Around the third day, one of the delegates said to me "you just need to come see for yourself." My response: "is it safe for a guy like me" was met with pretty quick disdain. As a late friend of mine once told me after spending a significant amount of time in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, that their culture treats invited guests like family -- which extends to their security-- and that he always felt comfortable with friends there. After realizing the error of my response, I said "of course." They would have never said "come" if they felt it was unsafe, anymore than they'd put their own brother at risk.

Don't get me wrong, Pakistan has a long ways to go. There are places that are ungoverned, where extremism thrives and where threats to America clearly exist. Corruption is far too prevalent. Infrastructure is crumbling (they kept commenting on the quality of our roads). The government there frequently is a total disservice to it's citizens.

Each of the delegates had a job that challenges the existing power structure, meaning their decision to work in the arena has a different kind of risk than my decision to do so here. When I do something people don't like, I get to deal with the peanut gallery. When my friend Asif writes a story that pushes a boundary, his potential consequences are far severe than some snarky remarks in the comments section of a website. There they have real threats, threats a government often can't protect them from. I'd like to think I would have the courage to do what they think is normal, but I don't know that I do.

But for all of the country's severe and very real problems -- and frankly, for all of the suspicion of the US that admittedly exists within broad strokes of the Pakistani population, I know I am guilty of viewing the nation of people there through an unfair lens. The truth is, the people I met live just like we do: trying to keep a job, pay bills, give their kids a better life, while improving their community. The terrorism that struck the historic Wagah border crossing during their trip here offended them as much as it did the rest of humanity. It's easy to forget that in the frame that we view that part of the world. We are very much in this together.

I was totally unprepared to be embraced completely as family by four strangers from a country that we know almost nothing about, each of whom put down their earlier notions of America to spend time here, and approached their time in this country with open minds and open ears. Just like my Malaysian friend Jack told me would happen, I know for a fact their impact on me was far more profound than any impact I had on them.

So yes, I will absolutely be taking them up on their invitation. In fact, I can't wait. I'd go tomorrow if I could (as I've since learned, getting a Pakistan visa is a several month proposition - so it won't be tomorrow!). And I will ask them to come here to visit again.

And to my Indian friends - I will be writing about -- and coming to visit you too!