Almost immediately after Governor Wes Moore was elected in 2022, political pundits in Maryland and beyond proclaimed Moore is destined to be a President of the United States. 

Moore, in turn, is doing what one would expect from a potential future presidential candidate.

 He supported President Joe Biden for re-election until Biden pulled out of the race. He then threw his support to Vice President Harris. He traveled regularly to speak on her behalf. He gave a prime-time speech at the Democratic National Convention. He helped Democratic Senator-Elect Angela Alsobrooks defeat Larry Hogan in a race previously deemed critical to Democratic Party efforts to retain control of the U.S. Senate. 

All these efforts may be overcome by events in Annapolis next year when the General Assembly is back in session. Prior to adjourning, they must approve a state budget and send it to Governor Moore. Before that happens, the General Assembly will again engage in dialogue, deliberations, and decisions on unfinished business from the last session on state spending and tax increases. 

Last session, a compromise was eventually reached on select tax increases, select fee increases, spending cuts, more state borrowing, and drawdowns from the state’s “rainy day” fund. 

This compromise was approved over strong objections of progressive legislators who viewed this outcome as a temporary deal and a short term delay on future decisions to reject spending cuts and approve tax increases. 

Progressives maintain tax increases are essential for full funding of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future (the Kirwan Plan) and for a mass transit system extension in Baltimore.

As often happens in the General Assembly when state spending and tax increases are debated, those debates are overcome by events. 

Next year this will be especially true given a recent bleak report from the General Assembly’s independent Department of Legislative Services. 

That report projects that Maryland is heading into a severe fiscal crisis that could be the worst in twenty years. The report projects a gap between state tax revenues and state spending that is more significant than the outlook the state faced during the Great Recession in 2008- 2009.

Budget analysts suggest full funding for the Kirwan Plan is by far the biggest driver of the state’s long-term budget problems. They note that starting in the 2028 fiscal year, about $2 billion for Kirwan needs are unfunded, a figure that grows to $3.2 billion in the 2030 fiscal year.

Complicating matters further is uncertainty about how much and when Maryland will get federal funds to replace the former Key Bridge in Baltimore. 

Whatever the General Assembly does on the spending budget and taxes, Governor Moore will have a major and highly visible role starting with submitting a proposed state budget in January. Following General Assembly approval of a budget bill, Moore can agree to it, make line-item vetoes, or veto the entire bill. The General Assembly can in turn override those vetoes.

I predict another contentious General Assembly session as there are still deep divides on budget priorities and tax increases between Governor Moore and the Democratic legislative leaders and progressive Democratic legislators who want tax increases now and who are increasingly unwilling to take no for answer.

Resolving these differences will be even more challenging with a President and Congress planning on significant cuts in federal spending and federal jobs. Both plans will reduce historical levels of federal monies coming into Maryland.

Last week, a Baltimore media outlet published a response from the Governor’s office on two questions – Should Marylanders anticipate any taxor fee increases in the coming years? Does Governor Moore plan to make any major spending cuts and if so where they might be? 

His office responded with this written statement: The budgetary challenges that Maryland faces are as tough as they’ve ever been, and while the challenges have been years in the making, Governor Moore is committed to continuing to work in collaboration with the dedicated leaders of the state legislature, including Senate President Ferguson and Speaker Jones to fix them. The Moore-Miller Administration has a high bar for increasing the tax burden on Maryland families, and the governor knows the next leg of the mission to address our fiscal challenges will be harder than the last. We will continue the work of prioritizing our expenses and reviewing our revenue model to determine how it aligns with our objectives. Marylanders have come to expect fiscal responsibility from the Moore-Miller Administration and the governor will continue to move forward into the next session with that at the top of his mind.

These are his words now. The question is, what will his actions be next year and beyond?

I suggest voters should be ever mindful of an answer by Richard Nixon’s presidential campaign manager after Nixon’s election in 1972. When asked what to expect from the Nixon administration he replied, “Watch what we do, not what we say.”

If voters do so that could be problematic for Governor Moore in pursuit of a presidential bid. 

Democratic primary voters may not embrace a Democratic candidate they see with a record of blocking or limiting progressive policy initiatives and higher taxes to pay for them. At the same time, general election voters may not embrace a Democratic candidate they see with a record of supporting progressive policy initiatives and higher taxes to pay for them. 

In either case, voters may make voting decisions after deciding if what Governor Moore said on his intended actions on government spending and tax increases matches what he actually did.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant in Easton.

Even before he was sworn into office in January, Donald Trump had firmly secured a prominent place in American history books.

He is only the second president in U.S. history elected to two non-consecutive terms.

The road to that outcome was a long and winding one.

It was also a road where Trump repeatedly challenged conventional wisdom and proved it to be wrong at every step of the way.

Below is a recap of conventional wisdom (CW) from the 2024 presidential election, with conventional wisdom being defined as a widely accepted assumption and prediction.

Below each conventional wisdom is a recap of actual outcomes relative to conventional wisdom.

CW: Donald Trump was finished in politics due to being impeached twice in the U.S. House of Representatives during his first presidential term, federal criminal indictments (still pending), and state felony convictions (still being appealed).
OUTCOME: With a combination of resilience, determination, and perseverance, Trump triumphed over fifteen Republicans for the Republican party’s 2024 presidential nomination.

CW: In a June debate between Biden and Trump, both would deliver solid performances.
OUTCOME: Biden’s debate performance was arguably the worst in history.

CW: Despite his debate performance, Biden would stay in a reelection grudge match with Trump.
OUTCOME: In September Biden abruptly withdrew his bid for reelection and immediately endorsed Kamala Harris, a move that led to her being the Democratic Party’s standard bearer.

CW: Harris would not do well in her only debate with Trump.
OUTCOME: Harris exceeded expectations which gave her campaign a much-needed boost.

CW: There would be a t least one “October surprise” from the Biden administration.
OUTCOME: An “October surprise” came early but not from the Biden administration. It came in July when Trump narrowly escaped death from an assassination attempt.

CW: Harris could mobilize support from women voters with two campaign messages. One was a message used very effectively by Democratic candidates in the 2022 midterm elections – vote against Republicans as they are not pro-choice on abortion. The second message was now women voters had another opportunity to elect a woman as President of the United States.
OUTCOME: More women than the Harris campaign expected concluded that the state of the economy and high levels of inflation were their top concerns. Concurrently, they also concluded that despite electing a woman for President of the United States was a long-awaited opportunity, Kamala Harris was not that woman.

CW: Trump would experience the same lack of support from working class voters, urban voters, Black voters, young voters, Asian voters, and Jewish voters that Republican presidential candidates have historically experienced.
OUTCOME: Trump’s support from all these groups exceeded all expectations. He won the “blue wall” states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin as well as four other “swing states”.

CW: Despite being fiercely loyal to President Biden and all of his progressive policies for almost four years, Kamala Harris could tell voters she would be a very different President than Biden.
OUTCOME: Voters rejected that messaging after Harris answered a question on what she would do differently from President Biden with – “Nothing that I can think of.” U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders also cast aspersions on her integrity when he said publicly Harris was a progressive who would say whatever she needed to say to get elected.

CW: Kamala Harris’ running mate, Tim Walz, could help offset Trump’s campaign messages that Harris has been and is a radical San Francisco, California progressive. Walz could be branded as a quintessential American “everyman” – a former high school teacher, former high school football coach, military veteran, former member of Congress, and now Governor of Minnesota.
OUTCOME: Walz was quickly and negatively viewed by voters as not ready for prime time due to frequent verbal gaffes and his answers (misleading at best) to questions about his background, especially his military service record.

CW: The November election popular vote outcome was expected to be a tossup that could result in a narrow popular vote win for either candidate.
OUTCOME: Trump won with 50.38% of the popular vote compared to 47.96% of the popular vote for Harris.

CW: The November election Electoral College vote outcome was expected to be a tossup that could result in a narrow Electoral College win for either candidate.
OUTCOME: With 270 Electoral College votes needed to win, Trump received 312 Electoral College votes compared to Harris’ 226 Electoral College votes. Trump was the first Republican President elected since 2004 to win both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote.

Going forward, the 2024 presidential election confirmed two absolute truths about conventional wisdom for political candidates, campaigns, pundits, voters, and others.

Never assume anything will happen until the polls close on election day.

Anything may happen at any time until the polls close on election day.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

In late October, President Biden visited Baltimore to announce that the Maryland Port Administration will receive $147 million in federal funds for infrastructure improvements.

During his visit, Biden did not acknowledge or address serious issues with another much larger federally funded infrastructure project in Baltimore.

That project is the construction of a new $6 billion Frederick Douglass Tunnel in Baltimore for Amtrak, America’s quasi-public rail passenger company.

The current tunnel is over one hundred and fifty years old and is a major bottleneck on Amtrak’s high speed northeast corridor passenger rail service between Boston and Washington DC.

As a long-time staunch supporter of Amtrak, I understand the need for this long overdue tunnel replacement project.

That said, I am stunned and disheartened by how much this project has been mismanaged.

In early October, Amtrak’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a scathing report on this project.

The mission of Amtrak’s OIG is simple and straightforward.

Conduct and supervise independent and objective audits, inspections, evaluations, and investigations relating to agency programs and operations; promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within the agency; prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in agency programs and operations.

Consistent with their mission, in OIG’s report on the Baltimore tunnel project, they noted that Amtrak did not establish a program management structure early enough. As a result, they struggled to complete the necessary planning in scheduling, communications, document management, and risk management for this project on a timely basis.

The OIG criticized Amtrak’s initial assignment for project management responsibility of a $6 billion dollar project to a single individual.

Eventually, the program team was expanded to seven members, but five told OIG auditors that they were still overwhelmed by their workload.

Amtrak officials have since acknowledged staffing was insufficient and said the Capital Delivery team should have been staffed before it received responsibility for the program.

Amtrak later decided to hire a “delivery partner” to provide management and oversight, but that contractor wasn’t engaged until the spring of this year. Amtrak officials agreed that the decision “should have been made earlier” to “maximize the benefits the delivery partner was intended to provide.” As a result, the new contractor has to plan a management structure as it also prepares for construction.

The OIG report made three recommendations: complete program management planning for the tunnel project, establish processes to ensure the a project’s management structure is established early enough to produce strong oversight for the life of the project and establish processes to ensure program teams have sufficient staff before projects are assigned to the Capital Delivery department. Amtrak management, in their response to the report, agreed with the recommendations and outlined how it is acting to meet those goals.

The OIG report concludes the project now “faces a significantly increased risk of cost overruns and additional delays as it proceeds into major construction.” The OIG report does not include projections for future cost overruns and additional delays.

One thing is almost certain about a six-billion-dollar construction project. Cost overruns and completion delays will likely be substantial. As a result, funds needed for other Amtrak service improvements to increase ridership and reduce their government subsidies will not be available.

I am sure Amtrak’s colossal mismanagement of federal funding is not unique.

Unfortunately, conventional thinking is public infrastructure project completion delays and cost overruns are standard operating procedures. In other words, this is the way it has always been and the way it will always be.

That thinking needs to change especially when the federal budget deficit is at record levels, currently at 1.83 trillion dollars, and growing.

Former U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen once observed, “A billion dollars here and a billion dollars there and pretty soon you are talking real money.”

Many Americans are carefully monitoring their budgets and adjusting their spending habits on a regular, even daily basis in order to pay their bills for basic living expenses.

Going forward, we need and deserve elected and appointed officials at every level of government to take appropriate steps to ensure funding for all government-funded infrastructure improvement projects is spent efficiently and effectively.

They need to address the fact the current audit process is largely reactive, not proactive.

Concurrently, government project managers must be fully aware of and committed to best practice project management policies and procedures prior to and during large-scale and complex infrastructure improvement projects.

It is common sense to help ensure things go right in the first place as opposed to learning what went wrong after the fact.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

Almost twenty-five years ago, Harvard professor and political scientist Robert Putnam wrote Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. 

In it, Putnam provides a detailed analysis of the measurable decline of what he calls “social capital” in American society that started in 1950. Putnam also discusses the very serious consequences of that decline. 

Putnam suggests these consequences include, but are not limited to, disengagement from community involvement, decreased voter turnout, low attendance at public meetings, and shrinking memberships in fraternal groups, civic organizations, and political parties. Putnam also cited Americans’ growing distrust in their government. He maintains all of these consequences undermine the active civic engagement that a democracy requires from its citizens. 

Since his book was published, I suggest the decline in social capital in America has reached new low levels, due in large part to long term limited social interactions during the covid pandemic.

This has been especially the case with regards to young children in their formative years (ages birth through age 8) when their brains are most active in the development of how they communicate and interact with the world. 

As I write this commentary, I am in a state of shock about an incident at the October 25th Talbot County GOP Lincoln Reagan Dinner. While the guest speaker was delivering his remarks, he was confronted which led to an arrest and assault charge against the confronting individual.

This occurrence brings back memories of World War II when German Nazis threatened the principles of civil discourse, free speech, and the democratic governance principles of Western society. They came very close to invading Britain which would have almost guaranteed Britain’s surrender and a different end to an epic global struggle between good and evil.

During those dark days, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was a master at rallying the British people. During one especially challenging time when there were regular and unpredictable Nazi fire bombings of civilian targets, Churchill said, “In times of great uncertainty, look for great opportunities.” Churchill’s understanding of the value of social capital and his communication skills ultimately led to Britain and Britain’s allies (including the United States) winning World War II.

America is certainly facing times of great uncertainty. Now more than ever America needs a renewed commitment by our citizenry to look for great opportunities to learn about engaging in collaborative efforts to increase and maintain social capital.

A place to start is here. A time to start is now.

There are three outstanding opportunities to do so on the Eastern Shore.

The first opportunity is to read Putnam’s book, which is available at the Talbot County Library. 

The second opportunity is attending an upcoming program sponsored by the Chesapeake Forum, a local not-for-profit academy for lifelong learning. The program topic is – Our lost sense of community – how do we fix it?

This program includes three sessions to be held on November 7, November 14, and November 21 between 10:30 AM and Noon. All sessions are at the YMCA on Peachblossom Road in Easton. For online registration go to chesapeakeforum.org. The registration fee is $50 per person. A reduced registration fee is available. Questions? Email [email protected].

The third opportunity is a Baylor University Baylor in Washington webinar. The webinar topic is Political Desaturation: How to Thrive Before, During, and After the 2024 Election.

Webinar speakers are Robert B. Talisse, W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy and Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University, Curt Thompson, M.D., psychiatrist, author, and speaker, and Elizabeth Oldfield, senior fellow of the think-tank Theos, and a coach and consultant working with purpose-driven individuals and organizations.

Some pertinent observations from the speakers in this free one-hour webinar include: 

Get in the same room. “When human beings get in the same room as each other, they find they have acres in common.” — Curt Thompson

Seek understanding over division. “We’re increasingly capable of being disagreeable; but we’re becoming less capable of disagreeing because it’s harder to understand what another person’s position actually is.” — Robert Talisse Rebuild. “We need to rebuild the civic infrastructure of our common life away from politics.”— Elizabeth Oldfield

The entire Baylor webinar is available for viewing using the following link:

https://washington.web.baylor.edu/events/past-events      

Some may suggest a group of Eastern Shore of Maryland residents reading Putnam’s book, attending a Chesapeake Forum program, and watching a Baylor University zoom meeting will not make a difference in an uncertain world.

I disagree. 

Working together to expand and maintain social capital will make a difference in our community. 

It can also be a much-needed step forward in our society to affirm Margaret Mead’s timeless observation — “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant in Easton. 

The official voter guide and sample ballot of the Talbot County Board of Elections for Talbot County voters includes the following introduction on upcoming Board of Education elections.

 Non-Partisan Contest

Candidates in this contest may or may not be affiliated with any political party.

This election cycle, at least three Maryland political party organizations will be involved in local board of Education elections at significantly different levels.

One is the Maryland Democratic Party. Recently Maryland Matters reported “The Maryland Democratic Party will spend “tens of thousands of dollars” targeting at least eighteen school board candidates that they maintain are looking to bring a “hateful” and “right-wing agenda” to schools.” 

The article noted the Maryland Democratic Party has never before been involved in nonpartisan races for local boards of education.

The article also noted the Maryland Democratic Party plan includes hiring workers to canvas, knock on doors, and urge voters not to elect twenty-six school board candidates whom the Maryland Democratic Party says support rewriting history, discriminating against kids, and book bans. The Maryland Democratic Party will also provide resources to local Democratic Central committees for helping candidates who support “Democratic and inclusive values.”

Nowhere currently on the Maryland Democratic Party website is a definition of “Democratic values,” nor a mention of supporting candidates who back efforts to improve student achievement scores and ensure safe classroom learning environments.

Maryland Democratic Party leaders say this unprecedented initiative is needed to fight “extremist” agendas favored by certain candidates in eleven Maryland counties — Anne Arundel, Calvert, Carroll, Frederick, Howard, Montgomery, St. Mary’s, and Talbot. The party also plans to warn against eight other candidates in Allegany, Cecil, and Washington counties.

In Anne Arundel County, the Maryland Democratic Party has identified three candidates as “extreme” candidates who not only support book bans but are also against those in the LGBTQ community. In a post on “X,” the Maryland Democratic Party has referred to the three candidates as the “Anne Arundel Hate Slate.”

The Maryland Democratic Party is not the first or only political organization to target candidates in school board elections. At least two Republican County Central Committees have either done it or are doing it, albeit on a much smaller scale than the Maryland Democratic Party.

The Cecil County Republican Committee endorsed three Republican school board candidates in 2022. The Calvert County Republican Central Committee endorsed Republican school board candidates in at least two election cycles – 2022 and 2024. 

This year the Calvert County Republican Central Committee website lists three issues for their endorsed candidates – safety and discipline, fiscal responsibility, and educational excellence.

Going forward, it is impossible to predict if, how, or how much, state, and local political party organizations may be involved in local board of education elections and what their campaign messages may be. 

Some may suggest state and local political party organizations have a right to endorse and support local school board candidates. 

They do have that right. The larger question is if they will exercise that right in the correct way. 

The correct way is embracing the principle of civil discourse even with those who hold widely differing opinions. In other words —agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

Incorrect ways include referring to certain school board candidates as the “Anne Arundel Hate Slate” and targeting at least eighteen school board candidates who are characterized as looking to bring a “hateful” and “right-wing agenda” to school boards. 

Our society is already dealing with deeply held and seemingly irreconcilable differences on a wide range of public policy issues based largely on vitriolic and divisive messaging from political party organizations. Their continued involvement in local school board elections is almost guaranteed to generate even more divisiveness.

Voter access to information to make informed voting decisions is not an issue. 

Voters already have numerous opportunities to research and evaluate every school board candidate’s background, experience, and views on what they consider to be the most critical issues of the day, as well as their positions, or lack of positions, on those issues. 

These opportunities include but are not limited to information posted on candidate websites, candidate campaign literature, candidate meet and greets, and candidate forums where all candidates are invited to speak and answer questions from attendees. Voters can use all these opportunities to draw their own conclusions on which candidates have views on education matters that resonate best with their views. 

Voters do not need any political organizations to make those conclusions for them. Let the voters and the voters alone decide.

Accordingly, with regard to all future local school board elections, no state and no local political party organizations need to be or should be involved in any way in those elections.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant in Easton.

Starting in 1991 and still active today is an alternative rock band that named themselves Rage Against the Machine. That is not surprising since their musical messages consistently promote rage against the machine. For them, the machine is defined broadly as businesses and corporations.

kIn the most recent strike by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), their public messaging strategy included rage against the machine. ILA defined the machine much more narrowly as the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX), an industry trade association whose members are container cargo ship carriers, marine terminal operators, and ports.

Among other member services, USMX does labor contract negotiations with ILA leaders on a range of matters including wages and the use of artificial intelligence powered robots.

To generate support for their negotiations with USMX on those two issues, the ILA leadership launched a rage against the machine messaging and negotiating strategy. 

ILA’s leaders regularly issued profanity laced messages directed at container cargo ship carriers  saying they are unappreciative of dock workers role in their success and are indifferent to the concerns of dock workers future in an ever changing world. 

The ILA leadership also vowed their strike would continue until all their demands on wage increases and the future use of automation on the docks were met. 

Despite that rage against the machine my way or the highway messaging, there were immediate and widespread concerns that a strike would cause enormous harm to America’s economy, including more inflation and possibly an economic recession. 

Even some ILA members in Baltimore expressed concern about a strike. They had just endured not working for two months after the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse and closure of the Port of Baltimore. 

Three days after the strike began the ILA president abruptly reversed course on his previous rage against the machine messaging and agreed to suspend the strike until January 15, 2025. 

He acknowledged a tentative agreement with UMSX on wage increases, which were only slightly more than originally proffered by USMX, and a return to negotiate other outstanding issues. 

The outstanding issue is a ban on artificial intelligence-powered robotic automation on the docks. 

After pausing the strike, ILA’s leader issued the following statement: “The ILA is steadfastly against any form of automation — full or semi — that replaces jobs or historical work functions.”  He also said in his statement that the preservation of historical work functions is “non-negotiable.” Job security for members and resisting modern technology have been ILA priorities for decades. In 1977, the last time Baltimore dockworkers went on strike, they strongly opposed the introduction of another modern technology — large metal standardized shipping containers. 

Despite their 1977 strike, ILA lost the battle against the use of containers. Containers are now standard operating procedure. Somewhat ironically, last year the Port of Baltimore set new records on handling multi modal containers using ILA workers. 

When a railroad tunnel expansion project is completed (scheduled for 2027), Baltimore will be well-positioned to send even more containers by rail into the Ohio Valley and on to Chicago. 

On the yet to be negotiated issue of a ban or limits on artificial intelligence-powered robotic automation on the docks, I predict the future will be a repeat of the 1977 outcome. More automation is imminent and inevitable for three reasons. 

First, robots are more efficient and dependable for repetitive and routine jobs. Second, there are decreasing numbers of individuals willing to work on the docks. Even with technological changes on the docks, dockworker jobs can still be dangerous, tedious, and dirty. Third, the unions stance that “the preservation of historical work functions is non-negotiable” is a message that will not stand. Everything in life is negotiable. In a recent Baltimore Sun article, Will Brucher, a port labor expert at the Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations, said “Protections are already in place. To keep labor relations smooth, the employers conceded that this was something that was negotiable. It’s possible they [ILA] could put a stop on new automation, but what historically has happened is they have job protections around it.” 

For a view of the future of technology in supply chain management, look no further than two massive Amazon warehouse fulfillment centers at Sparrows Point. They were built on the site of the former Bethlehem Steel plant, not far from where Baltimore dockworkers were striking and picketing. At one time, this plant was the largest steel plant in the world and was one of the largest employers in the Baltimore region. Unable to compete efficiently it is now gone.

Today, at Sparrows Point, in indoor climate-controlled Amazon warehouses, robots are helping humans meet the order fulfillment demands of Amazon customers. 

Going forward, key lessons on messaging management should be embraced by ILA leaders, other labor unions, and comparable organizations. 

Raging against the machine has not been and will not be an effective messaging strategy in generating public support for your organization’s goals, whatever they may be. 

Raging against the machine will likely diminish your value to and support from your constituents, whoever they may be.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant in Easton.

Ford Motor Company, the second largest car maker in America recently announced it was making major changes in their production of electric vehicles, commonly referred to as EVs. 

Ford has put a hold on plans they announced last year to spend $1.8 billion to transform an assembly plant in Canada into a hub for electric vehicle manufacturing.

Now their plan is to shift production at that plant to Ford’s gas-powered F-Series trucks which have been the best-selling truck lineup in America since 1977, and Ford’s best-selling vehicle overall since 1981.

In its coverage of Ford’s decision to pivot on EV’s, the New York Times noted,“The move is the latest example of how automakers are pulling back on aggressive investment plans in response to the slowing growth of electric vehicle sales.”

This decision by Ford comes with a measurable impact on their bottom line and on 2,700 auto worker jobs at their Canadian plant. 

That plan alone will cost the company at least $400 million as they write down the costs for the manufacturing equipment they had put in place to build the EVs. Ford estimates the change in plans could ultimately cost them upwards of $1.5 billion.

Those costs pale in comparison to Ford losing $4.7 billion on EV sales last year, which is approximately $40,525 per electric vehicle sold. 

Ford’s latest pullback from EVs is no surprise. 

The economic reality is that Ford, other car makers and advocates for electric vehicles made unrealistic and unsustainable projections on consumer demand for EVs.

The two most likely factors for less-than-projected consumer demand are purchase price and reliability concerns.

The July 2024 edition of the Kelley Blue Book reports the average price for a new EV was $56,520, with some models costing more than $100,000.

Reliability is a concern due to a relatively limited number of EV charging stations.

Nationwide, there were 68,475 private and public charging stations at the beginning of this year, according to the U.S Department of Energy. While that’s more than twice the number in 2020, but it’s still just a third of the number of gas stations and well below projections.

A 2023 survey by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago reported that 77% of those polled voiced concerns about how they would charge an EV if they bought one. 

This concern is not limited to potential EV buyers. Some current EV owners share it.

Earlier this year, the New York Times profiled a purchaser of a Ford F-150 Lightning EV. The purchaser said it was the “coolest vehicle he’d ever owned” and “it is unbelievably fast and responsive,” He also said, “the technology is amazing.” High praise indeed.

The problem for this otherwise enthusiastic EV owner was the EV’s range or, more importantly, lack of range. 

When the weather grew colder, this owner found that the distance his vehicle could travel fell dramatically. His faith in the $79,000 truck diminished to a point where he found himself wondering if he should sell it.

“People say ‘range anxiety’ — it’s like it’s the driver’s fault,” he told the Times. “But it’s not our fault. It’s actually they’re not telling us what the real range is. The truck says it’s three hundred miles. I don’t think I’ve ever gotten that.” 

Such observations are not a positive branding moment for electric vehicles or for Ford.

So, does all this news mean electric vehicles will never be more widely accepted?

In a word … no.

History is full of stories where the acceptance of new technologies grew slowly but steadily over time following initial acceptance by early adopters.

Early adopters are individuals who buy and try a new product or technology soon after it is available. Early adopters eagerly embrace change, are often (but not always) young, often (but not always) highly educated, and often (but not always) having robust disposable income. 

While early adopters are among the first to purchase and use new products and services, they often become public opinion leaders over time. 

Widespread public acceptance of their opinions can be accelerated when producers and marketers of a new technology listen to, accept suggestions from, and address legitimate concerns brought to their attention by early adopters.

Ford appears to be on track to do that. Their President and CEO recently said, “As the number 2 brand in the U.S. for the past two years, we are committed to scaling a profitable EV business, using capital wisely, and bringing to market the right gas, hybrid, and fully electric vehicles at the right time. 

Ford currently anticipates the right time will not occur until 2027 when they plan to resume EV production at their Canadian Assembly plant. 

For now, it is clear that electric vehicles are an idea whose time has not yet come. 

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

The first and perhaps only debate for the 2024 presidential general election, which was held on September 10th, is history.

Throughout their long history, these debates have always experienced pre-debate and post-debate disagreements.

After one of the first of three televised presidential debates in 1960, there was disagreement on the winner. A majority of voters who watched that debate on television responded in a post-debate survey that John F. Kennedy won. A majority of voters who listened to that debate on the radio responded in a post-debate survey that Nixon won.

Prior to the most recent debate, the Harris campaign adamantly refused to consider an offer from Fox News to host a debate, an offer strongly favored by the Trump campaign.

This year’s on-again, off- again debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris sponsored by ABC did have a happy ending for many voters. They were happy when the pre-debate hype and the actual debate ended.

While the pre-debate hype and actual debate are over, there have been and will continue to be intense discussions about the September 10th debate between the candidates and their most steadfast supporters.

Topics for the post-debate debates include but are not limited to who won, why they won, who lost, why they lost, the fairness of the moderators, the questions posed to each candidate by the moderators, incomplete candidate answers to certain questions from the moderators, the body language of the moderators, one moderator’s recent acknowledgement that he chose to aggressively pursue fact-checking a number of Trump’s answers during the debate, the validity of his fact-checking observations during the debate, the need for at least one more debate, and even the earrings worn by Kamala Harris during the debate.

Not surprisingly, in many cases, the varied answers to those post-debate debate questions are the result of the thinking on political messaging by communications guru Frank Luntz and two published works in the Washington Post on trust in the media. These observations have appeared in previous commentaries of mine, but all bear repeating here.

Luntz has observed – “It’s not what you say or write, it is what people hear or read. You can have the best message in the world, but the person on the receiving end will always understand it through the prism of their own emotions, preconceptions, prejudices, and preexisting beliefs.”

No doubt the Trump campaign is fully aware of and will work hard to widely distribute the following recent and scathing observations by the Washington Post Editorial Board, and Washington Post columnist Philip Bloom that I referenced in a previous commentary.

The Post’s editorial board cited a recent Post and Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University survey reporting only three in ten residents of six of the most important states in this year’s presidential election trust the media will fairly and accurately report political news. Bump recently wrote in the Post — “Americans simply don’t trust the media, particularly when it comes to politics.”

If and how those Washington Post observations may be viewed by voters remains to be seen.

The same is true on the breaking news on a second assassination attempt on Donald Trump.

We do know every political campaign will have unexpected opportunities and unexpected challenges. The question is always when and how will they play out.

For Donald Trump, an unexpected opportunity (now moot) was having President Joe Biden as his opponent when it was increasingly clear Biden was past his political prime.

For Donald Trump, an unexpected challenge was a debate where Kamala Harris exceeded expectations.

For Kamala Harris, an unexpected challenge was launching a presidential campaign on very short notice.

For Kamala Harris, an unexpected opportunity was a debate where she branded herself as a viable presidential candidate.

Before the debate, some polls showed Trump leading Harris in all key battleground states.

After the debate, some polls polling in some of those battleground states showed Harris leading Trump in some of the key battleground states.

Neither of the polls projected enough state wins to clinch victory in the Electoral College.

The bottom line is the outcome of their September 10 debate alone is not predictive of the November election outcome.

The voters who decide who prevails in November will not be significantly impacted by who won or who lost a 90-minute debate held in mid-September.

I expect most independent and undecided voters will vote based on their perceptions on which candidate cares most about their deepest concerns, and who best articulates a positive and achievable vision for the future.

As always, one and only one candidate will ultimately enjoy a happy ending in the upcoming presidential election.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.