Zachary Sheinberg
Sunday, November 27, 2011
I ran the loop in Central Park this morning. As I made my way north up the East Side of the trail, I felt very thankful for the park and those who spearheaded the effort to create it. In 1853, the New York State Legislature set aside the original 700 acres, from 59th Street to 106th Street (today, Central Park extends north to 110th Street), to create Central Park.
Prior to 1853, several earlier efforts to create a park failed. Given this fact together with the reality of how politics works (i.e. complete unanimity of opinion rarely, if ever, exists), is there any doubt that people opposed the creation of Central Park? For whatever the reason. Is there any doubt that people lobbied members of the State Legislature to vote against the bill? Is there any doubt that people thought it was a terrible idea?
Yet today, almost one hundred and sixty years later, I think it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find anyone in New York City who thinks Central Park is a bad idea, who wishes that Central Park was developed with skyscrapers, parking lots and townhomes.
So to those who fought for Central Park in Albany all those years ago and won, hail to the victors. I’m grateful they fought for the park and won. Because now I can run there whenever I want.
The reason I raise the origin of Central Park is that decisions made long ago that we take for granted today, at the time that those decisions were made, that those votes were taken, most if not all were controversial.
Does anyone today question the right of women to vote? Of course not. A Constitutional Amendment that would allow women to vote was first introduced by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton in 1878. But the 19th Amendment was not ratified until 42 years later, in 1920. Which makes clear that, during the intervening years, granting suffrage to women was controversial.
Change is always controversial. Because change changes the status quo, to which so many people have become accustomed, with which so many people are comfortable, in which so many people are invested (both financially and emotionally).
So is it any surprise that all the major accomplishments of President Obama, universal healthcare, financial regulation overhaul, the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the economic bailout, have been controversial? Even the recent decision to continue funding the Federal Aviation Administration, which oversees air traffic and air safety, was controversial! Congressman Ron Paul went so far as to suggest that we abolish the FAA and leave coordination of air travel to the individual states (which, objectively, is a horrible idea).
Do you think the decisions by President Obama that led to the policy changes I mentioned above were good decisions? Before you answer the question, consider the following.
There is a difference between a right decision and a good decision. Every decision is right, wrong or indifferent as well as good, bad or neither here nor there. In many cases, we know, based on law, societal norms and our personal ethical codes, whether a decision is right or wrong immediately. But very often, we do not know whether a decision is good or bad until later. Sometimes many, many years later.
In 2003, President Bush decided to invade Iraq. Most people had an opinion on whether this decision was right or wrong. From the perspectives of international law, international relations and some parts of national security, this was probably the wrong decision. From the perspectives of human rights and other parts of national security (which includes physical security as well as energy security), this was probably the right decision.
But was President Bush’s decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein by force a good decision?
I posit that we do not yet know. If Iraq becomes a robust democracy, a staunch US ally, a reliable trading partner, an effective counterbalance to Iran and a voice of non-radical Islam, then the decision will turn out to be a good one and well worth the costs (financial, prestige, foreign relations, etc.). If enmity against the United States among Sunni Muslims persists, if internal strife continues among the ethnic groups in Iraq, if Iraqi democracy recedes back to totalitarianism, if none of the things listed above happen, then the decision will turn out to be a bad, and very costly, one.
But we cannot yet determine whether the decision was a good one. And even if it turns out that it was a good decision, that still does not mean that it was the right decision.
I sincerely hope that the war in Iraq, universal healthcare and all the other controversial decisions made by Presidents in my lifetime, even those that I thought and continue to think were wrong decisions at the times made, turn out to be good decisions. And hopefully decisions as good as the decision to create and maintain Central Park. If they do, I will happily salute those who can claim victory for having made those good decisions. I will happily hail those victors. As well as the Maize and Blue on this day.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Sunday, November 20, 2011
SHOULD WE TEST CANDIDATES?
Zachary Sheinberg
Sunday, November 20, 2011
A few weeks ago, I suggested to the New York Times the idea of requiring candidates for federal office to take an exam as part of the election process. The purpose of such an exam would be to assess the level of knowledge that candidates have on the prevailing issues. Nothing on the level of testing whether candidates know the history of the Shi’a-Sunni divide (although I hope at least some elected officials understand this). But more on the level of testing whether candidates know that a divide exists and how it affects geopolitics in the Middle East. Because if members of Congress are legislating foreign policy, this, among other things, is something we might want them to know.
The New York Times posed the question on its website in its Room for Debate feature last Thursday (http://nyti.ms/uHRb5L). Four of the five contributors disagreed with the concept of a candidate exam.
Norman Ornstein titled his response, “It’s Up to the Voters.” He wrote, “Campaigns are like extended job interviews; at least for those running for visible, higher offices, the combination of debates, journalists' questions, opposition advertising and the pressure that comes with campaigning give a pretty good window into the qualities, including basic knowledge, that candidates have.” On the Presidential election level, I agree with Mr. Ornstein. Running the gauntlet of a Presidential campaign inevitably will expose the knowledge gaps of candidates (as it has this year for Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain). But how about candidates running for the House and Senate? Media scrutiny is sparse. Voters pay scant attention. And as a result, we elect candidates who don’t know the difference between Shi’a and Sunni and monetary policy and fiscal policy. And it is these elected officials who write the laws that govern these issues.
Linda Chavez, of the Reagan White House and the 1986 Republican Senate nominee in Maryland, wrote an interesting response. As someone who knew public policy cold, she still lost the Senate race to Barbara Mikulski, who, Ms. Chavez wrote, knew much less. Ms. Chavez wrote, “Raw intelligence, or even specific knowledge about policy and current events, doesn’t guarantee good judgment. Voters generally want someone who shares their values. They pick their elected officials based not on what the candidate knows at a given moment but on how they think the person will go about making decisions in the future. Character, temperament and values matter more to most voters than test scores.” Since the left-leaning views of Ms. Mikulski better lined up with Maryland voters, Ms. Chavez seems to argue, Ms. Mikulski should have won the election (which she did).
What Ms. Chavez wrote is true. Although I was not suggesting that we have an election or a test. I was suggesting that we have an election and a test. And certainly not a test with a “passing” score. Simply a test that provides a common metric by which all candidates can be judged by voters. Simply one more data point to add into the election mix.
There is no question that how a candidate will make decisions in the future, meaning the quality of the candidate’s judgment, is critical. But how can an elected official make good decisions on issues without a minimum level of knowledge of those issues? Would you want a lawyer making a decision on whether to do open heart surgery? And in races for Congress, without the intense media scrutiny and the voter interest of Presidential elections, how can voters know whether candidates have this requisite knowledge? The answer is that they cannot.
Lara Brown, a political science professor at Villanova, wrote, “A qualifying examination for elective office is far removed from the philosophy of the framers and far from constitutional.” The first part is true. The only Constitutional requirements for running for Congress are age (candidates must be at least 25 years old for the House, 30 for the Senate), citizenship (candidates must be U.S. citizens for at least 7 years) and district residency.
Ms. Brown cites the illegality of poll taxes and literary tests to support her claim. However, poll taxes and literary tests apply to voting, not to running. This is an important distinction because the several States (constitutionally) impose various requirements for candidates seeking election to Congress including filing fees and petition requirements. Ms. Brown seems to overlook Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which says, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” The claim that imposing an exam requirement on candidates for federal office is “far from constitutional” is incorrect. Especially because, as far as I know, courts have never ruled on this issue.
I very much enjoyed the response written by Paul Butler, a law professor at George Washington University. Though I want to draw a distinction between the firefighter test he mentions, which test has largely excluded African Americans from positions with the New York City Fire Department, and the test that I suggest. Applicants must achieve a minimum score to obtain a position with the NYCFD. The test I propose has no “passing score,” but simply a score by which voters could judge the base of knowledge that a candidate has. Voters would be left to decide whether a candidate “passed” the test. The test would also be made public after candidates took the exam to allow voters to see the questions, which ones candidates answered correctly and which they answered incorrectly.
Dan Schnur, a Republican political consultant, wrote the fifth and final response. He raises a valid concern about a test for candidates, which the title of his response, “Who Tests the Testers?” makes clear. In referencing the SAT, Mr. Schnur wrote, “While striving for as unbiased a measurement as possible as part of the college admissions process is absolutely necessary, it’s questionable whether a similar standard for our political leaders could ever be developed or implemented in an impartial way.” Put simply, how can we create a fair test, one that solves the problem, that gets the answers we want, that does not become political? The answer is, very carefully. We make the panel that drafts the exam independent. And we focus on the basic knowledge that every federal elected official simply must know. Like how our Social Security program works. Like what nations possess nuclear weapons. Like where Egypt is on a map.
As an electorate, we should want as much information as we can get about the intelligence, motivation and values of candidates running for positions of public trust.
We should want to know that candidates know what inflation is, what causes it and how to combat it. Because how can members of Congress legislate fiscal and monetary policy, how can they vote on bills that will affect our economy, without having that knowledge? Further, if candidates have not spent the time reading and learning about these issues before becoming candidates, if they cannot, in the eyes of voters, “pass” the test that I propose, they simply are not taking seriously the awesome responsibility of governing the United States of America that will fall to them if ultimately they win election.
Recently, Herman Cain stumbled badly when asked whether he supported the way that President Obama handled Libya (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAGGpK7bSWc). In part because of his poor command of many public policy issues, Cain will not win the Republican nomination. But I have no doubt that if he ran for Congress, he easily could win.
Toward the end of his response, Mr. Schnur wrote, “Even if candidates who performed poorly on such an examination were still permitted to run [as they would be], they would begin their campaign at a significant disadvantage given the scarlet failing grade next to their name on the ballot.”
Indeed. And that is the point.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
A few weeks ago, I suggested to the New York Times the idea of requiring candidates for federal office to take an exam as part of the election process. The purpose of such an exam would be to assess the level of knowledge that candidates have on the prevailing issues. Nothing on the level of testing whether candidates know the history of the Shi’a-Sunni divide (although I hope at least some elected officials understand this). But more on the level of testing whether candidates know that a divide exists and how it affects geopolitics in the Middle East. Because if members of Congress are legislating foreign policy, this, among other things, is something we might want them to know.
The New York Times posed the question on its website in its Room for Debate feature last Thursday (http://nyti.ms/uHRb5L). Four of the five contributors disagreed with the concept of a candidate exam.
Norman Ornstein titled his response, “It’s Up to the Voters.” He wrote, “Campaigns are like extended job interviews; at least for those running for visible, higher offices, the combination of debates, journalists' questions, opposition advertising and the pressure that comes with campaigning give a pretty good window into the qualities, including basic knowledge, that candidates have.” On the Presidential election level, I agree with Mr. Ornstein. Running the gauntlet of a Presidential campaign inevitably will expose the knowledge gaps of candidates (as it has this year for Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain). But how about candidates running for the House and Senate? Media scrutiny is sparse. Voters pay scant attention. And as a result, we elect candidates who don’t know the difference between Shi’a and Sunni and monetary policy and fiscal policy. And it is these elected officials who write the laws that govern these issues.
Linda Chavez, of the Reagan White House and the 1986 Republican Senate nominee in Maryland, wrote an interesting response. As someone who knew public policy cold, she still lost the Senate race to Barbara Mikulski, who, Ms. Chavez wrote, knew much less. Ms. Chavez wrote, “Raw intelligence, or even specific knowledge about policy and current events, doesn’t guarantee good judgment. Voters generally want someone who shares their values. They pick their elected officials based not on what the candidate knows at a given moment but on how they think the person will go about making decisions in the future. Character, temperament and values matter more to most voters than test scores.” Since the left-leaning views of Ms. Mikulski better lined up with Maryland voters, Ms. Chavez seems to argue, Ms. Mikulski should have won the election (which she did).
What Ms. Chavez wrote is true. Although I was not suggesting that we have an election or a test. I was suggesting that we have an election and a test. And certainly not a test with a “passing” score. Simply a test that provides a common metric by which all candidates can be judged by voters. Simply one more data point to add into the election mix.
There is no question that how a candidate will make decisions in the future, meaning the quality of the candidate’s judgment, is critical. But how can an elected official make good decisions on issues without a minimum level of knowledge of those issues? Would you want a lawyer making a decision on whether to do open heart surgery? And in races for Congress, without the intense media scrutiny and the voter interest of Presidential elections, how can voters know whether candidates have this requisite knowledge? The answer is that they cannot.
Lara Brown, a political science professor at Villanova, wrote, “A qualifying examination for elective office is far removed from the philosophy of the framers and far from constitutional.” The first part is true. The only Constitutional requirements for running for Congress are age (candidates must be at least 25 years old for the House, 30 for the Senate), citizenship (candidates must be U.S. citizens for at least 7 years) and district residency.
Ms. Brown cites the illegality of poll taxes and literary tests to support her claim. However, poll taxes and literary tests apply to voting, not to running. This is an important distinction because the several States (constitutionally) impose various requirements for candidates seeking election to Congress including filing fees and petition requirements. Ms. Brown seems to overlook Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which says, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” The claim that imposing an exam requirement on candidates for federal office is “far from constitutional” is incorrect. Especially because, as far as I know, courts have never ruled on this issue.
I very much enjoyed the response written by Paul Butler, a law professor at George Washington University. Though I want to draw a distinction between the firefighter test he mentions, which test has largely excluded African Americans from positions with the New York City Fire Department, and the test that I suggest. Applicants must achieve a minimum score to obtain a position with the NYCFD. The test I propose has no “passing score,” but simply a score by which voters could judge the base of knowledge that a candidate has. Voters would be left to decide whether a candidate “passed” the test. The test would also be made public after candidates took the exam to allow voters to see the questions, which ones candidates answered correctly and which they answered incorrectly.
Dan Schnur, a Republican political consultant, wrote the fifth and final response. He raises a valid concern about a test for candidates, which the title of his response, “Who Tests the Testers?” makes clear. In referencing the SAT, Mr. Schnur wrote, “While striving for as unbiased a measurement as possible as part of the college admissions process is absolutely necessary, it’s questionable whether a similar standard for our political leaders could ever be developed or implemented in an impartial way.” Put simply, how can we create a fair test, one that solves the problem, that gets the answers we want, that does not become political? The answer is, very carefully. We make the panel that drafts the exam independent. And we focus on the basic knowledge that every federal elected official simply must know. Like how our Social Security program works. Like what nations possess nuclear weapons. Like where Egypt is on a map.
As an electorate, we should want as much information as we can get about the intelligence, motivation and values of candidates running for positions of public trust.
We should want to know that candidates know what inflation is, what causes it and how to combat it. Because how can members of Congress legislate fiscal and monetary policy, how can they vote on bills that will affect our economy, without having that knowledge? Further, if candidates have not spent the time reading and learning about these issues before becoming candidates, if they cannot, in the eyes of voters, “pass” the test that I propose, they simply are not taking seriously the awesome responsibility of governing the United States of America that will fall to them if ultimately they win election.
Recently, Herman Cain stumbled badly when asked whether he supported the way that President Obama handled Libya (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAGGpK7bSWc). In part because of his poor command of many public policy issues, Cain will not win the Republican nomination. But I have no doubt that if he ran for Congress, he easily could win.
Toward the end of his response, Mr. Schnur wrote, “Even if candidates who performed poorly on such an examination were still permitted to run [as they would be], they would begin their campaign at a significant disadvantage given the scarlet failing grade next to their name on the ballot.”
Indeed. And that is the point.
Friday, November 4, 2011
ARE COMPETITIVE DISTRICTS A GOOD THING?
Zach Sheinberg
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Last Thursday night (November 3, 2011), Andrei Cherny, Chair of the Arizona State Democratic Party, appeared as a guest on Hardball to discuss with Chris Matthews the recent move by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican, to remove Colleen Coyle Mathis, a registered Independent, as chair of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (more information at http://nyti.ms/uyKPhV).
Governor Brewer claimed that the new Congressional map the Commission drew was unconstitutional and improper, as it made Democratic districts safer and Republican districts more competitive. Mr. Cherny claimed that the map maintained the status quo, four safe Republican seats, two safe Democratic seats and two competitive seats, and made the new ninth district (that Arizona picked up because of population growth in the 2010 Census) a third competitive district. It would seem that this approach is precisely what one might hope a panel called the Independent Redistricting Commission would do.
I must take this opportunity to mention how typical this exchange between Governor Brewer and Mr. Cherny is of modern Republican and Democratic political interaction. Governor Brewer, the Republican, stakes out an extreme position with spurious, if any, evidence (i.e. claiming that Ms. Mathis, who again I must mention is a registered Independent, committed “gross misconduct” for several reasons, none of which come even close to that standard). Mr. Cherny, the Democrat, responds with an argument based in logic; specifically that the redrawn map preserved the Congressional delegation balance of power. In politics today, emotion trumps logic. The Republicans learned this lesson many years ago. The Democrats either have yet to learn the lesson (which means they’re stupid) or continuously disregard the lesson because they want to play fair (which means they’re naïve). Republicans don’t ascribe to the same school of thought. Which is why Republicans are so much more effective at politics and so much better at getting what they want. Because Democrats play by the rules. And Republicans do whatever they think is necessary to get what they want. Think conventional warfare versus dropping nukes.
But I digress. In his comments, Mr. Cherny said, and I’m paraphrasing, that he wished that all Congressional districts were competitive.
My question is, would having 435 competitive Congressional districts, in fact, be a good thing?
I know what you’re thinking. Of course competitive districts would be a good thing! If we had competitive districts, members of Congress would be more accountable to voters because the Republican incumbent or the Democratic incumbent would actually fear losing a reelection race. Further, members would have to appeal to the moderate center, the group that, in the case of competitive districts, would decide the election winners.
Greater competitiveness seems like a no brainer. But is it?
Let’s examine the vulnerability argument.
Logically, the more competitive a district, the easier for voters to remove an unfit, unpopular or power-abusing officeholder. Which is a good thing if the officeholder is Mark Foley or Bob Ney or Bill Jefferson. But a bad thing if the officeholder is a Profiles in Courage-type of legislator (although these days, competitive districts might have no effect because I fear too few, if any, even exist).
But if we make incumbents perennially more vulnerable, what will they do? They’ll do whatever they must to minimize their vulnerability. First, they’ll spend even more time raising money. Challengers on average will raise more money because they have legitimate chances of winning. Which means incumbents will have to raise even more money. Competitive districts could set off a fundraising arms race. Second, members will pander even more to voters. They’ll obscure their positions further and never take a stance on an issue that might alienate even one voter. Basically, they’ll spend all their time raising money and bs-ing us.
Now the polarization argument.
There is no question that more competitive districts would push candidates to the center. Because in any given election, only one voter matters: the median voter, who’s the individual who sits at the middle of the partisan spectrum. Whichever candidate the median voter picks wins every election. In conservative-leaning districts, the median voter is farther to the ideological right; in liberal-leaning ones, farther to the ideological left. With more competitive districts, the median voter moves toward the center.
But would shifting the median voter to the center make any difference? I’m unconvinced that the degree of conservative or liberal-leaning among members is the root cause of the gridlock and the do-nothing-goodness in Congress. Rather, I think they are the result of an unwillingness of members to compromise, which intransigence is driven by the blind faith of members in the righteousness of their personal ideology. I'm right. You're wrong. End of discussion. To borrow a term from negotiations, there is no zone of agreement. Historically, liberals and conservatives have compromised. Liberals and conservatives, even far right and left-wingers, can compromise if they put nation before ideology.
Consider a few other issues.
If we made all districts competitive, how many new members would Congress have every two years? Might competitive districts regularly sweep large waves of new members into office? And if so, could Congress function effectively when populated with new members who don’t know the ropes? (Though this question is not entirely fair as I imagine it cannot function less effectively that it does now.) But do we want masses of new members learning on the job every two years? Might that lead to even greater influence by lobbyists as the knowledge gap between them and members likely would widen significantly?
Are primary races a good enough mechanism for competitiveness? Even if competitiveness is missing in general elections, one can always run against the incumbent in a primary. Although doing so is difficult because almost invariably, the incumbent will have the backing of the party, high name recognition and substantial fundraising, all components of the “incumbency advantage.” Further, few voters participate in primaries, which exacerbates this advantage.
If members run in non-competitive districts and need not worry about losing reelection, would they not spend less time fundraising and more time governing? Could they not make unpopular decisions more easily (though this could be a good thing or a bad thing) and pander less as they are better insulated from retribution at the polls?
If Congressmen were enlightened, if Congress had a high approval rating (as opposed to 9% in the latest CBS News/NYTimes poll), if the unemployment rate equaled the natural rate, a discussion of competitiveness in Congressional elections would be interesting (at least for me) but mostly unimportant. But we have the discussion now because competitiveness is an obvious way to remove non-performing members of Congress, many of whom prove every single day, as they cure not one of our national ailments (and in many cases make them worse) that they are ill-suited to the task of leading our nation.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Last Thursday night (November 3, 2011), Andrei Cherny, Chair of the Arizona State Democratic Party, appeared as a guest on Hardball to discuss with Chris Matthews the recent move by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican, to remove Colleen Coyle Mathis, a registered Independent, as chair of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (more information at http://nyti.ms/uyKPhV).
Governor Brewer claimed that the new Congressional map the Commission drew was unconstitutional and improper, as it made Democratic districts safer and Republican districts more competitive. Mr. Cherny claimed that the map maintained the status quo, four safe Republican seats, two safe Democratic seats and two competitive seats, and made the new ninth district (that Arizona picked up because of population growth in the 2010 Census) a third competitive district. It would seem that this approach is precisely what one might hope a panel called the Independent Redistricting Commission would do.
I must take this opportunity to mention how typical this exchange between Governor Brewer and Mr. Cherny is of modern Republican and Democratic political interaction. Governor Brewer, the Republican, stakes out an extreme position with spurious, if any, evidence (i.e. claiming that Ms. Mathis, who again I must mention is a registered Independent, committed “gross misconduct” for several reasons, none of which come even close to that standard). Mr. Cherny, the Democrat, responds with an argument based in logic; specifically that the redrawn map preserved the Congressional delegation balance of power. In politics today, emotion trumps logic. The Republicans learned this lesson many years ago. The Democrats either have yet to learn the lesson (which means they’re stupid) or continuously disregard the lesson because they want to play fair (which means they’re naïve). Republicans don’t ascribe to the same school of thought. Which is why Republicans are so much more effective at politics and so much better at getting what they want. Because Democrats play by the rules. And Republicans do whatever they think is necessary to get what they want. Think conventional warfare versus dropping nukes.
But I digress. In his comments, Mr. Cherny said, and I’m paraphrasing, that he wished that all Congressional districts were competitive.
My question is, would having 435 competitive Congressional districts, in fact, be a good thing?
I know what you’re thinking. Of course competitive districts would be a good thing! If we had competitive districts, members of Congress would be more accountable to voters because the Republican incumbent or the Democratic incumbent would actually fear losing a reelection race. Further, members would have to appeal to the moderate center, the group that, in the case of competitive districts, would decide the election winners.
Greater competitiveness seems like a no brainer. But is it?
Let’s examine the vulnerability argument.
Logically, the more competitive a district, the easier for voters to remove an unfit, unpopular or power-abusing officeholder. Which is a good thing if the officeholder is Mark Foley or Bob Ney or Bill Jefferson. But a bad thing if the officeholder is a Profiles in Courage-type of legislator (although these days, competitive districts might have no effect because I fear too few, if any, even exist).
But if we make incumbents perennially more vulnerable, what will they do? They’ll do whatever they must to minimize their vulnerability. First, they’ll spend even more time raising money. Challengers on average will raise more money because they have legitimate chances of winning. Which means incumbents will have to raise even more money. Competitive districts could set off a fundraising arms race. Second, members will pander even more to voters. They’ll obscure their positions further and never take a stance on an issue that might alienate even one voter. Basically, they’ll spend all their time raising money and bs-ing us.
Now the polarization argument.
There is no question that more competitive districts would push candidates to the center. Because in any given election, only one voter matters: the median voter, who’s the individual who sits at the middle of the partisan spectrum. Whichever candidate the median voter picks wins every election. In conservative-leaning districts, the median voter is farther to the ideological right; in liberal-leaning ones, farther to the ideological left. With more competitive districts, the median voter moves toward the center.
But would shifting the median voter to the center make any difference? I’m unconvinced that the degree of conservative or liberal-leaning among members is the root cause of the gridlock and the do-nothing-goodness in Congress. Rather, I think they are the result of an unwillingness of members to compromise, which intransigence is driven by the blind faith of members in the righteousness of their personal ideology. I'm right. You're wrong. End of discussion. To borrow a term from negotiations, there is no zone of agreement. Historically, liberals and conservatives have compromised. Liberals and conservatives, even far right and left-wingers, can compromise if they put nation before ideology.
Consider a few other issues.
If we made all districts competitive, how many new members would Congress have every two years? Might competitive districts regularly sweep large waves of new members into office? And if so, could Congress function effectively when populated with new members who don’t know the ropes? (Though this question is not entirely fair as I imagine it cannot function less effectively that it does now.) But do we want masses of new members learning on the job every two years? Might that lead to even greater influence by lobbyists as the knowledge gap between them and members likely would widen significantly?
Are primary races a good enough mechanism for competitiveness? Even if competitiveness is missing in general elections, one can always run against the incumbent in a primary. Although doing so is difficult because almost invariably, the incumbent will have the backing of the party, high name recognition and substantial fundraising, all components of the “incumbency advantage.” Further, few voters participate in primaries, which exacerbates this advantage.
If members run in non-competitive districts and need not worry about losing reelection, would they not spend less time fundraising and more time governing? Could they not make unpopular decisions more easily (though this could be a good thing or a bad thing) and pander less as they are better insulated from retribution at the polls?
If Congressmen were enlightened, if Congress had a high approval rating (as opposed to 9% in the latest CBS News/NYTimes poll), if the unemployment rate equaled the natural rate, a discussion of competitiveness in Congressional elections would be interesting (at least for me) but mostly unimportant. But we have the discussion now because competitiveness is an obvious way to remove non-performing members of Congress, many of whom prove every single day, as they cure not one of our national ailments (and in many cases make them worse) that they are ill-suited to the task of leading our nation.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
MONEY IN POLITICS
Zach Sheinberg
Sunday, October 30, 2011
The pundits and the press corps track the “money race” of politics like equity research analysts follow stocks. Similar to the way that stock price has become a proxy for the innate value of a company (as accurate or inaccurate a metric as it might be), so too has total fundraising become a proxy for the innate popularity (and viability) of a candidate for office.
Even just in the last few weeks, the press was flush with stories about the $17 million Rick Perry raised despite his floundering in the polls, the $15 million Mitt Romney raised, which was $2 million less than Perry despite Romney’s frontrunner status, and the small amounts raised by the rest.
In the era of modern politics, money matters (and the “money race” occurs) because candidates require money to spread their name and their message, which they hope will lead to votes for them on Election Day. Even in the internet age, the surest medium to spread name and message is still television. Advertising on television requires money. The more money a candidate raises, the more television advertising a candidate can buy. The more television advertising, the more awareness of the candidate among the voters and hopefully, the more votes on Election Day.
Certainly, money cannot guarantee victory at the polls, as Michael Huffington learned the hard way. But money does a few important things for a candidate.
As I already mentioned, money buys television, which buys awareness among voters. Money buys famous campaign consultants, which provides an additional piece of evidence (albeit not an independent one) and validation of candidate viability. Money pays for donations to other candidates, and hopefully the endorsements of those candidates. Money scares away other potential candidates who fear they cannot raise a similar sum.
Think about the advantage of money in politics this way. If you innovated a new social networking tool, would you want Facebook to find out and compete with you?
Money is important. But we all know that money in politics is a problem.
First, there is the perception of impropriety (whether well grounded or not) that money influences the decisions that politicians make. Even if untrue, the perception itself is still damaging because that perception undermines the trust of voters. Though in my opinion, the perception is well grounded. While clear cases of political bribery thankfully are not widespread in this country, the less malignant cases of money favoritism run rampant. As an example, if two constituents call their Congressman with a question, which constituent do you think will receive the first return call? The one who donated the maximum limit to the Congressman during the last election cycle or the one who donated nothing?
Second, there is the unfair advantage that rich candidates like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former U.S. Senator and New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and Representative Darrell Issa, among many others, have over poor candidates. Again, money is not perfectly correlated with success at the polls, but certainly, the correlation is very high.
Third, the amount of time that candidates and officeholders spend raising money, the less time they spend learning and talking about public policy issues, legislating and governing. We “hire” candidates to legislate and govern, not to raise money. Yet our officeholders spend an inordinate amount of time on the task of fundraising, which is not part of the official job description.
The question is, how do we fix the political money problem? Here are some ideas.
Ban Money in Politics
Why not simply ban all money in politics?
First, if we banned all money, it would become very difficult for candidates to communicate with voters. The results of the 2010 Census indicated that each Congressional district now has approximately 710,000 citizens. In a two-year election cycle, with how many voters do you suppose a candidate could communicate without any money, without direct mail, web advertising or television? With no money in politics, voters would become even less informed about candidates than they are today.
Second, according to the case law of the Supreme Court, banning all money would violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court interprets the right of freedom of speech to include the freedom to spend money to speak freely, which includes the freedom to spend money to support or oppose a political candidate.
I know what you’re thinking. Then how can Congress limit the amount that an individual can donate to a particular candidate? The answer is that constitutional freedoms are not unlimited.
For example, an American citizen cannot yell fire in a crowded theater or threaten the life of the President. Those forms of speech are illegal. We are not free to speak that way. Congress can limit constitution rights when a compelling societal interest exists to do so. Congress decided that a compelling societal interest existed to limit free speech through political donations and the Supreme Court historically has agreed.
Some Other Ideas
Why not limit donations from any individual, organization or corporation to $5.00? This way, the person with 1,000 friends on Facebook becomes as politically powerful as the very wealthy. This idea would give political power not to those who have the most money, but to those who have the biggest networks and who exert the greatest effort in leveraging those networks for a candidate. The problems with this idea are that lower contribution limits (1) might force candidates to spend even more time raising money and (2) would give an even greater advantage to rich candidates, who still would have the legal right to spend as much of their own money as they desire on their campaign.
Why not have the federal government fund elections? Public funding would remove the fundraising burden from campaigns and allow more time for learning and talking about issues, meeting with constituents and legislating and governing once in office. The problems with this idea are (1) where does the government get the money, especially in the current environment where there is tremendous pressure to cut government spending and (2) how does the government decide how much each candidate receives? Should the amounts differ by office (i.e. House v. Senate)? By state? By district? By candidate status (i.e. incumbent v. challenger) as incumbents enjoy the “incumbent advantage?” Should the amounts be indexed to inflation? What threshold must candidates meet to receive funds?
On top of public financing, why not force candidates to circulate petitions for support and for every signature a candidate collects, the candidate receives some pre-set amount, say $10, from the government? This way, signatures of voters (presumably a proxy for candidate support) become the most valuable resource as opposed to money. One problem with this idea is that political parties, unions and other political organizations would regain a tremendous amount of power because they would have quick and easy access to large numbers of potential petition signers (i.e. their members who are constituents in the district).
Why not compel the television networks to allocate a certain amount of time to each candidate? After all, the federal government does own the airwaves, which it licenses to the networks. There are already rules in place that govern how much networks can charge political candidates for airtime. So why not change the rules to make that rate zero? Taking the largest cost out of the campaign budget certainly would release some pressure on candidate fundraising. One obstacle to this idea is that the networks make money from selling ads to political candidates. Which means they will lobby and exert the influence they have with politicians to prevent this loss of revenue (even if the amount is small).
You can clearly see the difficulty in balancing our societal interests in removing impropriety and the perception of impropriety in politics, creating a fair playing field among all candidates, ensuring that officeholders spend more time legislating and governing and preserving our cherished freedom of speech.
So what should we do? Please feel free to comment below, share your ideas and agree or disagree with anything above.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
The pundits and the press corps track the “money race” of politics like equity research analysts follow stocks. Similar to the way that stock price has become a proxy for the innate value of a company (as accurate or inaccurate a metric as it might be), so too has total fundraising become a proxy for the innate popularity (and viability) of a candidate for office.
Even just in the last few weeks, the press was flush with stories about the $17 million Rick Perry raised despite his floundering in the polls, the $15 million Mitt Romney raised, which was $2 million less than Perry despite Romney’s frontrunner status, and the small amounts raised by the rest.
In the era of modern politics, money matters (and the “money race” occurs) because candidates require money to spread their name and their message, which they hope will lead to votes for them on Election Day. Even in the internet age, the surest medium to spread name and message is still television. Advertising on television requires money. The more money a candidate raises, the more television advertising a candidate can buy. The more television advertising, the more awareness of the candidate among the voters and hopefully, the more votes on Election Day.
Certainly, money cannot guarantee victory at the polls, as Michael Huffington learned the hard way. But money does a few important things for a candidate.
As I already mentioned, money buys television, which buys awareness among voters. Money buys famous campaign consultants, which provides an additional piece of evidence (albeit not an independent one) and validation of candidate viability. Money pays for donations to other candidates, and hopefully the endorsements of those candidates. Money scares away other potential candidates who fear they cannot raise a similar sum.
Think about the advantage of money in politics this way. If you innovated a new social networking tool, would you want Facebook to find out and compete with you?
Money is important. But we all know that money in politics is a problem.
First, there is the perception of impropriety (whether well grounded or not) that money influences the decisions that politicians make. Even if untrue, the perception itself is still damaging because that perception undermines the trust of voters. Though in my opinion, the perception is well grounded. While clear cases of political bribery thankfully are not widespread in this country, the less malignant cases of money favoritism run rampant. As an example, if two constituents call their Congressman with a question, which constituent do you think will receive the first return call? The one who donated the maximum limit to the Congressman during the last election cycle or the one who donated nothing?
Second, there is the unfair advantage that rich candidates like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former U.S. Senator and New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and Representative Darrell Issa, among many others, have over poor candidates. Again, money is not perfectly correlated with success at the polls, but certainly, the correlation is very high.
Third, the amount of time that candidates and officeholders spend raising money, the less time they spend learning and talking about public policy issues, legislating and governing. We “hire” candidates to legislate and govern, not to raise money. Yet our officeholders spend an inordinate amount of time on the task of fundraising, which is not part of the official job description.
The question is, how do we fix the political money problem? Here are some ideas.
Ban Money in Politics
Why not simply ban all money in politics?
First, if we banned all money, it would become very difficult for candidates to communicate with voters. The results of the 2010 Census indicated that each Congressional district now has approximately 710,000 citizens. In a two-year election cycle, with how many voters do you suppose a candidate could communicate without any money, without direct mail, web advertising or television? With no money in politics, voters would become even less informed about candidates than they are today.
Second, according to the case law of the Supreme Court, banning all money would violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court interprets the right of freedom of speech to include the freedom to spend money to speak freely, which includes the freedom to spend money to support or oppose a political candidate.
I know what you’re thinking. Then how can Congress limit the amount that an individual can donate to a particular candidate? The answer is that constitutional freedoms are not unlimited.
For example, an American citizen cannot yell fire in a crowded theater or threaten the life of the President. Those forms of speech are illegal. We are not free to speak that way. Congress can limit constitution rights when a compelling societal interest exists to do so. Congress decided that a compelling societal interest existed to limit free speech through political donations and the Supreme Court historically has agreed.
Some Other Ideas
Why not limit donations from any individual, organization or corporation to $5.00? This way, the person with 1,000 friends on Facebook becomes as politically powerful as the very wealthy. This idea would give political power not to those who have the most money, but to those who have the biggest networks and who exert the greatest effort in leveraging those networks for a candidate. The problems with this idea are that lower contribution limits (1) might force candidates to spend even more time raising money and (2) would give an even greater advantage to rich candidates, who still would have the legal right to spend as much of their own money as they desire on their campaign.
Why not have the federal government fund elections? Public funding would remove the fundraising burden from campaigns and allow more time for learning and talking about issues, meeting with constituents and legislating and governing once in office. The problems with this idea are (1) where does the government get the money, especially in the current environment where there is tremendous pressure to cut government spending and (2) how does the government decide how much each candidate receives? Should the amounts differ by office (i.e. House v. Senate)? By state? By district? By candidate status (i.e. incumbent v. challenger) as incumbents enjoy the “incumbent advantage?” Should the amounts be indexed to inflation? What threshold must candidates meet to receive funds?
On top of public financing, why not force candidates to circulate petitions for support and for every signature a candidate collects, the candidate receives some pre-set amount, say $10, from the government? This way, signatures of voters (presumably a proxy for candidate support) become the most valuable resource as opposed to money. One problem with this idea is that political parties, unions and other political organizations would regain a tremendous amount of power because they would have quick and easy access to large numbers of potential petition signers (i.e. their members who are constituents in the district).
Why not compel the television networks to allocate a certain amount of time to each candidate? After all, the federal government does own the airwaves, which it licenses to the networks. There are already rules in place that govern how much networks can charge political candidates for airtime. So why not change the rules to make that rate zero? Taking the largest cost out of the campaign budget certainly would release some pressure on candidate fundraising. One obstacle to this idea is that the networks make money from selling ads to political candidates. Which means they will lobby and exert the influence they have with politicians to prevent this loss of revenue (even if the amount is small).
You can clearly see the difficulty in balancing our societal interests in removing impropriety and the perception of impropriety in politics, creating a fair playing field among all candidates, ensuring that officeholders spend more time legislating and governing and preserving our cherished freedom of speech.
So what should we do? Please feel free to comment below, share your ideas and agree or disagree with anything above.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
HOW ARE JOBS CREATED
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Zach Sheinberg
Last Monday, Joe Nocera of the New York Times wrote a column (http://nyti.ms/pzifyt) about the effort of Starbucks founder Howard Schultz to help create jobs (outside of Starbucks) in the United States.
As I read the article, I was reminded of how hard creating jobs is. And I started thinking about the process of job creation. My question is, how are jobs created?
Let’s start at the beginning.
An employer hires and pays an employee when that employer requires additional labor to produce the product or service that the employer sells. An employer requires additional labor when new demand (or the expectation of new demand) exists for the product or service that the employer sells. New demand exists when new customers place new orders (or existing customers place more orders) for the products or services that the employer sells. The expectation of new demand exists when the customer base grows.
There are two types of products and services: those demanded by consumers and those demanded by other businesses. Though the demand of other businesses for products and services are simply derivative of consumer demand. For example, if homeowners are not repaving their driveways, paving companies are not purchasing new paving machines; paving machine manufacturers are not purchasing new metal to make paving machines; mining companies are mining less metal and so on. Consumer demand for goods and services drives the economy.
New consumer demand occurs when consumers have money to spend on products and services and have the expectation that they will continue to have money to spend in the future. Consumers have money to spend when they are working and earning income. They have the expectation that they will continue to have money to spend in the future when they feel secure in employment (whether they feel secure at their current job or are confident that if they leave their current job they can find a new and similarly or better-paying job).
Such explains our predicament. In order to create new jobs, we must have people already working so they can make money to spend on new stuff that we need new workers to make.
So how do we break this seemingly hopeless cycle? We innovate.
Take the introduction of the iPod as an example. With the iPod, Apple innovated. The company changed and improved the way consumers listened to and stored music. The iPod made listening and storage so much easier than the best available options that existed at the time (remember carrying around a Discman that skipped constantly and dozens of CDs?). Therefore, consumers demanded the iPod. Consumers bought the iPod. Apple’s innovation created this new demand.
So Apple made more iPods, which required more employees (both internally at Apple and externally at Apple’s manufacturing partners). These new workers had new income that they then spent, which created new demand for other goods and services throughout the economy, which led to new jobs in those areas, and the ripple effects continued.
Now when the iPod first came out, there was a fixed amount of money in our economy. So consumer purchases of the iPod likely redirected money away from other goods and services that those consumers may have purchased if the iPod had never existed. Which means that the companies that sold those now less desirable goods and services probably had to lay off workers, order less materials from suppliers, who probably had to lay off workers of their own, and so forth. So when the iPod first came out, the new jobs at Apple were probably offset by the loss of jobs at other companies.
However, while in the short run, overall employment may have stayed the same (Apple added jobs, other companies lost jobs), in time, Apple’s innovation of the iPod created more jobs for the economy than it cost. As more consumers demanded the iPod, Apple started making more iPods, which required more workers; new companies started making iPod accessories, which required more workers; competitors started making iPod knockoffs, which required more workers; Apple spent more money on research, development and innovation, which led to iTunes, the iPhone and the iPad, which required more workers. While impossible to quantify, the ripple effect of the iPod without question was a net gain for jobs in our economy.
Our economy creates jobs by creating new demand for stuff. We create new demand for stuff by innovating, by giving consumers better and/or less expensive versions of old stuff and desirable new stuff like the iPod.
So the question becomes, how do we spur innovation? How do corporations spur innovation? How can the government spur innovation? Because only innovation will lead to sustainable economic growth and sustainable lower unemployment.
Some food for thought (and I’m not suggesting any answers)…
- Will reductions in corporate taxes sustainably spur the economy? Will corporations having more money in their coffers lead to innovation and/or sustainable new jobs?
- Will reductions in government spending and government debt sustainably spur the economy? Will the large chunk of government consumption eventually be replaced by equivalent or greater private consumption (and keep in mind the ramifications of reduction of the national debt)?
- Will increases in government spending and government debt sustainably spur the economy? Should the government fund (and continue to fund) organizations that undertake research and development (eg. the National Institutes of Health, NASA, the Defense Department, the Energy Department)?
- Will reductions in overall personal taxes (including income taxes, sales taxes, etc.) sustainably spur the economy? Will individuals having more money in their pockets lead to sustainable increases in consumer demand?
My point here is that the creation of jobs is not easy and cannot happen overnight. Steering the economy back on course is like steering a massive ocean freighter back on course.
Whatever your ideas on how to create jobs, please share them below. And feel free to agree or disagree with me on anything above.
Zach Sheinberg
Last Monday, Joe Nocera of the New York Times wrote a column (http://nyti.ms/pzifyt) about the effort of Starbucks founder Howard Schultz to help create jobs (outside of Starbucks) in the United States.
As I read the article, I was reminded of how hard creating jobs is. And I started thinking about the process of job creation. My question is, how are jobs created?
Let’s start at the beginning.
An employer hires and pays an employee when that employer requires additional labor to produce the product or service that the employer sells. An employer requires additional labor when new demand (or the expectation of new demand) exists for the product or service that the employer sells. New demand exists when new customers place new orders (or existing customers place more orders) for the products or services that the employer sells. The expectation of new demand exists when the customer base grows.
There are two types of products and services: those demanded by consumers and those demanded by other businesses. Though the demand of other businesses for products and services are simply derivative of consumer demand. For example, if homeowners are not repaving their driveways, paving companies are not purchasing new paving machines; paving machine manufacturers are not purchasing new metal to make paving machines; mining companies are mining less metal and so on. Consumer demand for goods and services drives the economy.
New consumer demand occurs when consumers have money to spend on products and services and have the expectation that they will continue to have money to spend in the future. Consumers have money to spend when they are working and earning income. They have the expectation that they will continue to have money to spend in the future when they feel secure in employment (whether they feel secure at their current job or are confident that if they leave their current job they can find a new and similarly or better-paying job).
Such explains our predicament. In order to create new jobs, we must have people already working so they can make money to spend on new stuff that we need new workers to make.
So how do we break this seemingly hopeless cycle? We innovate.
Take the introduction of the iPod as an example. With the iPod, Apple innovated. The company changed and improved the way consumers listened to and stored music. The iPod made listening and storage so much easier than the best available options that existed at the time (remember carrying around a Discman that skipped constantly and dozens of CDs?). Therefore, consumers demanded the iPod. Consumers bought the iPod. Apple’s innovation created this new demand.
So Apple made more iPods, which required more employees (both internally at Apple and externally at Apple’s manufacturing partners). These new workers had new income that they then spent, which created new demand for other goods and services throughout the economy, which led to new jobs in those areas, and the ripple effects continued.
Now when the iPod first came out, there was a fixed amount of money in our economy. So consumer purchases of the iPod likely redirected money away from other goods and services that those consumers may have purchased if the iPod had never existed. Which means that the companies that sold those now less desirable goods and services probably had to lay off workers, order less materials from suppliers, who probably had to lay off workers of their own, and so forth. So when the iPod first came out, the new jobs at Apple were probably offset by the loss of jobs at other companies.
However, while in the short run, overall employment may have stayed the same (Apple added jobs, other companies lost jobs), in time, Apple’s innovation of the iPod created more jobs for the economy than it cost. As more consumers demanded the iPod, Apple started making more iPods, which required more workers; new companies started making iPod accessories, which required more workers; competitors started making iPod knockoffs, which required more workers; Apple spent more money on research, development and innovation, which led to iTunes, the iPhone and the iPad, which required more workers. While impossible to quantify, the ripple effect of the iPod without question was a net gain for jobs in our economy.
Our economy creates jobs by creating new demand for stuff. We create new demand for stuff by innovating, by giving consumers better and/or less expensive versions of old stuff and desirable new stuff like the iPod.
So the question becomes, how do we spur innovation? How do corporations spur innovation? How can the government spur innovation? Because only innovation will lead to sustainable economic growth and sustainable lower unemployment.
Some food for thought (and I’m not suggesting any answers)…
- Will reductions in corporate taxes sustainably spur the economy? Will corporations having more money in their coffers lead to innovation and/or sustainable new jobs?
- Will reductions in government spending and government debt sustainably spur the economy? Will the large chunk of government consumption eventually be replaced by equivalent or greater private consumption (and keep in mind the ramifications of reduction of the national debt)?
- Will increases in government spending and government debt sustainably spur the economy? Should the government fund (and continue to fund) organizations that undertake research and development (eg. the National Institutes of Health, NASA, the Defense Department, the Energy Department)?
- Will reductions in overall personal taxes (including income taxes, sales taxes, etc.) sustainably spur the economy? Will individuals having more money in their pockets lead to sustainable increases in consumer demand?
My point here is that the creation of jobs is not easy and cannot happen overnight. Steering the economy back on course is like steering a massive ocean freighter back on course.
Whatever your ideas on how to create jobs, please share them below. And feel free to agree or disagree with me on anything above.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
THE DIFFERENCE A YEAR MAKES
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Zach Sheinberg
Luckily for Democrats, Election Day 2010 is not today. Nor next month.
The only word that comes to mind when I think of the goodwill that the Democratic Party has squandered over the last year is bewilderment. Or two words: shock and awe. Not because the Democrats have lost goodwill. That was inevitable. But that they have lost this much goodwill so quickly.
At the end of the 110th Congress, the composition of the United States Senate was 51 Democrats (which included Senator Bernard Sanders, Independent of Vermont, and Senator Joseph Lieberman, Independent Democrat of Connecticut, both of whom caucus with the Senate Democrats) and 49 Republicans. Election 2008 not only elected a Democrat in Barack Obama to the White House, but also increased the Democratic majority in the U. S. Senate to 59. The number became 60 when Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched to the Democratic Party in 2009.
To be explicitly clear, in 2008, the Democratic Party gained 8 seats. That is not an insignificant number. Given that only a third of the 100 United States Senate seats are up for election in each election cycle (although in 2008, 35 seats were up for election because of special elections in Mississippi and Wyoming), netting 8 seats is, as a Wharton statistics professor might say, statistically significant.
Similar swings have occurred only four other times since John F. Kennedy won the White House in 1960. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Republican Revolution propelled 9 new Republicans into the world’s most exclusive club; the Democrats netted 8 seats in 1986, although this was likely the result of the reversal of the Reagan Revolution in 1980, where the Republicans picked up 12 Senate seats and took control of the chamber for the first time since 1954. (In fact, between the election to the Presidency of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 and the Republican Revolution in 1994, the Republicans only controlled the United States Senate for a grand total of 10 years.) The fourth time, when the Republicans gained 7 seats in 1968, did not result in a change of power in the Senate (the Democrats dropped from 64 to 57 seats).
I know. I’m boring you to tears with all of these numbers. My point is that picking up 8 seats is significant.
Large swings happen infrequently and are the result of the actions of a large group of disaffected voters, whose disaffection with the party in power has accumulated over a number of years. Although most power shifts are short-lived because in any given period of time, the power shift to the minority power occurs in a period dominated by a majority power. These are only fleeting political shifts, simply temporary reversions to the minority (this phenomenon originated with one or more political scholars whose name(s) I do not recall).
The Presidential Election of 1932 swept Democrats into the White House and Congress. The Democratic Governor of New York, Franklin Roosevelt, captured the White House. The Democrats picked up 12 seats in the Senate for a total of 59 and 97 seats in the House of Representatives for a total of 313. No doubt, voters were disaffected by the onset of the Great Depression. This Democratic sweep represented a lasting political shift, which I would argue lasted until the Republican Revolution in 1994 (which had its roots in the 1980 Reagan Revolution).
The Roosevelt shift to the left followed the Lincoln shift to the right of 1860, the result of the north versus south issues that led to the Civil War and later Reconstruction. The Lincoln shift lasted 72 years and took the Great Depression to undo.
Between 1932 and 1994, America was a left-of-center, Democratic country. While a Democrat occupied the White House for only about half of the 62 years in the period (34 years), Democrats dominated the Senate for 52 years and the House for 58 years.
In 1994, the conservative shift that began with the election of the former California Governor, Republican Ronald Reagan, in 1980, culminated in a Republican takeover of Congress that lasted 12 years. The Republican Revolution of 1994 was a lasting political shift.
So the obvious question is, did the election of Barack Obama, which was preceded by 2 years the Democratic takeover of both houses of Congress in 2006, represent a new lasting political shift, or simply a temporary reversion to the minority that the Republicans in Congress experienced several times between 1932 and 1994 in the midst of the American Democratic majority?
My guess is that we still live in a right-of-center, Republican country. After the Republicans took control of the Senate in 1980, it took the Democrats 3 election cycles (6 years) to regain control.
If we do in fact still live in a right-of-center country, the next question is, how long until the Republicans regain control of Congress?
I offer the unsatisfying answer of, “I don’t know.”
But let us take a look at the 2010 elections and see where they might leave the Democrats in Congress 10 months from now. I will examine only the Senate races because 10 months is too much lead-time for me to get a feel for the 435 House races with any reasonable degree of accuracy.
To recap, the current Senate composition is 57 Democrats, 42 Republicans and 2 Independents that caucus with the Democrats (effectively giving the Democrats 59 Senate seats).
Let’s start with Massachusetts. Earlier today, Republican Scott Brown was sworn in as the newest United States Senator, elected on January 19th to succeed the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, who had occupied the Senate seat since 1962 (Senator Paul Kirk, also a Democrat from Massachusetts, temporarily held the seat between Kennedy’s death and the election of Senator Brown). Not since 1979 has a Republican held a Senate seat in Massachusetts. Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the United States. Not one of the ten members it sends to the House of Representatives is a Republican.
What does this tell us? Democrats have a serious problem. Republicans smell blood in the water, which is clearly evidenced by the high profile candidates that have decided to run for Senate and those who are now considering running for Senate in 2010. The list includes:
- Former New York Governor George Pataki;
- Former Congressman and 2004 Senate candidate Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania;
- Congressman Michael Castle of Delaware;
- Former Senator Dan Coats of Indiana;
- Congressman Mark Kirk of Illinois;
- Former Wisconsin Governor, and Former HHS Secretary, Tommy Thompson;
- North Dakota Governor John Hoeven;
- Former State Senator and 2004/2008 Gubernatorial Nominee Dino Rossi of Washington;
- Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina of California;
- Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle;
- Former Colorado Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton.
These are all serious, first-tier candidates. Candidates that the Republican Party could not have recruited two years ago.
Readers, I guarantee you that at least 4 of these Republicans will be serving in the United States Senate at this time next year. Along with several other lower profile Republicans.
Après Ted Kennedy, La Deluge…
In 2010, the Democratic Party must defend 18 seats. I posit that only 5 of those seats are safe (New York, Connecticut, Vermont, Maryland and California). A sixth, Senator Ron Wyden's seat in Oregon, is also safe at the moment. But only because no serious challenger has emerged. If I were former Senator Gordon Smith, the Republican who lost his race for a third term in 2008, I would be looking at the race very closely (provided that I wanted to get back to Washington). The other 12…
New York (Special Election): Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, appointed by the unpopular Governor David Patterson to replace Hillary Clinton, has a battle on two fronts. A potential one from within her own party, as former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee is taking a close look at challenging her in the Democratic Primary, and a potential one from the former Republican Governor, George Pataki. Right now, too close to call.
Pennsylvania: Senator Arlen Specter switched parties because he knew he could not get reelected in Pennsylvania as a Republican. Now he probably cannot get reelected as a Democrat.
Delaware: Senator Ed Kaufman replaced Vice President Joe Biden as a placeholder so that Biden’s son, State Attorney General Beau Biden, could keep the seat in the family. Although the only way that will happen now is if the junior Biden divorces his wife and marries into the family of Republican Congressman Michael Castle, who at this point is a lock to win the seat in November.
Indiana: Until this week, two-term Senator Evan Bayh seemed headed for a third term. Now that former Republican Senator Dan Coats, who Bayh replaced in 1999 when Coats retired, has decided to jump into the race, this race is a toss up.
Illinois: While the Illinois Senate seat formerly held by President Barack Obama should have been a slam dunk for Democrats to retain, it is no longer so. The Democratic Primary damaged the ultimate nominee, State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, and moderate Republican Congressman Mark Kirk is mounting an aggressive, well-funded challenge. Another toss up.
North Dakota: The name of North Dakota’s Republican Governor is John Hoeven. The name of North Dakota’s next United States Senator is John Hoeven.
Colorado: The only thing that freshman Senator Michael Bennet has going for him at the moment is a crowded Republican primary field. Although the reason there is a crowded Republican field is that all the Republicans running think they can beat him. One of the Republicans is probably correct.
Wisconsin: Uber-liberal Senator Russell Feingold could face former Wisconsin Governor and former Department of Health and Human Services Secretary, Republican Tommy Thompson. While currently I give the edge to the incumbent Feingold, Wisconsinites have always had an independent streak in them.
Washington: Former State Senator, Republican Dino Ross, who narrowly lost two races for Governor in 2004 and 2008, has unfinished political business in the state. In 2004, he lost by 130 votes. In 2008, he lost because of the popularity of Barack Obama. If he decides to run, there is no clear favorite between him and Senator Patty Murray.
Nevada: Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid, is already trailing all of his potential Republican opponents by double digits. Vegas is not taking bets. The curse of the Majority Leader continues.
Arkansas: See Nevada, but substitute Senator Blanche Lincoln for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Hawaii: Often considered the most liberal state in the United States, Hawaii could very well have a competitive Senate race in 2010. Popular term-limited Republican Governor Linda Lingle is considering a run against veteran Senator Daniel Inouye. Also a toss up.
To sum up, 6 of the races are toss-ups. 5 are virtually Republican locks. To make things interesting, call it 8 Republican wins, which leave the GOP within one seat of evening the score in the Senate.
Although as Election 2010 nears, if the Republicans maintain this resurgence of popularity, look for other races to tighten up. And if the Republicans do find themselves with 50 Senate seats after Election Day 2010, how hard do you think it might be for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to entice Senator Joseph Lieberman to scoot across the aisle?
And people think politics is boring! Politics is just a real life soap opera!
Final question. Can the Democrats pick up any seats from Republicans? O
One year ago, I would have answered yes. I would have answered that the Democrats had a chance to pick up 7 seats; those in Missouri (Republican retirement), Kentucky (Republican retirement), Louisiana (Republican sex/brothel/prostitute scandal), Florida (Republican retirement), Ohio (Republican retirement), North Carolina (recent trends) and New Hampshire (Republican retirement). Note that the 5 retiring Republican Senators saw the same polls and the same trends that I saw, which at least in part led them to the decision to retire. Whoops. Today, I would say that all 7 seats are leaning Republican.
But the Democrats still have ten months until Election Day. In politics, anything can happen. Well not anything. But many things. There is a strengthening Tea Party that can only serve to push the Republican Party farther to the right. There is the faint possibility of universal health care. There are inevitable Republican sex scandals. So there is hope. Yet, hope often stands elusive for Democrats, invisible inside Pandora's Box.
Amazing the difference a year makes…
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCES
Politics1: www.politics1.com
US Senate: www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm
US House: clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/partyDiv.html
Zach Sheinberg
Luckily for Democrats, Election Day 2010 is not today. Nor next month.
The only word that comes to mind when I think of the goodwill that the Democratic Party has squandered over the last year is bewilderment. Or two words: shock and awe. Not because the Democrats have lost goodwill. That was inevitable. But that they have lost this much goodwill so quickly.
At the end of the 110th Congress, the composition of the United States Senate was 51 Democrats (which included Senator Bernard Sanders, Independent of Vermont, and Senator Joseph Lieberman, Independent Democrat of Connecticut, both of whom caucus with the Senate Democrats) and 49 Republicans. Election 2008 not only elected a Democrat in Barack Obama to the White House, but also increased the Democratic majority in the U. S. Senate to 59. The number became 60 when Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched to the Democratic Party in 2009.
To be explicitly clear, in 2008, the Democratic Party gained 8 seats. That is not an insignificant number. Given that only a third of the 100 United States Senate seats are up for election in each election cycle (although in 2008, 35 seats were up for election because of special elections in Mississippi and Wyoming), netting 8 seats is, as a Wharton statistics professor might say, statistically significant.
Similar swings have occurred only four other times since John F. Kennedy won the White House in 1960. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Republican Revolution propelled 9 new Republicans into the world’s most exclusive club; the Democrats netted 8 seats in 1986, although this was likely the result of the reversal of the Reagan Revolution in 1980, where the Republicans picked up 12 Senate seats and took control of the chamber for the first time since 1954. (In fact, between the election to the Presidency of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 and the Republican Revolution in 1994, the Republicans only controlled the United States Senate for a grand total of 10 years.) The fourth time, when the Republicans gained 7 seats in 1968, did not result in a change of power in the Senate (the Democrats dropped from 64 to 57 seats).
I know. I’m boring you to tears with all of these numbers. My point is that picking up 8 seats is significant.
Large swings happen infrequently and are the result of the actions of a large group of disaffected voters, whose disaffection with the party in power has accumulated over a number of years. Although most power shifts are short-lived because in any given period of time, the power shift to the minority power occurs in a period dominated by a majority power. These are only fleeting political shifts, simply temporary reversions to the minority (this phenomenon originated with one or more political scholars whose name(s) I do not recall).
The Presidential Election of 1932 swept Democrats into the White House and Congress. The Democratic Governor of New York, Franklin Roosevelt, captured the White House. The Democrats picked up 12 seats in the Senate for a total of 59 and 97 seats in the House of Representatives for a total of 313. No doubt, voters were disaffected by the onset of the Great Depression. This Democratic sweep represented a lasting political shift, which I would argue lasted until the Republican Revolution in 1994 (which had its roots in the 1980 Reagan Revolution).
The Roosevelt shift to the left followed the Lincoln shift to the right of 1860, the result of the north versus south issues that led to the Civil War and later Reconstruction. The Lincoln shift lasted 72 years and took the Great Depression to undo.
Between 1932 and 1994, America was a left-of-center, Democratic country. While a Democrat occupied the White House for only about half of the 62 years in the period (34 years), Democrats dominated the Senate for 52 years and the House for 58 years.
In 1994, the conservative shift that began with the election of the former California Governor, Republican Ronald Reagan, in 1980, culminated in a Republican takeover of Congress that lasted 12 years. The Republican Revolution of 1994 was a lasting political shift.
So the obvious question is, did the election of Barack Obama, which was preceded by 2 years the Democratic takeover of both houses of Congress in 2006, represent a new lasting political shift, or simply a temporary reversion to the minority that the Republicans in Congress experienced several times between 1932 and 1994 in the midst of the American Democratic majority?
My guess is that we still live in a right-of-center, Republican country. After the Republicans took control of the Senate in 1980, it took the Democrats 3 election cycles (6 years) to regain control.
If we do in fact still live in a right-of-center country, the next question is, how long until the Republicans regain control of Congress?
I offer the unsatisfying answer of, “I don’t know.”
But let us take a look at the 2010 elections and see where they might leave the Democrats in Congress 10 months from now. I will examine only the Senate races because 10 months is too much lead-time for me to get a feel for the 435 House races with any reasonable degree of accuracy.
To recap, the current Senate composition is 57 Democrats, 42 Republicans and 2 Independents that caucus with the Democrats (effectively giving the Democrats 59 Senate seats).
Let’s start with Massachusetts. Earlier today, Republican Scott Brown was sworn in as the newest United States Senator, elected on January 19th to succeed the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, who had occupied the Senate seat since 1962 (Senator Paul Kirk, also a Democrat from Massachusetts, temporarily held the seat between Kennedy’s death and the election of Senator Brown). Not since 1979 has a Republican held a Senate seat in Massachusetts. Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the United States. Not one of the ten members it sends to the House of Representatives is a Republican.
What does this tell us? Democrats have a serious problem. Republicans smell blood in the water, which is clearly evidenced by the high profile candidates that have decided to run for Senate and those who are now considering running for Senate in 2010. The list includes:
- Former New York Governor George Pataki;
- Former Congressman and 2004 Senate candidate Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania;
- Congressman Michael Castle of Delaware;
- Former Senator Dan Coats of Indiana;
- Congressman Mark Kirk of Illinois;
- Former Wisconsin Governor, and Former HHS Secretary, Tommy Thompson;
- North Dakota Governor John Hoeven;
- Former State Senator and 2004/2008 Gubernatorial Nominee Dino Rossi of Washington;
- Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina of California;
- Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle;
- Former Colorado Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton.
These are all serious, first-tier candidates. Candidates that the Republican Party could not have recruited two years ago.
Readers, I guarantee you that at least 4 of these Republicans will be serving in the United States Senate at this time next year. Along with several other lower profile Republicans.
Après Ted Kennedy, La Deluge…
In 2010, the Democratic Party must defend 18 seats. I posit that only 5 of those seats are safe (New York, Connecticut, Vermont, Maryland and California). A sixth, Senator Ron Wyden's seat in Oregon, is also safe at the moment. But only because no serious challenger has emerged. If I were former Senator Gordon Smith, the Republican who lost his race for a third term in 2008, I would be looking at the race very closely (provided that I wanted to get back to Washington). The other 12…
New York (Special Election): Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, appointed by the unpopular Governor David Patterson to replace Hillary Clinton, has a battle on two fronts. A potential one from within her own party, as former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee is taking a close look at challenging her in the Democratic Primary, and a potential one from the former Republican Governor, George Pataki. Right now, too close to call.
Pennsylvania: Senator Arlen Specter switched parties because he knew he could not get reelected in Pennsylvania as a Republican. Now he probably cannot get reelected as a Democrat.
Delaware: Senator Ed Kaufman replaced Vice President Joe Biden as a placeholder so that Biden’s son, State Attorney General Beau Biden, could keep the seat in the family. Although the only way that will happen now is if the junior Biden divorces his wife and marries into the family of Republican Congressman Michael Castle, who at this point is a lock to win the seat in November.
Indiana: Until this week, two-term Senator Evan Bayh seemed headed for a third term. Now that former Republican Senator Dan Coats, who Bayh replaced in 1999 when Coats retired, has decided to jump into the race, this race is a toss up.
Illinois: While the Illinois Senate seat formerly held by President Barack Obama should have been a slam dunk for Democrats to retain, it is no longer so. The Democratic Primary damaged the ultimate nominee, State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, and moderate Republican Congressman Mark Kirk is mounting an aggressive, well-funded challenge. Another toss up.
North Dakota: The name of North Dakota’s Republican Governor is John Hoeven. The name of North Dakota’s next United States Senator is John Hoeven.
Colorado: The only thing that freshman Senator Michael Bennet has going for him at the moment is a crowded Republican primary field. Although the reason there is a crowded Republican field is that all the Republicans running think they can beat him. One of the Republicans is probably correct.
Wisconsin: Uber-liberal Senator Russell Feingold could face former Wisconsin Governor and former Department of Health and Human Services Secretary, Republican Tommy Thompson. While currently I give the edge to the incumbent Feingold, Wisconsinites have always had an independent streak in them.
Washington: Former State Senator, Republican Dino Ross, who narrowly lost two races for Governor in 2004 and 2008, has unfinished political business in the state. In 2004, he lost by 130 votes. In 2008, he lost because of the popularity of Barack Obama. If he decides to run, there is no clear favorite between him and Senator Patty Murray.
Nevada: Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid, is already trailing all of his potential Republican opponents by double digits. Vegas is not taking bets. The curse of the Majority Leader continues.
Arkansas: See Nevada, but substitute Senator Blanche Lincoln for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Hawaii: Often considered the most liberal state in the United States, Hawaii could very well have a competitive Senate race in 2010. Popular term-limited Republican Governor Linda Lingle is considering a run against veteran Senator Daniel Inouye. Also a toss up.
To sum up, 6 of the races are toss-ups. 5 are virtually Republican locks. To make things interesting, call it 8 Republican wins, which leave the GOP within one seat of evening the score in the Senate.
Although as Election 2010 nears, if the Republicans maintain this resurgence of popularity, look for other races to tighten up. And if the Republicans do find themselves with 50 Senate seats after Election Day 2010, how hard do you think it might be for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to entice Senator Joseph Lieberman to scoot across the aisle?
And people think politics is boring! Politics is just a real life soap opera!
Final question. Can the Democrats pick up any seats from Republicans? O
One year ago, I would have answered yes. I would have answered that the Democrats had a chance to pick up 7 seats; those in Missouri (Republican retirement), Kentucky (Republican retirement), Louisiana (Republican sex/brothel/prostitute scandal), Florida (Republican retirement), Ohio (Republican retirement), North Carolina (recent trends) and New Hampshire (Republican retirement). Note that the 5 retiring Republican Senators saw the same polls and the same trends that I saw, which at least in part led them to the decision to retire. Whoops. Today, I would say that all 7 seats are leaning Republican.
But the Democrats still have ten months until Election Day. In politics, anything can happen. Well not anything. But many things. There is a strengthening Tea Party that can only serve to push the Republican Party farther to the right. There is the faint possibility of universal health care. There are inevitable Republican sex scandals. So there is hope. Yet, hope often stands elusive for Democrats, invisible inside Pandora's Box.
Amazing the difference a year makes…
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCES
Politics1: www.politics1.com
US Senate: www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm
US House: clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/partyDiv.html
Monday, April 6, 2009
LOOKING AHEAD
LOOKING AHEAD
Monday, April 6, 2009
Zach Sheinberg
And I thought once the 2008 election season ended, the news media would have nothing else to discuss! In reality, it is possible that the news media have never had more to talk about.
Following the election, they covered the cabinet nominations, even helped to derail several of them, most notably those of former Health and Human Services Secretary designate Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and former Commerce Secretary designate Bill Richardson (D-N.M.).
What else happened? Well, the economy imploded. Unemployment skyrocketed. Congress negotiated a stimulus package. Treasury Secretary Geithner rolled out a massive bank bailout. The auto companies came back to drink from the federal money trough. AIG infuriated Congress by paying bonuses out of bailout money. The Obama Administration announced plans to close the prison at Guantanamo, allow the news to videotape coffins returning from Iraq and Afghanistan (with the permission of the family of the deceased) and accelerate the increase of fuel standards. Somehow Jack Bauer is still alive. And probably, as we speak, headed to North Korea to deal with Kim Jong Il’s recent missile launch.
But alas, there is good news! Sarah Palin has formed a political action committee called SarahPAC in advance of a 2012 run for President! In related news, I am taking golf lessons so I can qualify for the Q School and join the PGA Tour.
As Palin 2012 gets geared up, let’s take a look at what else is happening in the world of elections.
Senate
Less than three months into the 111th Congress, five Republican Senators have already announced plans for retirement in 2010, four of them in swing states. Those off to greener pastures are:
Mel Martinez (R-FL): These days, Florida politics seems akin to coaching changes in the NFL. People move around, but never actually leave. Rumors abound that Governor Charlie Crist (R-FL) will not seek reelection and will instead run for the open Senate seat and that former Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL), who was term-limited in 2006 (the Governor cannot serve more than two consecutive terms), will seek to recapture his old position as Governor in 2010. On the Democratic side, leading candidates for Senate include Congressmen Ron Klein and Kendrick Meek. With Governor Crist in the race, this seat leans slightly Republican.
Sam Brownback (R-KS): No Republican majority means no Republican committee chairs. Which means Republicans actually have to work with Democrats to legislate. Sorry, Rush. But not Brownback, who is retiring to run in the open-seat contest for Governor of Kansas in 2010. Health and Human Services Secretary designate, Kathleen Sebellius, a Democrat, is term-limited in 2010. Republican Congressmen Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt and former Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Boyda are all looking at the open Senate race. This seat is still safe for Republicans.
Judd Gregg (R-N.H.): You might recognize Judd Gregg from his brief stint as President Obama’s nominee to become Commerce Secretary, who then withdrew because his views were irreconcilable with the Obama Administration. Seems like someone forgot that the United States just elected a DEMOCRAT to the White House who made clear his intention to spend TRILLIONS of dollars to right the economy. Not only do Senators not read the bills on which they vote, but also apparently some do not ever read the news. Sophomore Democratic Congressman Paul Hodes is the likely Democratic nominee. The Republican field is wide open. Former Senator Bob Smith, who lost the 2002 Republican nomination to John Sununu, Jr., who then moved to Florida and considered running for Senate there, is back in New Hampshire looking at the race. Why? Because former Senator John Sununu, Jr., who lost reelection to Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) in 2008, is considering running in 2010. And what better way to settle a political score than to derail the chances of an opponent winning an election. In 2010, Democrats have the edge to pick up this seat. On a totally unrelated side note, former Senator Bob Smith looks a lot like the Mayor in Police Academy 6, actor Kenneth Mars, who also played Inspector Kemp in Young Frankenstein.
Kit Bond (R-MO): Democrat Jay Nixon won the race for Governor in 2008. Democrat Claire McCaskill ousted former Senator Jim Talent (for not winning elections)* in 2006. Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D-MO), daughter of former Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan and former Senator Jean Carnahan and sister of Congressman Russ Carnahan (D-MO), is the likely Democratic nominee. Republican Roy Blunt, father of former Governor Matt Blunt (R-MO) is a leading candidate for the Republican nomination. Does this not remind anyone of the Capulets and Montagues? This race is a toss-up.
George Voinovich (R-OH): There is no shortage of interest in this seat. Although luckily for all, Dennis Kucinich is not interested. Obama won Ohio in the 2008 Presidential Election and in 2006, Sherrod Brown (D-OH) ousted former Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Ted Strickland (D-OH) won the open seat race for Governor. This race is also a toss-up.
In Other Senate News
Alaska: The U.S. Department of Justice is going to drop all charges against former Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) due to prosecutorial misconduct. Governor Sarah Palin, now safely tucked back away in Juneau, Alaska, immediately called for Senator Mark Begich, who defeated Stevens in 2008 Senate race, to step down and stand for a rematch against Stevens. In related news, former Vice President Al Gore has demanded a redo of the 2000 Presidential Election because he still cannot understand how he lost to George W. Bush.
Arizona: Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has decided to seek reelection in 2010. He will be 126 years old.
California: Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina (R-CA) has announced her intention to explore a campaign against Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in 2010.
Connecticut: Democrat Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has come under fire for a sweetheart loan he received from Countrywide (along with colleague Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)). Really? The Democrats are corrupt too? Polls show him highly vulnerable for reelection in 2010. Former Congressman Rob Simmons (R-CT), who lost reelection in 2006, is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination.
Illinois: Who would have thought that freshman Senator Roland Burris (D-IL), appointed by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagoyevxszqxich, would run into problems? Hmmm. Oh yes, everyone. While Burris likely will make it through the last two years of President Obama’s Senate term, he definitely should not do any major renovations in his office. Bill Daley (D-IL), former Commerce Secretary under Bill Clinton and brother of long-time Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, intends to challenge Burris in a primary. Other Democrats are considering the race too. In January of 2011, Burris will be rolanding back to Illinois. In related news, former Governor Blagoyevxszqxich was just indicted.
Kentucky: 78-year-old Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY), who narrowly won reelection in 2004 over now Lieutenant Governor Dan Mongiardo and makes frequent verbal gaffes, looks headed for trouble in 2010. He will face either Mongiardo or another well-funded Democrat. And with less than $150,000 cash on hand at the moment, Bunning either has to step on the fundraising gas pedal or prepare to head out to the bluegrass pasture. One recent gaffe made by the Senator was a prediction that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be dead in nine months. In the future, Senator Bunning, first think, then still keep quiet.
Louisiana: Another possible trouble spot for Republicans in 2010 is Louisiana. Yes, Louisiana is actually trending more Republican, bucking the trend of most of the rest of the country. Unfortunately, no matter how more liberal America becomes, it will still raise an eyebrow to a United States Senator caught in a prostitution ring and look down upon a United States Senator who blows up at an airport and says something like, “Do you know who I am?” I remember kids who did that in college. The bouncer still did not let them into the bar while everyone else got in. Senator Vitter, a piece of advice. That never works. And just makes you look like an a**hole. Maybe hit the brothel before heading to the airport next time to blow off some steam.
Minnesota: Still, the 2008 Minnesota Senate race is unsettled. Although Republicans generally concede that it is just a matter of time before Democrat Al Franken becomes the next United States Senator from Minnesota. The same Republicans also hinted that Franken would be assigned the same office assigned to freshman Representative Jeff Johnson in The Distinguished Gentleman.
New York: Newly appointed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, appointed to the seat vacated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, seems likely to face a tough primary challenge in 2010, probably from Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.). Gillibrand is a big supporter of gun rights, while Representative McCarthy lost her husband and her son was seriously injured when Colin Ferguson opened fire on a Long Island Railroad Train in 1993. So McCarthy has a very real personal reason for challenging Gillibrand. Republicans exploring the race are Congressman Peter King (R-N.Y.), former Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and former Governor George Pataki (R-N.Y.). Fran Drescher is also looking at the race. Hopefully, she does not do any radio commercials herself.
Pennsylvania: After voting for cloture and the Obama stimulus package, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) has come under tremendous pressure from conservatives. Former Congressman Pat Toomey (R-PA), who now serves as President of the Club for Growth and who narrowly lost to Specter in the Republican primary in 2004, announced that he will challenge Specter again in 2010. Specter, a cancer survivor, has rebuffed overtures of the Democrat leadership to switch parties. It is unclear how the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate race will turn out.
House of Representatives
Retirements: Representative Hilda Solis (D-CA) has resigned to become the Secretary of Labor. Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) has resigned to become the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Representative Adam Putnam (R-FL), the former #3 in the Republican House Leadership, will not seek reelection in 2010 because he is running for State Agriculture Commissioner in Florida. Why? Apparently DC is no fun anymore for Republicans.
New England: With the reelection loss of former Congressman Christopher Shays (R-CT), New England now has zero Republican members of the House of Representatives.
New York’s 20th District: The election to replace now Senator Kirsten Gillibrand was held last Tuesday, but there is no winner yet. Republican Jim Tedisco was favored in this conservative leaning-district up until the very end when Democrat Scott Murphy surged in the polls. The race is likely to end up in court, right where elections should be decided (I am kidding).
Governors
New Jersey: Governor Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) has a tough 2009 reelection race ahead of him. His likely opponent, former United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey and Republican, Christopher Christie (not to be confused with Florida’s Governor, Charlie Crist or NBA player Doug Christie), is polling ahead of Corzine. But if the wealthy former Goldman Sachs CEO Corzine does what he promised to do before the 2005 gubernatorial election (i.e. spend “whatever it takes”), this race will come down to the wire.
New York: Recent polls show that Governor David Patterson (D-N.Y.), who assumed office after former Governor Eliot Spitzer resigned for, well, you know why, has approval ratings lower than George W. Republican Rudy Giuliani (R-N.Y.) and State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) are both likely to challenge Patterson, in the general election and Democratic primary, respectively.
Virginia: Former DNC Chair and Clinton confidante, Terry McAuliffe, is seeking the Democratic nomination for Governor. At a recent dinner, McAuliffe got into a verbal spat with one of his primary opponents, ex-State House Democratic Caucus Chair Brian Moran. While giving his speech, McAuliffe mentioned how Moran’s campaign advisor, Joe Trippi (who orchestrated Howard Dean’s rise and fall Presidential campaign in 2004), approached McAuliffe to work for him in the gubernatorial race and that McAuliffe responded by telling him that if Trippi really wanted to help him, that he should go work for Brian and do what he did for “President Dean.” Moran responded by asking how President Hillary Clinton was. I am glad to see that only mature adults run for office.
International
Israel: Last Tuesday, Israel’s new government, led by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, took office. Netanyahu, of the Likud Party, rejects the idea of a two-state solution. His position should lead to an interesting meeting in Washington in May with President Obama and Secretary Clinton, who favor a two-state solution.
-------------------------------------
Notes
* Former Republican Senator Jim Talent ran for Governor of Missouri in 2000. He lost. In 2002, he won election to the Senate to serve out the remaining four years of former Governor Mel Carnahan’s (D-MO) term. Carnahan died in a plane crash before the 2000 election and never served a day in the Senate. Talent then lost his reelection race to McCaskill in 2006.
-------------------------------------
Sources
NYTimes.com: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/opinion/13clemens.html
CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/
Politics1: http://www.politics1.com
Political Graveyard: www.politicalgraveyard.com
Monday, April 6, 2009
Zach Sheinberg
And I thought once the 2008 election season ended, the news media would have nothing else to discuss! In reality, it is possible that the news media have never had more to talk about.
Following the election, they covered the cabinet nominations, even helped to derail several of them, most notably those of former Health and Human Services Secretary designate Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and former Commerce Secretary designate Bill Richardson (D-N.M.).
What else happened? Well, the economy imploded. Unemployment skyrocketed. Congress negotiated a stimulus package. Treasury Secretary Geithner rolled out a massive bank bailout. The auto companies came back to drink from the federal money trough. AIG infuriated Congress by paying bonuses out of bailout money. The Obama Administration announced plans to close the prison at Guantanamo, allow the news to videotape coffins returning from Iraq and Afghanistan (with the permission of the family of the deceased) and accelerate the increase of fuel standards. Somehow Jack Bauer is still alive. And probably, as we speak, headed to North Korea to deal with Kim Jong Il’s recent missile launch.
But alas, there is good news! Sarah Palin has formed a political action committee called SarahPAC in advance of a 2012 run for President! In related news, I am taking golf lessons so I can qualify for the Q School and join the PGA Tour.
As Palin 2012 gets geared up, let’s take a look at what else is happening in the world of elections.
Senate
Less than three months into the 111th Congress, five Republican Senators have already announced plans for retirement in 2010, four of them in swing states. Those off to greener pastures are:
Mel Martinez (R-FL): These days, Florida politics seems akin to coaching changes in the NFL. People move around, but never actually leave. Rumors abound that Governor Charlie Crist (R-FL) will not seek reelection and will instead run for the open Senate seat and that former Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL), who was term-limited in 2006 (the Governor cannot serve more than two consecutive terms), will seek to recapture his old position as Governor in 2010. On the Democratic side, leading candidates for Senate include Congressmen Ron Klein and Kendrick Meek. With Governor Crist in the race, this seat leans slightly Republican.
Sam Brownback (R-KS): No Republican majority means no Republican committee chairs. Which means Republicans actually have to work with Democrats to legislate. Sorry, Rush. But not Brownback, who is retiring to run in the open-seat contest for Governor of Kansas in 2010. Health and Human Services Secretary designate, Kathleen Sebellius, a Democrat, is term-limited in 2010. Republican Congressmen Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt and former Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Boyda are all looking at the open Senate race. This seat is still safe for Republicans.
Judd Gregg (R-N.H.): You might recognize Judd Gregg from his brief stint as President Obama’s nominee to become Commerce Secretary, who then withdrew because his views were irreconcilable with the Obama Administration. Seems like someone forgot that the United States just elected a DEMOCRAT to the White House who made clear his intention to spend TRILLIONS of dollars to right the economy. Not only do Senators not read the bills on which they vote, but also apparently some do not ever read the news. Sophomore Democratic Congressman Paul Hodes is the likely Democratic nominee. The Republican field is wide open. Former Senator Bob Smith, who lost the 2002 Republican nomination to John Sununu, Jr., who then moved to Florida and considered running for Senate there, is back in New Hampshire looking at the race. Why? Because former Senator John Sununu, Jr., who lost reelection to Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) in 2008, is considering running in 2010. And what better way to settle a political score than to derail the chances of an opponent winning an election. In 2010, Democrats have the edge to pick up this seat. On a totally unrelated side note, former Senator Bob Smith looks a lot like the Mayor in Police Academy 6, actor Kenneth Mars, who also played Inspector Kemp in Young Frankenstein.
Kit Bond (R-MO): Democrat Jay Nixon won the race for Governor in 2008. Democrat Claire McCaskill ousted former Senator Jim Talent (for not winning elections)* in 2006. Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D-MO), daughter of former Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan and former Senator Jean Carnahan and sister of Congressman Russ Carnahan (D-MO), is the likely Democratic nominee. Republican Roy Blunt, father of former Governor Matt Blunt (R-MO) is a leading candidate for the Republican nomination. Does this not remind anyone of the Capulets and Montagues? This race is a toss-up.
George Voinovich (R-OH): There is no shortage of interest in this seat. Although luckily for all, Dennis Kucinich is not interested. Obama won Ohio in the 2008 Presidential Election and in 2006, Sherrod Brown (D-OH) ousted former Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Ted Strickland (D-OH) won the open seat race for Governor. This race is also a toss-up.
In Other Senate News
Alaska: The U.S. Department of Justice is going to drop all charges against former Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) due to prosecutorial misconduct. Governor Sarah Palin, now safely tucked back away in Juneau, Alaska, immediately called for Senator Mark Begich, who defeated Stevens in 2008 Senate race, to step down and stand for a rematch against Stevens. In related news, former Vice President Al Gore has demanded a redo of the 2000 Presidential Election because he still cannot understand how he lost to George W. Bush.
Arizona: Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has decided to seek reelection in 2010. He will be 126 years old.
California: Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina (R-CA) has announced her intention to explore a campaign against Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in 2010.
Connecticut: Democrat Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has come under fire for a sweetheart loan he received from Countrywide (along with colleague Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)). Really? The Democrats are corrupt too? Polls show him highly vulnerable for reelection in 2010. Former Congressman Rob Simmons (R-CT), who lost reelection in 2006, is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination.
Illinois: Who would have thought that freshman Senator Roland Burris (D-IL), appointed by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagoyevxszqxich, would run into problems? Hmmm. Oh yes, everyone. While Burris likely will make it through the last two years of President Obama’s Senate term, he definitely should not do any major renovations in his office. Bill Daley (D-IL), former Commerce Secretary under Bill Clinton and brother of long-time Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, intends to challenge Burris in a primary. Other Democrats are considering the race too. In January of 2011, Burris will be rolanding back to Illinois. In related news, former Governor Blagoyevxszqxich was just indicted.
Kentucky: 78-year-old Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY), who narrowly won reelection in 2004 over now Lieutenant Governor Dan Mongiardo and makes frequent verbal gaffes, looks headed for trouble in 2010. He will face either Mongiardo or another well-funded Democrat. And with less than $150,000 cash on hand at the moment, Bunning either has to step on the fundraising gas pedal or prepare to head out to the bluegrass pasture. One recent gaffe made by the Senator was a prediction that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be dead in nine months. In the future, Senator Bunning, first think, then still keep quiet.
Louisiana: Another possible trouble spot for Republicans in 2010 is Louisiana. Yes, Louisiana is actually trending more Republican, bucking the trend of most of the rest of the country. Unfortunately, no matter how more liberal America becomes, it will still raise an eyebrow to a United States Senator caught in a prostitution ring and look down upon a United States Senator who blows up at an airport and says something like, “Do you know who I am?” I remember kids who did that in college. The bouncer still did not let them into the bar while everyone else got in. Senator Vitter, a piece of advice. That never works. And just makes you look like an a**hole. Maybe hit the brothel before heading to the airport next time to blow off some steam.
Minnesota: Still, the 2008 Minnesota Senate race is unsettled. Although Republicans generally concede that it is just a matter of time before Democrat Al Franken becomes the next United States Senator from Minnesota. The same Republicans also hinted that Franken would be assigned the same office assigned to freshman Representative Jeff Johnson in The Distinguished Gentleman.
New York: Newly appointed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, appointed to the seat vacated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, seems likely to face a tough primary challenge in 2010, probably from Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.). Gillibrand is a big supporter of gun rights, while Representative McCarthy lost her husband and her son was seriously injured when Colin Ferguson opened fire on a Long Island Railroad Train in 1993. So McCarthy has a very real personal reason for challenging Gillibrand. Republicans exploring the race are Congressman Peter King (R-N.Y.), former Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and former Governor George Pataki (R-N.Y.). Fran Drescher is also looking at the race. Hopefully, she does not do any radio commercials herself.
Pennsylvania: After voting for cloture and the Obama stimulus package, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) has come under tremendous pressure from conservatives. Former Congressman Pat Toomey (R-PA), who now serves as President of the Club for Growth and who narrowly lost to Specter in the Republican primary in 2004, announced that he will challenge Specter again in 2010. Specter, a cancer survivor, has rebuffed overtures of the Democrat leadership to switch parties. It is unclear how the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate race will turn out.
House of Representatives
Retirements: Representative Hilda Solis (D-CA) has resigned to become the Secretary of Labor. Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) has resigned to become the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Representative Adam Putnam (R-FL), the former #3 in the Republican House Leadership, will not seek reelection in 2010 because he is running for State Agriculture Commissioner in Florida. Why? Apparently DC is no fun anymore for Republicans.
New England: With the reelection loss of former Congressman Christopher Shays (R-CT), New England now has zero Republican members of the House of Representatives.
New York’s 20th District: The election to replace now Senator Kirsten Gillibrand was held last Tuesday, but there is no winner yet. Republican Jim Tedisco was favored in this conservative leaning-district up until the very end when Democrat Scott Murphy surged in the polls. The race is likely to end up in court, right where elections should be decided (I am kidding).
Governors
New Jersey: Governor Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) has a tough 2009 reelection race ahead of him. His likely opponent, former United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey and Republican, Christopher Christie (not to be confused with Florida’s Governor, Charlie Crist or NBA player Doug Christie), is polling ahead of Corzine. But if the wealthy former Goldman Sachs CEO Corzine does what he promised to do before the 2005 gubernatorial election (i.e. spend “whatever it takes”), this race will come down to the wire.
New York: Recent polls show that Governor David Patterson (D-N.Y.), who assumed office after former Governor Eliot Spitzer resigned for, well, you know why, has approval ratings lower than George W. Republican Rudy Giuliani (R-N.Y.) and State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) are both likely to challenge Patterson, in the general election and Democratic primary, respectively.
Virginia: Former DNC Chair and Clinton confidante, Terry McAuliffe, is seeking the Democratic nomination for Governor. At a recent dinner, McAuliffe got into a verbal spat with one of his primary opponents, ex-State House Democratic Caucus Chair Brian Moran. While giving his speech, McAuliffe mentioned how Moran’s campaign advisor, Joe Trippi (who orchestrated Howard Dean’s rise and fall Presidential campaign in 2004), approached McAuliffe to work for him in the gubernatorial race and that McAuliffe responded by telling him that if Trippi really wanted to help him, that he should go work for Brian and do what he did for “President Dean.” Moran responded by asking how President Hillary Clinton was. I am glad to see that only mature adults run for office.
International
Israel: Last Tuesday, Israel’s new government, led by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, took office. Netanyahu, of the Likud Party, rejects the idea of a two-state solution. His position should lead to an interesting meeting in Washington in May with President Obama and Secretary Clinton, who favor a two-state solution.
-------------------------------------
Notes
* Former Republican Senator Jim Talent ran for Governor of Missouri in 2000. He lost. In 2002, he won election to the Senate to serve out the remaining four years of former Governor Mel Carnahan’s (D-MO) term. Carnahan died in a plane crash before the 2000 election and never served a day in the Senate. Talent then lost his reelection race to McCaskill in 2006.
-------------------------------------
Sources
NYTimes.com: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/opinion/13clemens.html
CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/
Politics1: http://www.politics1.com
Political Graveyard: www.politicalgraveyard.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)