44
Tuesday, November 17, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
The 44th President of the United States will be Barack Hussein Obama, United States Senator from Illinois.
Two weeks ago today, the 2008 Election Cycle ended. Finally!
One hundred forty-three years and forty-five days after the abolition of slavery (see Note 1 below), and fifty-four years, eight months and three days after court-ordered desegregation (see Note 2 below), America elected its first African American President. Certainly an historic event.
Although it is hard to truly appreciate the implications of such event for those who are not African American. This became clear to me when I heard Colin Powell tell an interviewer that he cried when the news networks announced that Obama had won. Personally, I was truly overwhelmed when CNN announced Obama’s victory. I literally had shivers down my spine. Partly because of my Bush malaise. Partly because of the hope that Obama allows. And partly because if an African American can win the Presidency, why not a Jewish kid from northern New Jersey?
But tears came from Colin Powell. A man who served as the first African American Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and United States Secretary of State. Congressman John Lewis (D-Ga.), a prominent civil rights activist in the 1960s and chairman of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), had a similar reaction. President-Elect Barack Obama is monumental for the African American community. Now, not only is it possible for an African American to become the most powerful person in the world, but also it has happened.
The 2008 Presidential Election did more than tear down a race barrier. In the November 17th issue of Newsweek, contributing editor Ellis Cose, in speaking about his five-year-old daughter, wrote, “Hers would be the first generation to grow up believing it perfectly natural for a white woman or a black man to be president.” When I read that, it immediately struck me how major societal change happens. With a chance shock to the system that shifts, whether immediately or over time, society’s definition of “normal.”
America has experienced a chance shock to its natural order. But the chance shock is not the election of an African American to the Presidency. The chance shock was the viability of the Presidential candidacies of Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Senator Barack Obama (D-Il.).
And without question, the shock happened by chance.
If Hillary Clinton was not a former First Lady who won a seat in the United States Senate, a woman would not have come so close to winning the Presidency in 2008.
If several Republicans had not lined up to primary incumbent Senator Peter Fitzgerald (R-Il.) in 2004, Fitzgerald would have sought reelection. Obama would have had to defeat a Senate incumbent. If former Senator Carolyn Moseley-Braun (D-Il.) had not passed on a 2004 rematch against Fitzgerald, Obama likely would not have run for the Democratic nomination. If Jack Ryan, the Republican nominee, had not withdrawn from the 2004 Senate race in the wake of a sex scandal, Obama may not have won the election. In any of which cases, an African American would not have won the Presidency in 2008.
Chance allowed for the shock of a woman and an African American being truly credible candidates for President. In 2008, America answered the questions, “Does America think that a woman is strong enough to be President?” and “Does racism prevent an African American from becoming President?”
Individually, we may have answered these questions long ago. But as a society, we field-tested our individual answers in 2008.
A woman can be President. And not just Hillary Clinton. And an African American will be President.
Thank you, America.
Election Recap
White House
Senator Obama won the Presidential Election with 365 electoral votes. Senator McCain won 162 (and I anticipate that he will ultimately win 173 when Missouri finishes counting). Obama won approximately 52.7% of the popular vote while McCain won 46.0%.
In my predictions, I called two states incorrectly: Indiana (which voted for Obama by about 27,000 votes) and North Dakota (which voted for McCain by about 27,000 votes).
Senate
The Democrats did not lose one seat in the Senate and picked up six (so far). The Democrats won the open seat races in Virginia (win by Mark Warner), Colorado (win by Mark Udall) and New Mexico (win by cousin Tom Udall), each of which is currently held by a Republican. The Republicans won the open seat races in Nebraska (win by Mike Johanns) and Idaho (win by Jim Risch), also held by Republicans.
The Democrats added three more seats by ousting incumbents in New Hampshire (win by Jeanne Shaheen), North Carolina (win by Kay Hagan) and Oregon (win by Jeff Merkley).
Three races remain undecided.
Alaska: Alaska is still counting. The most recently tally puts challenger Mark Begich (D-Ak.) up by about 1,000 votes over incumbent Ted Stevens (R-Ak.). Begich should win. But if he doesn’t, I am not sure which is worse. Begich losing to a convicted felon. Or John Ashcroft’s 2000 loss to Mel Carnahan, who died before Election Day.
Minnesota: Minnesota is conducting a statutory recount. The latest numbers put the incumbent, Norm Colemen (R-Mn.), ahead of Al Franken (D-Mn.) by about 200 votes. This race is too close to call.
Georgia: Georgia will hold a runoff on December 2 because Georgia law requires a candidate to win a majority of the vote. Incumbent Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) fell short of that mark. Chambliss has the edge over challenger Jim Martin (D-Ga.) in round two.
House
The Democrats netted 19 House seats with 5 left undecided.
California 4: State Senator Tom McClintock (R-Ca.) leads Charlie Brown by about 600 votes.
Ohio 15: Steve Stivers (R-Oh.) leads Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Oh.) by about 150 votes.
Virginia 5: Not so good for Incumbent Virgil Goode (R-Va.), who trails Tom Perriello (D-Va.) by about 800 votes.
Louisiana 2: December 6 runoff. Incumbent Bill Jefferson (D-La.) is favored, despite an ongoing investigation of him by the FBI.
Louisiana 4: December 6 runoff to replace retiring Jim McCrery (R-La.) between John Fleming (R-La.) and Paul Carmouche (D-La.). Fleming is favored in this Republican district.
Surprises: Despite a federal probe of Alaska’s lone Congressman, Don Young (R-Ak.), he won reelection to his House seat. The Diaz-Balart brothers, Lincoln and Mario (R-Fl.), both won reelection in South Florida. Freshman Nancy Boyda (D-Ks.) lost her first bid for reelection in her Republican-leaning district. Michelle Bachmann (R-Mn.) won a second term despite calling Obama anti-American. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) won another term, although polls indicated he was headed for retirement. And Thelma Drake (R-Va.) lost her bid for a third term, though not once did I see her name appear on any list of vulnerable Republicans.
Looking Ahead
After losing the White House and losing more ground in the House and Senate, what will the Republican Party do? Will it return to the fiscal conservatism that characterized the party that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) led into power in 1994? Will it refocus on the social conservatism that Sarah Palin championed in the 2008 Presidential Election? Will it devolve into turmoil amidst infighting between the moderate and conservative factions? Will it go the way of the Whig Party?
People asked the same thing about the Democratic Party after the 2004 elections. It still exists. Although I suspect the reason for its survival has more to do with George W. Bush than it has to do with a conscious overhaul of the Democratic Party and Democratic principles.
So yes, the Republican Party will survive. But in what form is unclear.
The Republican Governors Association met for its annual meetings last week in Miami. The media was rife with speculation about the future of the Republican Party. The unpopularity of the Bush Administration and the age of 2008 Republican standard-bearer John McCain inevitably will leave a leadership gap at the top of the Party.
Who will lead a new Republican Party? Stars of 2008 like Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee? Members of the old guard like Newt Gingrich? Rising stars like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, and Congressman Eric Cantor (R-Va.)? Do the Republicans have a Barack Obama lying somewhere in wait? Well, probably not an African American one.
And how about the Democrats? The Age of Clinton, like the Age of Bush, is over. The Age of Obama has begun. But who will rise to the forefront of the Democrat Party now that the Democrats have returned to the White House?
I offer the following Democrats to watch.
Senator-Elect Mark Warner (D-Va.): Newly-elected Senator Mark Warner, who previously served as Governor of Virginia, has a knack for raising money and working across the aisle. Warner will spend his time in the Senate wisely in an attempt to set himself up for another run for the White House in 2016.
Senator Evan Bayh (D-In.): On the short-list for Democratic VP, who I believe only narrowly lost the job to Joe Biden, Bayh will solidify his status as the point-man for the moderate and conservative Democrats. Bayh will play an important role in building consensus to legislate the priorities of the incoming Obama Administration.
Governor Janet Napolitano (D-Az.): A former US Attorney and State Attorney General, Napolitano is highly qualified to become the next US Attorney General. She won two gubernatorial terms in a red state and appeals to both Democrats and Republicans.
Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.): Following in his predecessor’s (Rahm Emanuel’s) footsteps, Van Hollen led the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to expand Democratic control of the House of Representatives. Van Hollen is a foreign policy expert with extensive knowledge of the Middle East. I do not know what role Van Hollen may play in the Democratic Party, but after the 2008 elections, his stature has increased tremendously.
News of Note
2008 Governors’ Races: Each race unfolded as expected. No surprises here.
Rahm Emanuel: President-Elect Obama named Emanuel (R-Il.) as his White House Chief of Staff. Check out Obama’s 2005 roast of his new chief aide at http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=6208813.
Hillary Clinton: Obama met with his former rival for the Democratic nomination and purportedly offered her the position of Secretary of State. Why? Probably to follow the example of Abraham Lincoln, who brought his adversaries and rivals into his administration. And to effectively utilize Hillary and Bill in restoring the standing of the United States in the rest of the world. The combination of Secretary Clinton and former President Clinton overseeing American foreign policy will be formidable and likely very effective. Why would Hillary accept? Because she knows she will never be President. She has a long time to wait to become Chairman of a Senate Committee as she is the 10th most senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, 7th on the Special Committee on Aging, 5th on Environment and Public Works and 8th on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. And she is not in the Senate Democratic Leadership and has no easy entrée into it. Will she accept? More likely than not.
Sarah Palin: If Ted Stevens ultimately wins reelection, the Senate will likely expel him. Which leaves open the possibility that Sarah Palin may be the next Senator from Alaska. Gulp… What? Feel free to read that again. When asked about her interest in the United States Senate, she dismissed the possibility the same way Presidential candidates dismiss the possibility of running as the Vice Presidential candidate. With a wink and nod. Will Palin be a player in the post-Bush Republican Party? She will try to become one. Although unsuccessfully, even if she ends up in the Senate.
John McCain: Now that John McCain knows that he will never occupy the Oval Office (unlike after the 2000 Election when hope still remained), McCain will become McCain once again. I expect McCain to serve the Obama Administration nobly and work diligently to legislate a new clean energy policy. McCain will play a key role on Capitol Hill in effectuating the change that President-Elect Obama spoke of so often during his campaign. And he will once again be a thorn in the side of fellow Republicans.
House Republicans: In an effort to overhaul the House Republican Leadership, Congressman Dan Lundgren (R-Ca.) has decided to challenge Republican House Leader John Boehner (R-Oh.) for the top Republican spot in the House. Lundgren will probably lose, but his point will be made clearly.
Joe Lieberman: The Democrats will vote by secret ballot on the fate of Lieberman within the Democratic Caucus. The vote will determine whether Lieberman will be stripped of his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. However, the Democrats are not considering expelling Lieberman from the Democratic Senate Caucus, as Lieberman is a very loyal Democrat with respect to his voting record and policy positions (with the exception of the Iraq War).
------------------------------
Notes
Note 1: The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery, was ratified on December 6, 1865.
Note 2: The United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which judicially mandated desegregation, on May 17, 1954.
------------------------------
Sources
US Constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am13.html
Wikipedia: www.wikipedia.org
CNN: www.cnn.com/POLITICS
U. S. Senate: www.senate.gov
Monday, November 17, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Special Edition: Election Day 2008
Special Edition: Election Day, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
Where the Marathon Started
This past Sunday, November 2, 2008, hosted the running of the thirty-ninth annual New York City Marathon. Thousands of athletes gathered at the foot of the Verrazano Narrows Bridge on the east side of Staten Island in the cool, autumn morning to compete in the 26.2 mile road race. Just over two hours after the start, Brazilian Marilson Gomes dos Santos broke the finish line tape to place first, running down the leader, Moroccan Abderrahim Goumri, during the last mile in Central Park.
The 2008 Presidential Election started similarly. On an auspicious Wednesday, the day after Election Day 2004. Incumbent President George W. Bush (R-Tx.) was term limited in 2008. His Vice President, Dick Cheney (R-Wy.), lacked Presidential ambition. Which created the first open Presidential contest (where no sitting President or Vice President was seeking the White House) since 1928 (see Note 1 below).
The press started to circulate the names of Presidential hopefuls immediately. For the Democrats, the press focused on the inevitable nomination of Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). The press seemed to forget that only death is inevitable. They mentioned other names like Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Governor Mark Warner of Virginia and some guy who had not yet served one day in the United States Senate. A State Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. But they mentioned them only to create an interesting, albeit farfetched, scenario: a Democratic nominee other than Hillary Rodham Clinton.
For the Republicans, the field was wide and lacked a clear frontrunner. But those at the forefront included Senator George Allen (R-Va.), former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-N.Y.), Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R-Ma.), New York Governor George Pataki (R-N.Y.), Senator John McCain (R-Az.) and even Florida Governor Jeb Bush (R-Fl.).
The Race Takes Shape
At different mile markers, the demanding course of the Presidential Election pared down the fields. New candidates emerged, but more often existing candidates faltered.
Some candidates couldn’t raise the money, like George Pataki. Some rationally assessed the primary field, concluded they couldn’t win and decided to back another candidate, like former Governor Tom Vilsack (D-Ia.), who endorsed Hillary Clinton, or opted to seek a different office, like Mark Warner, who is the Democratic nominee for Senate in Virginia. And yet still others decided to remain in the race to make their views known, like Representative Ron Paul (R-Tx.), hope for a miracle, like former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-Ar.), or angle for the Vice Presidential slot, like Senator Joe Biden (D-De.).
Ultimately, two candidates emerged.
Senator John McCain won the Florida Republican Primary on January 29 and became the Republican frontrunner. Once Mitt Romney suspended his campaign on February 7, the Republican nomination contest essentially ended for the benefit of McCain.
Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fought on until June 3, when Montana and North Dakota held the last Democratic Primaries. However, Obama clinched the nomination earlier, probably after he won the Potomac Primaries in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia on February 12. The proportional allocation of Democratic Primary delegates made Obama’s delegate lead virtually insurmountable after February 12.
The General Election
The last leg of the New York City Marathon starts once runners cross over the Madison Avenue Bridge at mile number 21 and return onto Manhattan Island from the Bronx. The path traces Fifth Avenue south to the MoMA in the fifties until it turns west into Central Park for the homestretch. Sometimes the last few miles are a real race. Other times, the leader has already sewn up first place. But we never really know for sure until that first contestant tears through the finish line tape.
It isn’t over until it’s over. In politics especially. While Obama leads in the important swing state polls and is likely to win the Presidential Election, maybe voters will have a last minute change of heart. We will find out today.
The election homestretch is the two months between the Conventions and Election Day. And then Election Day.
Remember waiting for your college acceptance letter, your bar exam results, or your medical residency match? Remember the butterflies in your stomach as you opened the envelope or logged on to the website?
And then finally you get your answer. “Congratulations, Zachary!” Or, “Dear Zachary, After careful consider of your application, we regret to inform you…”
The Concession Call
Later tonight, candidates all across the country will receive not a letter, but a phone call. In Alaska, the phone call might go something like this. Words in brackets represent unspoken thoughts, not actual words.
Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D-Ak.): Hello?
Senator Ted Stevens (R-Ak.): Ted Stevens calling.
Begich: Good evening, Senator.
Stevens: I just wanted to call and congratulate you on winning the race. [Somehow your BS seems to have resonated with ignorant voters].
Begich: Thank you [for getting indicted in a federal corruption probe].
Stevens: I wish you all the best for your term in office. [And I mean term in the singular].
Begich: Thank you [for getting convicted eight days before the election].
Stevens: If there is anything I can do to help you serve the State of Alaska during the next six years [and only six years because you will never get reelected], please do not hesitate to ask [a fellow Democrat, if you can find one in Alaska].
Begich: I appreciate that Ted. Thanks for calling [me awful names during the campaign]. Take care [of yourself in prison].
Stevens: Same to you. So long [to my political career].
Election Day
Election Day is the ultimate dramatic crescendo. The ultimate binary outcome. Imagine dedicating your life to one goal for two years and then falling short. In elective politics, there is no consolation prize. Only the emotional toll of loss.
Over the past few weeks, more than a few people have worried to me out loud about an Obama loss. How John McCain, Karl Rove and the Republicans will pull the rabbit out of the hat. How the Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Again.
This is politics, so anything can happen. And predictions are merely educated guesses based in fact. According to a survey conducted by ESPN before Week 5 of the 2008 NFL season, every state in the country, except for Tennessee, picked the New York Giants to remain undefeated the longest. The Giants lost to the 1-3 Cleveland Browns in Week 5. The Tennessee Titans are now 8-0.
I say with confidence that this election year is different. The Republicans are running with one leg tied to a tree.
Today is political Judgment Day. Two years or more, billions of dollars and hundreds of realized and crushed dreams later, the 2008 election cycle will end. The losers will go home and the winners will go to Washington to work on nearly impossible public policy issues and to start campaigning and raising money all over again.
To the victors I say congratulations and good luck. They will need it.
The Victors
My predictions for the outcomes of the 2008 elections are below. The winners are denoted in capital letters. Incumbents are denoted with an *.
The White House
Electoral College
BARACK OBAMA: 356 Electoral Votes
John McCain: 182 Electoral Votes
Popular Vote
BARACK OBAMA: 51.6%
John McCain: 47.4%
Swing States
BARACK OBAMA: Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio and Virginia
John McCain: Georgia, Indiana and Missouri.
Concession Speech by John McCain: 11:26 PM EST.
The Senate
As I predicted in August, each of the 12 Senate Democrats seeking reelection in 2008 will win. Of the 18 Republicans seeking reelection, 10 will cruise to a safe victory. That leaves 8 vulnerable Republican incumbents and 5 open seat contests.
Pre-Election Day 2008, the Senate is composed of 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 2 Independents. The 2 Independents, Senators Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernard Sanders of Vermont, both caucus with the Democratic Party, which explains the Democratic Majority.
Post-Election Day 2008, I predict that the Senate composition will be 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans and 2 Independents. Which will give the Democrats the necessary 60 votes for cloture. Unless Lieberman, who endorsed John McCain in the 2008 Presidential Election and spoke at the Republican National Convention, bolts for the Republican Party. Or the Democrats kick him out of the Democratic Caucus. Something to watch closely after Election Day.
I am confident that the Democrats will pick up at least 7 seats. Georgia and Minnesota are less certain. In each state, I opted for Democratic pickups because of how I believe Obama’s coattails will affect the Senate races. However, if no candidate in the Georgia Senate race achieves a majority of the popular vote, a runoff occurs. Without the fervor during the runoff that the top of the Democratic ticket will engender today, the Republican has an advantage if a runoff happens. Further, there is an outside chance that the Democrats will oust the incumbents in Mississippi (Republican Roger Wicker) and Kentucky (Republican, and Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell). But the most recent polls have eroded my confidence.
The Senate Races
Alaska: Democrats +1
Democrat: MARK BEGICH
Republican: Ted Stevens*
Colorado (Open): Democrats +1
Democrat: MARK UDALL
Republican: Bob Schaffer
Georgia: Democrats +1
Democrat: JIM MARTIN
Republican: Saxby Chambliss*
Idaho (Open):
Democrat: Larry LaRocco
Republican: JIM RISCH*
Kentucky:
Democrat: Bruce Lunsford
Republican: MITCH MCCONNELL”
Minnesota: Democrats +1
Democrat: AL FRANKEN
Republican: Norm Coleman*
Independent: Dean Barkley
Mississippi (Special):
Democrat: Ronnie Musgrove
Republican: ROGER WICKER*
Nebraska (Open):
Democrat: Scott Kleeb
Republican: MIKE JOHANNS
New Hampshire: Democrats +1
Democrat: JEANNE SHAHEEN
Republican: John Sununu*
New Mexico (Open): Democrats +1
Democrat: TOM UDALL
Republican: Steve Pearce
North Carolina: Democrats +1
Democrat: KAY HAGAN
Republican: Elizabeth Dole*
Oregon: Democrats +1
Democrat: JEFF MERKLEY
Republican: Gordon Smith*
Virginia (Open): Democrats +1
Democrat: MARK WARNER
Republican: Jim Gilmore
The House
I could list all 435 House races. But I will not. Instead, I will go state-by-state and note where the Democrats and Republicans will pick up seats.
The current make-up of the U.S. House of Representatives is 235 Democrats, 199 Republicans and 1 vacant seat (caused by the death of Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Oh.)).
I predict that the Democrats will have a net gain of 34 Congressional seats on Election Day. When the 111th Congress is sworn in at the beginning of January 2009, there will be 270 Democrats and 165 Republicans.
The Houses Races
Alabama: Bobby Bright (D) will pick up the open Republican seat in AL-02. Democrats +1.
Alaska: Ethan Berkowitz (D) will defeat incumbent Don Young (R) in AK-At Large. Democrats +1.
Arizona: Ann Kirkpatrick (D) will pick up the open AZ-01 seat. Democrats +1.
Arkansas: No change.
California: In CA-04, Charlie Brown (D) will win the seat in his second attempt. Democrats +1.
Connecticut: Incumbent Chris Shays (R) will lose this time to give Connecticut a full Democratic Congressional slate. Democrats +1.
Colorado: Incumbent Marilyn Musgrave (R) will lose to Betsy Markey (D) in CO-04. Democrats +1.
Delaware: No change.
District of Columbia: No change.
Florida: In FL-08, Alan Grayson (D) will upset incumbent Ric Keller (R). In FL-16, Tom Rooney (R) will oust freshman Tim Mahoney (D). In FL-21, incumbent Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R) will lose, as will his brother, Mario Diaz-Balart (R), in FL-25. Democrat Suzanne Kosmas (D) also will defeat incumbent Tom Feeney (R) in FL-24. Democrats +3.
Georgia: No change.
Hawaii: No change.
Idaho: Freshman Bill Sali (R) will lose in ID-01. Democrats +1.
Illinois: Republicans will lose two seats in Illinois, IL-10 and IL-11. Dan Seals (D) will defeat incumbent Mark Kirk (R) and Debbie Halvorson (D) will win the IL-11 open seat race. Democrats +2.
Indiana: Twenty-six year old Mike Montagano (D) will defeat incumbent Mark Souder (R). Democrats +1.
Iowa: No change.
Louisiana: No change.
Kansas: No change.
Kentucky: No change.
Maine: No change.
Maryland: Frank Kratovil (D) will take the MD-01 open seat over conservative Andrew Harris (R). Democrats +1.
Massachusetts: No change.
Michigan: Mark Schauer (D) will defeat freshman Tim Walberg (R) in MI-07. Gary Peters (D) will oust incumbent Joe Knollenberg (R) in MI-09. Democrats +2.
Minnesota: Ashwin Madia (D) will score an upset and take the open MN-03 seat. Democrats also will pick up the MN-06 seat held by freshman Michelle Bachmann (R). Democrats +2.
Mississippi: No change.
Missouri: Judy Baker (D) will win a close MO-09 race to replace Kenny Hulshof (R), who is running for Governor. Democrats +1.
Montana: No change.
Nebraska: No change.
Nevada: Dina Titus (D) will beat incumbent Jon Porter (R). Democrats +1.
New Hampshire: No change.
New Jersey: John Adler (D) will take the open NJ-03 seat. Democrats +1.
New York: Mike McMahon (D) will pick up the open NY-13 seat. Dan Maffei (D) will win in NY-25 on his second try. Eric Massa (D) will win his rematch with incumbent Randy Kuhl (R) in NY-29. Democrats +3.
New Mexico: Martin Heinrich (D) will win in the open NM-01 race and Harry Teague (D) will win the open NM-02 seat. These two wins will give Democrats all 3 New Mexico Congressional seats. Democrats +2.
North Carolina: Larry Kissell (D) will win his rematch against incumbent Robin Hayes (R) in NC-08. Democrats +1.
North Dakota: No change.
Ohio: Steve Driehaus (D) will beat incumbent Steve Chabot (R) in OH-01. On her second attempt, Mary Jo Kilroy (D) will take the OH-15 seat. And in OH-16, the Democrats will pick up the seat being vacated by incumbent Ralph Regula (R). Democrats +3.
Oklahoma: No change.
Pennsylvania: Kathy Dahlkemper (D) will defeat incumbent Phil English (R) in PA-03. Republicans will score a rare pickup in PA-11 by defeating incumbent Paul Kanjorski (D). No change.
Oregon: No change.
Rhode Island: No change.
South Carolina: Linda Ketner (D) ousts incumbent Henry Brown (R) in an upset in SC-01.
South Dakota: No change.
Tennessee: No change.
Texas: Tom DeLay’s (R) old TX-22 seat will go right back to the Republicans after held by Nick Lampson (D) for one term. Republicans +1.
Utah: No change.
Vermont: No change.
Virginia: In a surprise upset, VA-05’s Virgil Goode (R) will lose to Tom Perriello (D). Gerry Connolly (D) will pick up the VA-11 seat being vacated by incumbent Tom Davis (R). Democrats +2.
Washington State: Darcy Burner (D) will win her rematch against incumbent Dave Reichert (R) in WA-08. Democrats +1.
West Virginia: No change.
Wisconsin: No change.
Wyoming: In an upset, Gary Trauner (D) will pick up the open WY-At Large seat. Democrats +1.
The Governors
All but two races are virtual certainties.
Democrats Jack Markell in Delaware, Governor Brian Schweitzer in Montana, Governor John Lynch in New Hampshire, Governor Joe Manchin in West Virginia and State Attorney General Jay Nixon in Missouri will all win. The Democrats will net one Governorship with Nixon’s win to replace the retiring incumbent Governor, Republican Matt Blunt.
Republican incumbent Governors Mitch Daniels in Indiana, John Hoeven in North Dakota and Jim Douglas in Vermont will win reelection.
The two question marks are North Carolina and Washington State.
However, because of the Obama factor, I think both will fall for the Democrats. That means a first term for North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Bev Perdue (D) and reelection for Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire (D).
Conclusion
Election Day 2008 will produce an influx of new Democratic officeholders in the House and Senate and in the Executive Branch. It will produce unified Democratic control of Congress and the White House, which the Democratic Party has not enjoyed since the first two years of the Clinton Administration from 1993 - 1995.
Given the serious issues facing the next President, global terrorism, the War in Iraq, the struggling economy, the millions of Americans without healthcare, energy independence and nuclear proliferation and those issues that have yet to surface, an undivided government will provide very actionable opportunities to address these issues. Whether the Democrats will take advantage of the opportunity and if they do, whether they will make the right decisions remains to be seen.
We will get the first report card on the Democratically-controlled federal government two years from today, after the 2010 mid-term elections.
Current Events of Note
White House Chief of Staff: I read a news report that indicated that the Obama camp has made overtures to House Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel (D-Il.) about Emanuel serving as Obama’s White House Chief of Staff. Emanuel formerly served in the Clinton Administration and as the Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the arm of the House Democratic Caucus responsible for retaking control of the House in 2006, during the 2006 election cycle. The current Chairman is Chris Van Hollen of Maryland (D-Md.).
The Bradley Effect Redefined: Does the Bradley Effect really exist? The Bradley Effect is named for former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African American, who ran for Governor of California against George Deukmejian (R-Ca.) in 1982 (as well as in 1986) and lost (twice). Some polls leading up to the 1982 Election gave Bradley the lead, but he lost on Election Day. The Bradley Effect theorized that some voters told pollsters they would vote for Bradley, but then did not because he was African American. The existence of the effect is questionable (and the results from the 1982 California gubernatorial election make that clear). But now some suggest a different Bradley Effect, that of undecided voters telling pollsters that they are undecided when they have in fact already decided to vote for John McCain. We will know for sure when we see the election returns.
Voter Turnout: Expectations are high for a record turnout on Election Day. Many voters have exercised the opportunity to vote early or vote absentee in order to avoid lines at the polls. High turnout favors Obama because the traditionally underrepresented demographics at the polls are reliable Obama vote bases.
Get Out and Vote: If you need another reminder, here it is. If you have not done so already, GO VOTE!
------------------------------
Notes:
Note 1:
1932: Incumbent President Herbert Hoover sought (and won) the Republican nomination.
1936, 1940, 1944: Incumbent President Franklin Roosevelt sought (and won) the Democratic nomination.
1948: Incumbent President Harry Truman sought (and won) the Democratic nomination.
1952: Incumbent Vice President Alben Barkley sought (and lost) the Democratic nomination.
1956: Incumbent President Dwight Eisenhower sought (and won) the Republican nomination.
1960: Incumbent Vice President Richard Nixon sought (and won) the Republican nomination.
1964: Incumbent President Lyndon Johnson sought (and won) the Democratic nomination.
1968: Incumbent Vice President Hubert Humphrey sought (and won) the Democratic nomination.
1972: Incumbent President Richard Nixon sought (and won) the Republican nomination.
1976: Incumbent President Gerald Ford sought (and won) the Republican nomination.
1980: Incumbent President Jimmy Carter sought (and won) the Democratic nomination.
1984: Incumbent President Ronald Reagan sought (and won) the Republican nomination.
1988: Incumbent Vice President George H. W. Bush sought (and won) the Republican nomination.
1992: Incumbent President George H. W. Bush sought (and won) the Republican nomination.
1996: Incumbent President Bill Clinton sought (and won) the Democratic nomination.
2000: Incumbent Vice President Al Gore sought (and won) the Democratic nomination.
2004: Incumbent President George W. Bush sought (and won) the Republican nomination.
------------------------------
Sources:
New York City Marathon: http://www.nycmarathon.org/results/index.php.
Real Clear Politics: www.realclearpolitics.com
Politics1: www.politics1.com
Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections: www.uselectionatlas.org
Democratic Senate Campaign Committee: www.dscc.org
Wikipedia: www.wikipedia.com
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
Where the Marathon Started
This past Sunday, November 2, 2008, hosted the running of the thirty-ninth annual New York City Marathon. Thousands of athletes gathered at the foot of the Verrazano Narrows Bridge on the east side of Staten Island in the cool, autumn morning to compete in the 26.2 mile road race. Just over two hours after the start, Brazilian Marilson Gomes dos Santos broke the finish line tape to place first, running down the leader, Moroccan Abderrahim Goumri, during the last mile in Central Park.
The 2008 Presidential Election started similarly. On an auspicious Wednesday, the day after Election Day 2004. Incumbent President George W. Bush (R-Tx.) was term limited in 2008. His Vice President, Dick Cheney (R-Wy.), lacked Presidential ambition. Which created the first open Presidential contest (where no sitting President or Vice President was seeking the White House) since 1928 (see Note 1 below).
The press started to circulate the names of Presidential hopefuls immediately. For the Democrats, the press focused on the inevitable nomination of Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). The press seemed to forget that only death is inevitable. They mentioned other names like Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Governor Mark Warner of Virginia and some guy who had not yet served one day in the United States Senate. A State Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. But they mentioned them only to create an interesting, albeit farfetched, scenario: a Democratic nominee other than Hillary Rodham Clinton.
For the Republicans, the field was wide and lacked a clear frontrunner. But those at the forefront included Senator George Allen (R-Va.), former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-N.Y.), Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R-Ma.), New York Governor George Pataki (R-N.Y.), Senator John McCain (R-Az.) and even Florida Governor Jeb Bush (R-Fl.).
The Race Takes Shape
At different mile markers, the demanding course of the Presidential Election pared down the fields. New candidates emerged, but more often existing candidates faltered.
Some candidates couldn’t raise the money, like George Pataki. Some rationally assessed the primary field, concluded they couldn’t win and decided to back another candidate, like former Governor Tom Vilsack (D-Ia.), who endorsed Hillary Clinton, or opted to seek a different office, like Mark Warner, who is the Democratic nominee for Senate in Virginia. And yet still others decided to remain in the race to make their views known, like Representative Ron Paul (R-Tx.), hope for a miracle, like former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-Ar.), or angle for the Vice Presidential slot, like Senator Joe Biden (D-De.).
Ultimately, two candidates emerged.
Senator John McCain won the Florida Republican Primary on January 29 and became the Republican frontrunner. Once Mitt Romney suspended his campaign on February 7, the Republican nomination contest essentially ended for the benefit of McCain.
Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fought on until June 3, when Montana and North Dakota held the last Democratic Primaries. However, Obama clinched the nomination earlier, probably after he won the Potomac Primaries in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia on February 12. The proportional allocation of Democratic Primary delegates made Obama’s delegate lead virtually insurmountable after February 12.
The General Election
The last leg of the New York City Marathon starts once runners cross over the Madison Avenue Bridge at mile number 21 and return onto Manhattan Island from the Bronx. The path traces Fifth Avenue south to the MoMA in the fifties until it turns west into Central Park for the homestretch. Sometimes the last few miles are a real race. Other times, the leader has already sewn up first place. But we never really know for sure until that first contestant tears through the finish line tape.
It isn’t over until it’s over. In politics especially. While Obama leads in the important swing state polls and is likely to win the Presidential Election, maybe voters will have a last minute change of heart. We will find out today.
The election homestretch is the two months between the Conventions and Election Day. And then Election Day.
Remember waiting for your college acceptance letter, your bar exam results, or your medical residency match? Remember the butterflies in your stomach as you opened the envelope or logged on to the website?
And then finally you get your answer. “Congratulations, Zachary!” Or, “Dear Zachary, After careful consider of your application, we regret to inform you…”
The Concession Call
Later tonight, candidates all across the country will receive not a letter, but a phone call. In Alaska, the phone call might go something like this. Words in brackets represent unspoken thoughts, not actual words.
Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D-Ak.): Hello?
Senator Ted Stevens (R-Ak.): Ted Stevens calling.
Begich: Good evening, Senator.
Stevens: I just wanted to call and congratulate you on winning the race. [Somehow your BS seems to have resonated with ignorant voters].
Begich: Thank you [for getting indicted in a federal corruption probe].
Stevens: I wish you all the best for your term in office. [And I mean term in the singular].
Begich: Thank you [for getting convicted eight days before the election].
Stevens: If there is anything I can do to help you serve the State of Alaska during the next six years [and only six years because you will never get reelected], please do not hesitate to ask [a fellow Democrat, if you can find one in Alaska].
Begich: I appreciate that Ted. Thanks for calling [me awful names during the campaign]. Take care [of yourself in prison].
Stevens: Same to you. So long [to my political career].
Election Day
Election Day is the ultimate dramatic crescendo. The ultimate binary outcome. Imagine dedicating your life to one goal for two years and then falling short. In elective politics, there is no consolation prize. Only the emotional toll of loss.
Over the past few weeks, more than a few people have worried to me out loud about an Obama loss. How John McCain, Karl Rove and the Republicans will pull the rabbit out of the hat. How the Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Again.
This is politics, so anything can happen. And predictions are merely educated guesses based in fact. According to a survey conducted by ESPN before Week 5 of the 2008 NFL season, every state in the country, except for Tennessee, picked the New York Giants to remain undefeated the longest. The Giants lost to the 1-3 Cleveland Browns in Week 5. The Tennessee Titans are now 8-0.
I say with confidence that this election year is different. The Republicans are running with one leg tied to a tree.
Today is political Judgment Day. Two years or more, billions of dollars and hundreds of realized and crushed dreams later, the 2008 election cycle will end. The losers will go home and the winners will go to Washington to work on nearly impossible public policy issues and to start campaigning and raising money all over again.
To the victors I say congratulations and good luck. They will need it.
The Victors
My predictions for the outcomes of the 2008 elections are below. The winners are denoted in capital letters. Incumbents are denoted with an *.
The White House
Electoral College
BARACK OBAMA: 356 Electoral Votes
John McCain: 182 Electoral Votes
Popular Vote
BARACK OBAMA: 51.6%
John McCain: 47.4%
Swing States
BARACK OBAMA: Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio and Virginia
John McCain: Georgia, Indiana and Missouri.
Concession Speech by John McCain: 11:26 PM EST.
The Senate
As I predicted in August, each of the 12 Senate Democrats seeking reelection in 2008 will win. Of the 18 Republicans seeking reelection, 10 will cruise to a safe victory. That leaves 8 vulnerable Republican incumbents and 5 open seat contests.
Pre-Election Day 2008, the Senate is composed of 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 2 Independents. The 2 Independents, Senators Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernard Sanders of Vermont, both caucus with the Democratic Party, which explains the Democratic Majority.
Post-Election Day 2008, I predict that the Senate composition will be 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans and 2 Independents. Which will give the Democrats the necessary 60 votes for cloture. Unless Lieberman, who endorsed John McCain in the 2008 Presidential Election and spoke at the Republican National Convention, bolts for the Republican Party. Or the Democrats kick him out of the Democratic Caucus. Something to watch closely after Election Day.
I am confident that the Democrats will pick up at least 7 seats. Georgia and Minnesota are less certain. In each state, I opted for Democratic pickups because of how I believe Obama’s coattails will affect the Senate races. However, if no candidate in the Georgia Senate race achieves a majority of the popular vote, a runoff occurs. Without the fervor during the runoff that the top of the Democratic ticket will engender today, the Republican has an advantage if a runoff happens. Further, there is an outside chance that the Democrats will oust the incumbents in Mississippi (Republican Roger Wicker) and Kentucky (Republican, and Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell). But the most recent polls have eroded my confidence.
The Senate Races
Alaska: Democrats +1
Democrat: MARK BEGICH
Republican: Ted Stevens*
Colorado (Open): Democrats +1
Democrat: MARK UDALL
Republican: Bob Schaffer
Georgia: Democrats +1
Democrat: JIM MARTIN
Republican: Saxby Chambliss*
Idaho (Open):
Democrat: Larry LaRocco
Republican: JIM RISCH*
Kentucky:
Democrat: Bruce Lunsford
Republican: MITCH MCCONNELL”
Minnesota: Democrats +1
Democrat: AL FRANKEN
Republican: Norm Coleman*
Independent: Dean Barkley
Mississippi (Special):
Democrat: Ronnie Musgrove
Republican: ROGER WICKER*
Nebraska (Open):
Democrat: Scott Kleeb
Republican: MIKE JOHANNS
New Hampshire: Democrats +1
Democrat: JEANNE SHAHEEN
Republican: John Sununu*
New Mexico (Open): Democrats +1
Democrat: TOM UDALL
Republican: Steve Pearce
North Carolina: Democrats +1
Democrat: KAY HAGAN
Republican: Elizabeth Dole*
Oregon: Democrats +1
Democrat: JEFF MERKLEY
Republican: Gordon Smith*
Virginia (Open): Democrats +1
Democrat: MARK WARNER
Republican: Jim Gilmore
The House
I could list all 435 House races. But I will not. Instead, I will go state-by-state and note where the Democrats and Republicans will pick up seats.
The current make-up of the U.S. House of Representatives is 235 Democrats, 199 Republicans and 1 vacant seat (caused by the death of Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Oh.)).
I predict that the Democrats will have a net gain of 34 Congressional seats on Election Day. When the 111th Congress is sworn in at the beginning of January 2009, there will be 270 Democrats and 165 Republicans.
The Houses Races
Alabama: Bobby Bright (D) will pick up the open Republican seat in AL-02. Democrats +1.
Alaska: Ethan Berkowitz (D) will defeat incumbent Don Young (R) in AK-At Large. Democrats +1.
Arizona: Ann Kirkpatrick (D) will pick up the open AZ-01 seat. Democrats +1.
Arkansas: No change.
California: In CA-04, Charlie Brown (D) will win the seat in his second attempt. Democrats +1.
Connecticut: Incumbent Chris Shays (R) will lose this time to give Connecticut a full Democratic Congressional slate. Democrats +1.
Colorado: Incumbent Marilyn Musgrave (R) will lose to Betsy Markey (D) in CO-04. Democrats +1.
Delaware: No change.
District of Columbia: No change.
Florida: In FL-08, Alan Grayson (D) will upset incumbent Ric Keller (R). In FL-16, Tom Rooney (R) will oust freshman Tim Mahoney (D). In FL-21, incumbent Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R) will lose, as will his brother, Mario Diaz-Balart (R), in FL-25. Democrat Suzanne Kosmas (D) also will defeat incumbent Tom Feeney (R) in FL-24. Democrats +3.
Georgia: No change.
Hawaii: No change.
Idaho: Freshman Bill Sali (R) will lose in ID-01. Democrats +1.
Illinois: Republicans will lose two seats in Illinois, IL-10 and IL-11. Dan Seals (D) will defeat incumbent Mark Kirk (R) and Debbie Halvorson (D) will win the IL-11 open seat race. Democrats +2.
Indiana: Twenty-six year old Mike Montagano (D) will defeat incumbent Mark Souder (R). Democrats +1.
Iowa: No change.
Louisiana: No change.
Kansas: No change.
Kentucky: No change.
Maine: No change.
Maryland: Frank Kratovil (D) will take the MD-01 open seat over conservative Andrew Harris (R). Democrats +1.
Massachusetts: No change.
Michigan: Mark Schauer (D) will defeat freshman Tim Walberg (R) in MI-07. Gary Peters (D) will oust incumbent Joe Knollenberg (R) in MI-09. Democrats +2.
Minnesota: Ashwin Madia (D) will score an upset and take the open MN-03 seat. Democrats also will pick up the MN-06 seat held by freshman Michelle Bachmann (R). Democrats +2.
Mississippi: No change.
Missouri: Judy Baker (D) will win a close MO-09 race to replace Kenny Hulshof (R), who is running for Governor. Democrats +1.
Montana: No change.
Nebraska: No change.
Nevada: Dina Titus (D) will beat incumbent Jon Porter (R). Democrats +1.
New Hampshire: No change.
New Jersey: John Adler (D) will take the open NJ-03 seat. Democrats +1.
New York: Mike McMahon (D) will pick up the open NY-13 seat. Dan Maffei (D) will win in NY-25 on his second try. Eric Massa (D) will win his rematch with incumbent Randy Kuhl (R) in NY-29. Democrats +3.
New Mexico: Martin Heinrich (D) will win in the open NM-01 race and Harry Teague (D) will win the open NM-02 seat. These two wins will give Democrats all 3 New Mexico Congressional seats. Democrats +2.
North Carolina: Larry Kissell (D) will win his rematch against incumbent Robin Hayes (R) in NC-08. Democrats +1.
North Dakota: No change.
Ohio: Steve Driehaus (D) will beat incumbent Steve Chabot (R) in OH-01. On her second attempt, Mary Jo Kilroy (D) will take the OH-15 seat. And in OH-16, the Democrats will pick up the seat being vacated by incumbent Ralph Regula (R). Democrats +3.
Oklahoma: No change.
Pennsylvania: Kathy Dahlkemper (D) will defeat incumbent Phil English (R) in PA-03. Republicans will score a rare pickup in PA-11 by defeating incumbent Paul Kanjorski (D). No change.
Oregon: No change.
Rhode Island: No change.
South Carolina: Linda Ketner (D) ousts incumbent Henry Brown (R) in an upset in SC-01.
South Dakota: No change.
Tennessee: No change.
Texas: Tom DeLay’s (R) old TX-22 seat will go right back to the Republicans after held by Nick Lampson (D) for one term. Republicans +1.
Utah: No change.
Vermont: No change.
Virginia: In a surprise upset, VA-05’s Virgil Goode (R) will lose to Tom Perriello (D). Gerry Connolly (D) will pick up the VA-11 seat being vacated by incumbent Tom Davis (R). Democrats +2.
Washington State: Darcy Burner (D) will win her rematch against incumbent Dave Reichert (R) in WA-08. Democrats +1.
West Virginia: No change.
Wisconsin: No change.
Wyoming: In an upset, Gary Trauner (D) will pick up the open WY-At Large seat. Democrats +1.
The Governors
All but two races are virtual certainties.
Democrats Jack Markell in Delaware, Governor Brian Schweitzer in Montana, Governor John Lynch in New Hampshire, Governor Joe Manchin in West Virginia and State Attorney General Jay Nixon in Missouri will all win. The Democrats will net one Governorship with Nixon’s win to replace the retiring incumbent Governor, Republican Matt Blunt.
Republican incumbent Governors Mitch Daniels in Indiana, John Hoeven in North Dakota and Jim Douglas in Vermont will win reelection.
The two question marks are North Carolina and Washington State.
However, because of the Obama factor, I think both will fall for the Democrats. That means a first term for North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Bev Perdue (D) and reelection for Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire (D).
Conclusion
Election Day 2008 will produce an influx of new Democratic officeholders in the House and Senate and in the Executive Branch. It will produce unified Democratic control of Congress and the White House, which the Democratic Party has not enjoyed since the first two years of the Clinton Administration from 1993 - 1995.
Given the serious issues facing the next President, global terrorism, the War in Iraq, the struggling economy, the millions of Americans without healthcare, energy independence and nuclear proliferation and those issues that have yet to surface, an undivided government will provide very actionable opportunities to address these issues. Whether the Democrats will take advantage of the opportunity and if they do, whether they will make the right decisions remains to be seen.
We will get the first report card on the Democratically-controlled federal government two years from today, after the 2010 mid-term elections.
Current Events of Note
White House Chief of Staff: I read a news report that indicated that the Obama camp has made overtures to House Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel (D-Il.) about Emanuel serving as Obama’s White House Chief of Staff. Emanuel formerly served in the Clinton Administration and as the Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the arm of the House Democratic Caucus responsible for retaking control of the House in 2006, during the 2006 election cycle. The current Chairman is Chris Van Hollen of Maryland (D-Md.).
The Bradley Effect Redefined: Does the Bradley Effect really exist? The Bradley Effect is named for former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African American, who ran for Governor of California against George Deukmejian (R-Ca.) in 1982 (as well as in 1986) and lost (twice). Some polls leading up to the 1982 Election gave Bradley the lead, but he lost on Election Day. The Bradley Effect theorized that some voters told pollsters they would vote for Bradley, but then did not because he was African American. The existence of the effect is questionable (and the results from the 1982 California gubernatorial election make that clear). But now some suggest a different Bradley Effect, that of undecided voters telling pollsters that they are undecided when they have in fact already decided to vote for John McCain. We will know for sure when we see the election returns.
Voter Turnout: Expectations are high for a record turnout on Election Day. Many voters have exercised the opportunity to vote early or vote absentee in order to avoid lines at the polls. High turnout favors Obama because the traditionally underrepresented demographics at the polls are reliable Obama vote bases.
Get Out and Vote: If you need another reminder, here it is. If you have not done so already, GO VOTE!
------------------------------
Notes:
Note 1:
1932: Incumbent President Herbert Hoover sought (and won) the Republican nomination.
1936, 1940, 1944: Incumbent President Franklin Roosevelt sought (and won) the Democratic nomination.
1948: Incumbent President Harry Truman sought (and won) the Democratic nomination.
1952: Incumbent Vice President Alben Barkley sought (and lost) the Democratic nomination.
1956: Incumbent President Dwight Eisenhower sought (and won) the Republican nomination.
1960: Incumbent Vice President Richard Nixon sought (and won) the Republican nomination.
1964: Incumbent President Lyndon Johnson sought (and won) the Democratic nomination.
1968: Incumbent Vice President Hubert Humphrey sought (and won) the Democratic nomination.
1972: Incumbent President Richard Nixon sought (and won) the Republican nomination.
1976: Incumbent President Gerald Ford sought (and won) the Republican nomination.
1980: Incumbent President Jimmy Carter sought (and won) the Democratic nomination.
1984: Incumbent President Ronald Reagan sought (and won) the Republican nomination.
1988: Incumbent Vice President George H. W. Bush sought (and won) the Republican nomination.
1992: Incumbent President George H. W. Bush sought (and won) the Republican nomination.
1996: Incumbent President Bill Clinton sought (and won) the Democratic nomination.
2000: Incumbent Vice President Al Gore sought (and won) the Democratic nomination.
2004: Incumbent President George W. Bush sought (and won) the Republican nomination.
------------------------------
Sources:
New York City Marathon: http://www.nycmarathon.org/results/index.php.
Real Clear Politics: www.realclearpolitics.com
Politics1: www.politics1.com
Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections: www.uselectionatlas.org
Democratic Senate Campaign Committee: www.dscc.org
Wikipedia: www.wikipedia.com
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
A Political World with No Limits
A Political World with No Limits
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
Last Thursday, the New York City Council voted 29 – 22 to permit incumbent Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I-N.Y.) to seek a third mayoral term, extending the current eight year citywide limit to twelve years. Therefore, not only may Mayor Bloomberg seek a third term, but so may each of the fifty-one members of the New York City Council. Without the extension, approximately two thirds of the City Council would have been prohibited from seeking reelection in 2009.
The vote of the City Council supersedes a previous referendum passed by New York City voters in 1993, which imposed the two-term limit. In 1996, the City Council first attempted to extend two-terms to three-terms, but voters rejected the extension in another referendum.
How do you feel about the New York City Council vote? Are you in favor of term limits? Against? Ambivalent?
Articles of Confederation
The concept of term limits dates back to ancient Athens. Term limits were also considered by the Founding Fathers of the United States and incorporated into the Articles of Confederation, ratified on March 1, 1781, which governed the United States of America before adoption of the Constitution of the United States.
Article V of the Articles of Confederation set forth, “no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years…” While this provision did not set a hard limit on duration of service, it did serve to maintain a constant flow of new personnel into Congress.
As I was reading the Articles of Confederation, I came across an interesting provision (although one that has no relevance whatsoever to term limits). Article XI states, “Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.” Canada did not have to do anything to become part of the United States. We made it easy. And still, it decided to go it alone!
United States Constitution
The United States Constitution, ratified on June 21, 1788 after New Hampshire approved it (see Note 1 below), which amended (or more accurately, replaced) the Articles of Confederation, did not make any provision for term limits. Therefore, under the Constitution as originally ratified, any President, United States Senator or Representative could serve indefinitely.
The George Washington Example
After two terms as President of the United States, George Washington declined to run for reelection in 1796, even after being urged to do so. Because the United States had only been led by one President, its first President, the first transition of power had yet to occur. Washington’s retirement paved the way for the first real Presidential Election and the first real test of the durability of the mechanisms that the Constitution put in place to transition to a new political regime.
Keep in mind that back in 1796, no one knew with certainty whether an orderly transition would occur. The last government transition in which America participated was the Revolutionary War.
The two-term example that Washington set persisted until 1940. Although whether subsequent officeholders never served more than two terms in an effort to honor America’s patriarch, support the idea of term limits or pursue some other agenda, no one knows.
Bucking the Trend
In 1940, Franklin Roosevelt decided to seek a third term as President, which he won. Roosevelt also won a fourth term in 1944. If FDR had not died during year 13 of his Presidency, he might even have sought a fifth term.
Why? Probably because of the developing war in Europe. Roosevelt was a strong leader that had led the nation through the Great Depression. He had tremendous brand value across the United States. And with strong Republican gains in Congress during the 1938 elections, the Democratic Party likely opted to nominate its strongest candidate, who happened to be the incumbent President. World War II logically explains why Roosevelt sought a fourth term, which Roosevelt won in 1944.
The Twenty-Second Amendment
Following the conclusion of World War II, Congress reacted by passing the Twenty-Second Amendment, ratified on February 27, 1951, which prohibited a President from serving more than two full terms. While the Amendment specifically exempted the currently serving President, then Harry Truman, from the two-term limit, Truman voluntarily stepped down after serving the remainder of FDR’s fourth term and one term of his own.
The text of the Twenty-Second Amendment reads, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.”
In practice, the Amendment means that a President can only serve more than two terms if he becomes President by succession (i.e. he is the Vice President and the President dies, resigns or is thrown out of office) with less than two years left in the term.
For example, President John Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. When Vice President Lyndon Johnson succeeded to the Presidency, he served the rest of Kennedy’s term, which was less than two years (Presidential terms, currently, run from noon on January 20 following the Election until 11:59 AM January 20 for years later). Therefore, Johnson could have run for reelection in 1964, which he did, and 1968, which he did not.
The States
Term limits existed among the States even prior to the Articles of Confederation, reaching back to the Pennsylvania Charter of Liberties of 1682, which provided for a triennial rotation of officeholders on the Provincial Council (see Note 2 below).
Today, in some form or another, thirty-six States have term limits.
Some states have a strict term limit, meaning that an officeholder can serve no more than a certain number of consecutive terms. For example, Arizona limits gubernatorial service to two terms. Therefore, incumbent Governor Janet Napolitano (D-Az.) cannot stand for reelection in 2010.
Others have a term limit within a specified period of time. For example, Virginia limits service by prohibiting the Governor from serving consecutive terms. So incumbent Governor Tim Kaine (D-Va.) cannot seek reelection in 2009; however, he can seek reelection in 2013.
Still other states have no term limits. For example, North Dakota, where incumbent Governor John Hoeven (R-N.D.) is now running for his third consecutive term.
The Arguments for Term Limits
- They provide a constant influx of new officeholders, which brings new personalities, new ideas and new energy. But is this a good or bad thing? What if Congress (as hard as this might be to believe), is doing a good job? Do we always want new blood?
- They add an additional check on political entrenchment and entrenchment often leads to abuses of power and office. The more power an officeholder accumulates over time, the more valuable he becomes to corporations and industry groups to affect their agendas.
- They allow a greater opportunity for more citizens to become involved in government through serving in elective office. Is participation in government not our civic duty?
- They are a counterweight to the power of the incumbency. The amount of name recognition, money, prestige and news coverage current officeholders enjoy puts them at a significant advantage over challengers.
- They offer less incentive for officeholders to cater to the popular whims of powerful constituencies. If officeholders are not worried about reelection, they can “vote their conscience.”
The Arguments Against Term Limits
- As the business of government has become more complex, effective officeholders must have years of experience dealing with issues and the political process for the government to function properly. Term limits would force officeholders to rely more heavily on career lobbyists and legislative aides. Do we want novices steering public policy in Congress?
- Term limits would serve to focus the attention of officeholders on whatever political office or job to which they aspired next. For instance, once an individual was elected to the House of Representatives, he would act in a way that does not hurt his chances of running for the United States Senate when his term limit arrives. Or obtaining a position in the business world.
- Voters have the freedom to remove an officeholder on each Election Day. That choice should be left to voters. If the officeholder is performing well, why deprive voters of continued services of that officeholder?
Even more evidence, as the late self-styled political philosopher George Carlin once said, “Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans.”
My Opinion
In my opinion, a regime of no term limits is preferable to term limits. Because I think that solutions exist to counter most of the arguments against no term limits.
First, the influx of new people.
I am concerned with the lack of experience of novice officeholders not only with respect to policy, but also with respect to process. One cannot learn the intricacies of geopolitical relationships or other policy issues quickly and on paper. A thorough understanding only comes from dealing with them over a period of time.
Additionally, the legislative process is complicated. One reason that former President Lyndon Johnson (D-Tx.) was able to push his Great Society legislation through Congress is because of his mastery of the legislative process as a United States Congressman, Senator, Senate Majority Whip, Senate Majority Leader and Vice President. Although, maybe officeholders who are unfamiliar with how Congress is “supposed to” work would make the process more efficient.
Second, the check on entrenchment.
Officeholders who serve for ten, twenty, thirty or more years learn over time how to work the system. While I like to think everyone is honest, I have gotten fake phone numbers before. But I also like to think that we have a judicial system and electorate that can weed out those who take advantage, like the House Democrats involved in the check-bouncing scandal in the early-1990s and former Connecticut Governor John Rowland (R-Ct.), who used the Office of the Governor to benefit himself financially. In response, the electorate installed a Republican Congressional majority in 1994 and Rowland resigned and went to federal prison. But while there are many instances of the judicial system and electorate holding abusive officeholders accountable, there are likely even more instances that we will never learn about where they did not.
Third, the greater participation argument.
Honestly, I do not want so many more people involved. I want the best and brightest involved. If that is not you, perform your duty of civic participation another way.
Fourth, the power of the incumbency.
This is a serious concern. It is very difficult to unseat an incumbent, at any level of government. Which leads to entrenchment. However, I believe that if we modify our campaign finance laws, and there are several interesting proposals out there, to level the playing field, I think that the power of the incumbency can be minimized. Although since incumbent officeholders are the ones who decide what campaign finance reform is passed, the playing field likely will remain unlevel.
Fifth, the pandering issue.
If officeholders were limited to one term, they would not ever worry about reelection. But any regime of term limits likely would specify more than one term. So except for the last term, officeholders would have to worry about reelection. And even if they were limited to one term, there remains the issue of climbing the political ladder. A term limit in one office does not apply to a different office. So career politicians would still have to act in a way that keeps them in the good graces of voters. The problem does not actually change. There is no easy fix for this issue.
New York City 2009 Mayoral Race
As you can imagine, neither of the leading contenders to challenge Mayor Bloomberg in 2009, New York City Comptroller Bill Thompson and Congressman Anthony Weiner, both Democrats, supported the proposal to extend city term limits. The popularity of the incumbent Mayor, the power of the incumbency and Bloomberg’s intended use of $80 million for the campaign make unseating him almost an impossibility.
Although I wonder if either Thompson or Weiner would have supported the extension if he were the incumbent Mayor.
Weekly News Update
(Soon to be Former) Senator Ted Stevens: On Monday, a federal court in Washington, DC convicted Senator Ted Stevens (R-Ak.) on all seven counts (see Note 3 below) for which he was indicted. This Senate seat is now a sure win for Anchorage Mayor, and Democrat, Mark Begich (D-Ak.).
Republican Endorsements of Obama: Over the past week, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan and former Massachusetts Governor William Weld each endorsed Barack Obama for President.
Representative John Murtha (D-Pa.): Murtha finds himself in a much closer race than expected thanks to the following comment he made to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area.” He apologized for the remark, then later commented to Pittsburgh’s WTAE that, “this whole area, years ago, was really redneck.” Seriously? Bite the hand that feeds you? Racist, redneck, all the right words to describe the people who vote for you. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is dumping money into Murtha’s Twelfth District to save him. If he survives, it will be narrowly.
Republican Triage: According to the Washington Post, the list of abandoned Republican incumbents is growing. In an effort to minimize the bleeding and concentrate its dwindling financial races on seats they are more likely to retain, the NRCC has cancelled all media buys on behalf of Representatives Marilyn Musgrave (R-Co.), Tom Feeney (R-Fl.) and Joe Knollenberg (R-Mi.).
Palin ‘12: Recent news reports have raised the conduct of Republican Vice Presidential Nominee, Sarah Palin (R-Ak.), in going “rogue” and off message to placate conservatives. Some suggest that she is doing so because she believes that Senator John McCain will lose the Presidential Election and she wants to establish herself independently as a Republican Party leader, perhaps to set herself up for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012. Odds of Palin becoming the Republican nominee in 2012? Same odds as Ted Stevens winning reelection. Zero.
Statue of Liberty: Exactly one hundred twenty-two years ago today, President Grover Cleveland dedicated the Statue of Liberty.
Next Tuesday: Election Predictions.
------------------------------
Sources
Newsday: http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/wednesday/news/ny-nyterm225893354oct22,0,2215389.story
Gotham Gazette: http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/20050314/200/1348
The U.S. Constitution Online: http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
Wikipedia: www.wikipedia.com
New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/nyregion/10termlimits.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
The Associated Press: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i6-IqwvI2Wmh9h06Alh_H1zp6z6AD943Q5V80
Politics1: www.politics1.com
The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/22/AR2008102203107.html
------------------------------
Notes
Note 1: New Hampshire was the ninth state to ratify the Constitution. Article VII of the United States Constitution required nine states to ratify before it became effective.
Note 2: The Provincial Council was the upper chamber of the colonial Pennsylvania Legislature.
Note 3: For a list of counts, see http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/744566.html.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
Last Thursday, the New York City Council voted 29 – 22 to permit incumbent Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I-N.Y.) to seek a third mayoral term, extending the current eight year citywide limit to twelve years. Therefore, not only may Mayor Bloomberg seek a third term, but so may each of the fifty-one members of the New York City Council. Without the extension, approximately two thirds of the City Council would have been prohibited from seeking reelection in 2009.
The vote of the City Council supersedes a previous referendum passed by New York City voters in 1993, which imposed the two-term limit. In 1996, the City Council first attempted to extend two-terms to three-terms, but voters rejected the extension in another referendum.
How do you feel about the New York City Council vote? Are you in favor of term limits? Against? Ambivalent?
Articles of Confederation
The concept of term limits dates back to ancient Athens. Term limits were also considered by the Founding Fathers of the United States and incorporated into the Articles of Confederation, ratified on March 1, 1781, which governed the United States of America before adoption of the Constitution of the United States.
Article V of the Articles of Confederation set forth, “no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years…” While this provision did not set a hard limit on duration of service, it did serve to maintain a constant flow of new personnel into Congress.
As I was reading the Articles of Confederation, I came across an interesting provision (although one that has no relevance whatsoever to term limits). Article XI states, “Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.” Canada did not have to do anything to become part of the United States. We made it easy. And still, it decided to go it alone!
United States Constitution
The United States Constitution, ratified on June 21, 1788 after New Hampshire approved it (see Note 1 below), which amended (or more accurately, replaced) the Articles of Confederation, did not make any provision for term limits. Therefore, under the Constitution as originally ratified, any President, United States Senator or Representative could serve indefinitely.
The George Washington Example
After two terms as President of the United States, George Washington declined to run for reelection in 1796, even after being urged to do so. Because the United States had only been led by one President, its first President, the first transition of power had yet to occur. Washington’s retirement paved the way for the first real Presidential Election and the first real test of the durability of the mechanisms that the Constitution put in place to transition to a new political regime.
Keep in mind that back in 1796, no one knew with certainty whether an orderly transition would occur. The last government transition in which America participated was the Revolutionary War.
The two-term example that Washington set persisted until 1940. Although whether subsequent officeholders never served more than two terms in an effort to honor America’s patriarch, support the idea of term limits or pursue some other agenda, no one knows.
Bucking the Trend
In 1940, Franklin Roosevelt decided to seek a third term as President, which he won. Roosevelt also won a fourth term in 1944. If FDR had not died during year 13 of his Presidency, he might even have sought a fifth term.
Why? Probably because of the developing war in Europe. Roosevelt was a strong leader that had led the nation through the Great Depression. He had tremendous brand value across the United States. And with strong Republican gains in Congress during the 1938 elections, the Democratic Party likely opted to nominate its strongest candidate, who happened to be the incumbent President. World War II logically explains why Roosevelt sought a fourth term, which Roosevelt won in 1944.
The Twenty-Second Amendment
Following the conclusion of World War II, Congress reacted by passing the Twenty-Second Amendment, ratified on February 27, 1951, which prohibited a President from serving more than two full terms. While the Amendment specifically exempted the currently serving President, then Harry Truman, from the two-term limit, Truman voluntarily stepped down after serving the remainder of FDR’s fourth term and one term of his own.
The text of the Twenty-Second Amendment reads, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.”
In practice, the Amendment means that a President can only serve more than two terms if he becomes President by succession (i.e. he is the Vice President and the President dies, resigns or is thrown out of office) with less than two years left in the term.
For example, President John Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. When Vice President Lyndon Johnson succeeded to the Presidency, he served the rest of Kennedy’s term, which was less than two years (Presidential terms, currently, run from noon on January 20 following the Election until 11:59 AM January 20 for years later). Therefore, Johnson could have run for reelection in 1964, which he did, and 1968, which he did not.
The States
Term limits existed among the States even prior to the Articles of Confederation, reaching back to the Pennsylvania Charter of Liberties of 1682, which provided for a triennial rotation of officeholders on the Provincial Council (see Note 2 below).
Today, in some form or another, thirty-six States have term limits.
Some states have a strict term limit, meaning that an officeholder can serve no more than a certain number of consecutive terms. For example, Arizona limits gubernatorial service to two terms. Therefore, incumbent Governor Janet Napolitano (D-Az.) cannot stand for reelection in 2010.
Others have a term limit within a specified period of time. For example, Virginia limits service by prohibiting the Governor from serving consecutive terms. So incumbent Governor Tim Kaine (D-Va.) cannot seek reelection in 2009; however, he can seek reelection in 2013.
Still other states have no term limits. For example, North Dakota, where incumbent Governor John Hoeven (R-N.D.) is now running for his third consecutive term.
The Arguments for Term Limits
- They provide a constant influx of new officeholders, which brings new personalities, new ideas and new energy. But is this a good or bad thing? What if Congress (as hard as this might be to believe), is doing a good job? Do we always want new blood?
- They add an additional check on political entrenchment and entrenchment often leads to abuses of power and office. The more power an officeholder accumulates over time, the more valuable he becomes to corporations and industry groups to affect their agendas.
- They allow a greater opportunity for more citizens to become involved in government through serving in elective office. Is participation in government not our civic duty?
- They are a counterweight to the power of the incumbency. The amount of name recognition, money, prestige and news coverage current officeholders enjoy puts them at a significant advantage over challengers.
- They offer less incentive for officeholders to cater to the popular whims of powerful constituencies. If officeholders are not worried about reelection, they can “vote their conscience.”
The Arguments Against Term Limits
- As the business of government has become more complex, effective officeholders must have years of experience dealing with issues and the political process for the government to function properly. Term limits would force officeholders to rely more heavily on career lobbyists and legislative aides. Do we want novices steering public policy in Congress?
- Term limits would serve to focus the attention of officeholders on whatever political office or job to which they aspired next. For instance, once an individual was elected to the House of Representatives, he would act in a way that does not hurt his chances of running for the United States Senate when his term limit arrives. Or obtaining a position in the business world.
- Voters have the freedom to remove an officeholder on each Election Day. That choice should be left to voters. If the officeholder is performing well, why deprive voters of continued services of that officeholder?
Even more evidence, as the late self-styled political philosopher George Carlin once said, “Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans.”
My Opinion
In my opinion, a regime of no term limits is preferable to term limits. Because I think that solutions exist to counter most of the arguments against no term limits.
First, the influx of new people.
I am concerned with the lack of experience of novice officeholders not only with respect to policy, but also with respect to process. One cannot learn the intricacies of geopolitical relationships or other policy issues quickly and on paper. A thorough understanding only comes from dealing with them over a period of time.
Additionally, the legislative process is complicated. One reason that former President Lyndon Johnson (D-Tx.) was able to push his Great Society legislation through Congress is because of his mastery of the legislative process as a United States Congressman, Senator, Senate Majority Whip, Senate Majority Leader and Vice President. Although, maybe officeholders who are unfamiliar with how Congress is “supposed to” work would make the process more efficient.
Second, the check on entrenchment.
Officeholders who serve for ten, twenty, thirty or more years learn over time how to work the system. While I like to think everyone is honest, I have gotten fake phone numbers before. But I also like to think that we have a judicial system and electorate that can weed out those who take advantage, like the House Democrats involved in the check-bouncing scandal in the early-1990s and former Connecticut Governor John Rowland (R-Ct.), who used the Office of the Governor to benefit himself financially. In response, the electorate installed a Republican Congressional majority in 1994 and Rowland resigned and went to federal prison. But while there are many instances of the judicial system and electorate holding abusive officeholders accountable, there are likely even more instances that we will never learn about where they did not.
Third, the greater participation argument.
Honestly, I do not want so many more people involved. I want the best and brightest involved. If that is not you, perform your duty of civic participation another way.
Fourth, the power of the incumbency.
This is a serious concern. It is very difficult to unseat an incumbent, at any level of government. Which leads to entrenchment. However, I believe that if we modify our campaign finance laws, and there are several interesting proposals out there, to level the playing field, I think that the power of the incumbency can be minimized. Although since incumbent officeholders are the ones who decide what campaign finance reform is passed, the playing field likely will remain unlevel.
Fifth, the pandering issue.
If officeholders were limited to one term, they would not ever worry about reelection. But any regime of term limits likely would specify more than one term. So except for the last term, officeholders would have to worry about reelection. And even if they were limited to one term, there remains the issue of climbing the political ladder. A term limit in one office does not apply to a different office. So career politicians would still have to act in a way that keeps them in the good graces of voters. The problem does not actually change. There is no easy fix for this issue.
New York City 2009 Mayoral Race
As you can imagine, neither of the leading contenders to challenge Mayor Bloomberg in 2009, New York City Comptroller Bill Thompson and Congressman Anthony Weiner, both Democrats, supported the proposal to extend city term limits. The popularity of the incumbent Mayor, the power of the incumbency and Bloomberg’s intended use of $80 million for the campaign make unseating him almost an impossibility.
Although I wonder if either Thompson or Weiner would have supported the extension if he were the incumbent Mayor.
Weekly News Update
(Soon to be Former) Senator Ted Stevens: On Monday, a federal court in Washington, DC convicted Senator Ted Stevens (R-Ak.) on all seven counts (see Note 3 below) for which he was indicted. This Senate seat is now a sure win for Anchorage Mayor, and Democrat, Mark Begich (D-Ak.).
Republican Endorsements of Obama: Over the past week, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan and former Massachusetts Governor William Weld each endorsed Barack Obama for President.
Representative John Murtha (D-Pa.): Murtha finds himself in a much closer race than expected thanks to the following comment he made to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area.” He apologized for the remark, then later commented to Pittsburgh’s WTAE that, “this whole area, years ago, was really redneck.” Seriously? Bite the hand that feeds you? Racist, redneck, all the right words to describe the people who vote for you. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is dumping money into Murtha’s Twelfth District to save him. If he survives, it will be narrowly.
Republican Triage: According to the Washington Post, the list of abandoned Republican incumbents is growing. In an effort to minimize the bleeding and concentrate its dwindling financial races on seats they are more likely to retain, the NRCC has cancelled all media buys on behalf of Representatives Marilyn Musgrave (R-Co.), Tom Feeney (R-Fl.) and Joe Knollenberg (R-Mi.).
Palin ‘12: Recent news reports have raised the conduct of Republican Vice Presidential Nominee, Sarah Palin (R-Ak.), in going “rogue” and off message to placate conservatives. Some suggest that she is doing so because she believes that Senator John McCain will lose the Presidential Election and she wants to establish herself independently as a Republican Party leader, perhaps to set herself up for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012. Odds of Palin becoming the Republican nominee in 2012? Same odds as Ted Stevens winning reelection. Zero.
Statue of Liberty: Exactly one hundred twenty-two years ago today, President Grover Cleveland dedicated the Statue of Liberty.
Next Tuesday: Election Predictions.
------------------------------
Sources
Newsday: http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/wednesday/news/ny-nyterm225893354oct22,0,2215389.story
Gotham Gazette: http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/20050314/200/1348
The U.S. Constitution Online: http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
Wikipedia: www.wikipedia.com
New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/nyregion/10termlimits.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
The Associated Press: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i6-IqwvI2Wmh9h06Alh_H1zp6z6AD943Q5V80
Politics1: www.politics1.com
The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/22/AR2008102203107.html
------------------------------
Notes
Note 1: New Hampshire was the ninth state to ratify the Constitution. Article VII of the United States Constitution required nine states to ratify before it became effective.
Note 2: The Provincial Council was the upper chamber of the colonial Pennsylvania Legislature.
Note 3: For a list of counts, see http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/744566.html.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Right to Vote
Right to Vote
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
Former President Harry S Truman once said, “It's not the hand that signs the laws that holds the destiny of America. It's the hand that casts the ballot.” When was the last time that you, as a voter, felt that you held the destiny of America? That your vote really affected anything at all? Well, if you voted in the 2000 Presidential Election in Florida…
Truman believed that ultimately, political power rested with the people, not with the government. Theoretically, the notion is true. Because the government itself is an instrumentality artificially created by the people and through voting, the people can, theoretically, recreate or even uncreate it. Unfortunately, in practice, the only permissible change is one to different officeholders, who may prove no better.
Conceptually, the power of the vote is vast. Although rarely can we understand just how vast because one vote seems immaterial amidst so many others. The collective vote is almost omnipotent, but each individual vote, because of their wide dispersion, much less so. But each year, races do come down to the hundreds of votes. The 2000 Presidential Election is just the grandest example.
History of Voting
The United States Constitution, in its original form, does not address the right to vote. The individual States conferred, or denied, the right to vote through their State Constitutions. Below are two examples.
New Jersey
Article IV of the New Jersey Constitution of 1776 (since revised) set forth the following with respect to voting.
“That all inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for, twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be, entitled to vote for Representatives in Council and Assembly; and also for all other public officers, that shall be elected by the people of the county at large.
Georgia
Article VI of the Georgia Constitution of 1777 (since revised) states the following.
“The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county, who shall have resided at least twelve months in this State, and three months in the county where they shall be elected;… and they shall be of the Protestant on, and of the age of twenty-one years, and shall be possessed in their own right of two hundred and fifty acres of land, or some property to the amount of two hundred and fifty pounds.
In New Jersey, voting restrictions included age, wealth and state residency. In Georgia, voting restrictions included age, wealth, state and county residency and religion. These and other extralegal tactics were used to limit the universe of voters essentially to landed, white men.
Why the limitations? Probably for two reasons.
First, those who drafted the State Constitutions, as well as the U. S. Constitution, were landed, white men. They shared similar interests with other landed, white men. These men felt that they should take responsibility for governing because they were the educated, elite and wealthy. They had, or so they felt, greater interests than the common man in the business of government. And second, landed, white men did not trust the masses to vote intelligently. They felt that the uneducated masses would not know how to vote in their own best interests.
The first reason reeks of self-interest. Although we certainly do want highly intelligent people serving in government, those intelligent public servants need not be wealthy or elite. But in the 18th Century, those in power felt otherwise at least in part because generally, only the wealthy were educated.
The second reason begs an interesting question. Should only those citizens who are informed about the issues and candidates be permitted to vote? Certainly, the idea seems reasonable. Although instituting a regime where an impartial body must verify the veracity of knowledge of each citizen probably is unworkable.
Other than taking a written civics exam, how else could society determine which of its citizens are educated enough to vote for public office? And who would write such an exam? A government entity? An impartial body? The College Board (which administers the SAT)? And what questions would the test include? If a voter knows everything about healthcare, and bases her vote on that, but knows nothing about foreign policy, would she qualify to vote? In the words of the sagacious Jeffrey Lebowski, there are “a lot of ins, a lot of outs, a lot of what have yous.”
The Vote Evolves
Fifteenth Amendment
The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified on February 3, 1870, marked the Federal Government’s first intervention into the sphere of voting rights. The Fifteenth Amendment sets forth, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
Following ratification, some states enacted poll taxes and literacy exams and employed various other tactics to deny the franchise to African Americans. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned literacy tests and the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, ratified on January 23, 1964, did away with poll taxes.
Nineteenth Amendment
Women obtained the right to vote upon ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment on August 18, 1920. The Amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
Twenty-Fourth Amendment
The Twenty-Fourth Amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.” It is interesting to note that the Twenty-Fourth Amendment applies only to federal elections.
Twenty-Sixth Amendment
In response to the Vietnam War draft that conscripted eighteen year olds into military service, the United States ratified the Twenty-Sixth Amendment on July 1, 1971, which reduced the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen. The Amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”
Americans with Disabilities Act
In 1990, Congress passed the ADA, which required that polling places be accessible to citizens with disabilities.
Other Groups
In various ways, states tended to deny Native Americans, Asian Americans and Latinos the vote in ways similar to African Americans. Their ability to vote was spotty until citizenship laws governing the citizenship of members of these groups changed and voting restrictions, like the literacy requirement, were outlawed.
Who Should Get to Vote?
Let’s start with the presumption that everyone should get to vote. Then we can peel off certain groups. The federal government has already peeled of citizens under the age of 18. Why? The age of eighteen is arbitrary. I remember when I was in middle school, my history teacher would grill my class every week on current events. I knew Dick Cheney was the Secretary of Defense (and remembered his name because as a seventh grader, I found it particularly amusing). I assure you that in 1991, my seventh grade class was better informed than many adults. Certainly, children who lack the capacity to reason for themselves should not be permitted to vote. But all others? Why not?
States treat the right to vote of convicted felons differently. Some deny the franchise to convicted felons while incarcerated, others through post-incarceration parole and yet others forever. Why? Because convicted felons have violated their contract with society to adhere to the law. This is society’s way of punishing convicted felons. That and sending them to up to Rikers, probably the less appealing of the two.
States also have different standards for denying the vote to the mentally insane. In 2007, the American Bar Association recommended withholding the vote from only those who cannot indicate, with or without assistance, “a specific desire to participate in the voting process.” Why? Maybe for the same reason as denying the vote to a newborn baby. No capacity to reason. Although another justification could be avoidance of coercion. No independent judgment. But in this case, is a mentally insane person any different than your friend who knows nothing about politics, asks you how to vote and then votes that way? He is certainly not exercising independent judgment.
Who else should we peel off? The guy who sits next to you at work who doesn’t even know who’s running for President? Or the New York City cab driver you rode with yesterday who did not know where Times Square was? Or anyone who plans to vote for the other guy (or gal)?
While there might not exist an equitable way to determine who is informed and who is not informed, I still think that our democracy would benefit from a well-informed electorate. It does concern me that people vote who do not understand the true ramifications of their vote. Many do understand. But many do not. Although it is also important to note that even if a voter does understand precisely the ramifications of his vote at the present time, the preferred candidate might change positions or act totally contrary to the words and actions upon which the voter based his vote.
I know what you are thinking. “Of course only informed people should have the right to vote. Because I am an informed person!” Really, are you?
12 Questions
See how many of the following twelve questions you can answer (see answers below). I actually had to double-check the answer to #6.
1. Name the Democratic and Republican nominees for President.
2. Name the Governor of your State.
3. Who must approve a nominee to the U. S. Supreme Court?
4. What President established Social Security?
5. What three countries made up George W. Bush’s Axis of Evil?
6. Allegedly, nine world nations have nuclear weapons. Name five of them.
7. Who is the Prime Minister of Great Britain?
8. With what governmental body must all federal taxation laws originate?
9. What is the Laffer Curve?
10. Who is second in the line of Presidential Succession (after the Vice President)?
11. What does NAFTA stand for?
12. Into what independent nation did Russia recently move Russian troops?
Still think only well-informed citizens should vote?
Who Should Vote?
I am confident that the majority of eligible American voters could not answer even half of the questions above correctly. But does that mean that we should not permit them to vote. If only the truly informed could vote, how many of us would actually cast a ballot. I assure you that I would not.
Winston Churchill once said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” I can assure you that the average voter does not know what the Bush Doctrine is. Or the purported benefits of a flat tax. Or the arguments for and against ethanol subsidies. Or the non-monetary benefits of an entire citizenry that has heath insurance. Or what caused the melt down on Wall Street and how to fix it (if you know that, please call Hank Paulson immediately).
Which is not to say that the voter is uninformed. Policy in the twenty-first century is more complicated than policy in the eighteenth century. To understand every nuance of every issue would be a full-time job. Most elected officials do not know all the answers either. Which is why they have a staff and why lobbyists prosper.
Unfortunately, there is no simple or equitable way to purge the ranks of the voting public of those who are underinformed or uninformed. Primarily because we cannot precisely define a precise standard of “informed.” Even if you answered all ten questions above correctly, don’t pat yourself on the back so quickly. You are not necessarily informed.
How Do Voters Decide How to Vote?
If every American voter knew every little detail of every policy issue and understood precisely the implications of the policy positions of each candidate, would that change how the voter votes? Do voters even vote based on policy?
Voters decide for whom to cast their ballot for a wide variety of reasons. There may be one issue (eg. abortion) that trumps all others. Or across all issues, one candidate is more in line with the beliefs of the voter. Or one candidate exudes better character. Or is more trustworthy. Or is a better leader. Or is a better speaker. Or shares the same values as the voter.
There are myriad reasons why a voter votes for one candidate over another. Some reasons are good (eg. I like Obama’s plan for universal health care). Others are bad (eg. Obama is a Muslim).
Ask yourself the following question. Because while I suspect you have strong reasons for voting for whichever candidate you intend to vote for (to the extent you have already decided), you may not precisely understand why.
Why am I voting for Obama? Or McCain? Make a list of reasons.
Once you have the list, I ask that you check to make sure that those reasons, if fact based (eg. policy positions, personal facts about the candidate) are accurate. Make sure you have all the facts, because with all the emails flying around, misleading commercials and rumors, it is often hard to parse truth from the falsity.
And once you have the facts, go vote! Unless you are going to vote for the other guy… Just kidding.
Some Current Events of Note
Presidential Election Update
Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin and New Hampshire are no longer swing states. Senator Obama leads by a solid margin in each of the four. Obama is now leading by at least 5% in each of New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota and Virginia. Of the seven states that now look like swing states (Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Nevada, North Carolina and Florida), Obama leads in all but West Virginia (he trails by 1.5%) and Indiana (he trails by 3.8%).
Canadian Elections
Congratulations to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper for securing enough seats in Parliament, although not a majority, to hold onto his post as PM, at least for a little while longer.
They Never Learn
Do you remember former Congressman Mark Foley (R-Fl.), who resigned amidst a scandal of sending sexually charged instant messages to male House pages? Since the Republican Party could not replace his name on the 2006 ballot, his Democratic opponent, Tim Mahoney, won the election (although by only about 4,500 votes) in a reliably Republican District. I guess Mahoney did not learn that a sex scandal is not good for one’s reelection prospects. Recent reports indicate that Mahoney was having an affair with one of his Congressional staffers, who found out that she was not the only one, and threatened to sue the Congressman. Mahoney then agreed to pay her over $100,000 to avoid a lawsuit. Extramarital affair. Staffer. Payoff. Representative Mahoney better call the movers. And given the sunny prospects for Democrats at the polls this year, Mahoney’s own Democratic will not bother to come to his rescue. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already asked for a House Ethics investigation. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
------------------------------
Answers
1. Democrat: Senator Barack Obama; Republican: Senator John McCain;
2. Depends on state. See http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.42b929b1a5b9e4eac3363d10501010a0/?vgnextoid=d54c8aaa2ebbff00VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=curgov;
3. United States Senate;
4. Franklin Roosevelt;
5. Iraq, Iran and North Korea;
6. United States, France, Russia, China, Great Britain, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel;
7. Gordon Brown;
8. House of Representatives;
9. A graph showing that sometimes increasing tax rates can lower total tax receipts;
10. Speaker of the House of Representatives;
11. North American Free Trade Agreement;
12. Georgia.
------------------------------
Sources
CNN.com: www.cnn.com
US Constitution Online: www.usconstitution.net
OpenElections: www.openelections.org
Drug Policy Alliance Network: www.drugpolicy.org
The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/us/19vote.html
Real Clear Politics: www.realclearpolitics.com
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
Former President Harry S Truman once said, “It's not the hand that signs the laws that holds the destiny of America. It's the hand that casts the ballot.” When was the last time that you, as a voter, felt that you held the destiny of America? That your vote really affected anything at all? Well, if you voted in the 2000 Presidential Election in Florida…
Truman believed that ultimately, political power rested with the people, not with the government. Theoretically, the notion is true. Because the government itself is an instrumentality artificially created by the people and through voting, the people can, theoretically, recreate or even uncreate it. Unfortunately, in practice, the only permissible change is one to different officeholders, who may prove no better.
Conceptually, the power of the vote is vast. Although rarely can we understand just how vast because one vote seems immaterial amidst so many others. The collective vote is almost omnipotent, but each individual vote, because of their wide dispersion, much less so. But each year, races do come down to the hundreds of votes. The 2000 Presidential Election is just the grandest example.
History of Voting
The United States Constitution, in its original form, does not address the right to vote. The individual States conferred, or denied, the right to vote through their State Constitutions. Below are two examples.
New Jersey
Article IV of the New Jersey Constitution of 1776 (since revised) set forth the following with respect to voting.
“That all inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for, twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be, entitled to vote for Representatives in Council and Assembly; and also for all other public officers, that shall be elected by the people of the county at large.
Georgia
Article VI of the Georgia Constitution of 1777 (since revised) states the following.
“The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county, who shall have resided at least twelve months in this State, and three months in the county where they shall be elected;… and they shall be of the Protestant on, and of the age of twenty-one years, and shall be possessed in their own right of two hundred and fifty acres of land, or some property to the amount of two hundred and fifty pounds.
In New Jersey, voting restrictions included age, wealth and state residency. In Georgia, voting restrictions included age, wealth, state and county residency and religion. These and other extralegal tactics were used to limit the universe of voters essentially to landed, white men.
Why the limitations? Probably for two reasons.
First, those who drafted the State Constitutions, as well as the U. S. Constitution, were landed, white men. They shared similar interests with other landed, white men. These men felt that they should take responsibility for governing because they were the educated, elite and wealthy. They had, or so they felt, greater interests than the common man in the business of government. And second, landed, white men did not trust the masses to vote intelligently. They felt that the uneducated masses would not know how to vote in their own best interests.
The first reason reeks of self-interest. Although we certainly do want highly intelligent people serving in government, those intelligent public servants need not be wealthy or elite. But in the 18th Century, those in power felt otherwise at least in part because generally, only the wealthy were educated.
The second reason begs an interesting question. Should only those citizens who are informed about the issues and candidates be permitted to vote? Certainly, the idea seems reasonable. Although instituting a regime where an impartial body must verify the veracity of knowledge of each citizen probably is unworkable.
Other than taking a written civics exam, how else could society determine which of its citizens are educated enough to vote for public office? And who would write such an exam? A government entity? An impartial body? The College Board (which administers the SAT)? And what questions would the test include? If a voter knows everything about healthcare, and bases her vote on that, but knows nothing about foreign policy, would she qualify to vote? In the words of the sagacious Jeffrey Lebowski, there are “a lot of ins, a lot of outs, a lot of what have yous.”
The Vote Evolves
Fifteenth Amendment
The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified on February 3, 1870, marked the Federal Government’s first intervention into the sphere of voting rights. The Fifteenth Amendment sets forth, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
Following ratification, some states enacted poll taxes and literacy exams and employed various other tactics to deny the franchise to African Americans. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned literacy tests and the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, ratified on January 23, 1964, did away with poll taxes.
Nineteenth Amendment
Women obtained the right to vote upon ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment on August 18, 1920. The Amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
Twenty-Fourth Amendment
The Twenty-Fourth Amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.” It is interesting to note that the Twenty-Fourth Amendment applies only to federal elections.
Twenty-Sixth Amendment
In response to the Vietnam War draft that conscripted eighteen year olds into military service, the United States ratified the Twenty-Sixth Amendment on July 1, 1971, which reduced the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen. The Amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”
Americans with Disabilities Act
In 1990, Congress passed the ADA, which required that polling places be accessible to citizens with disabilities.
Other Groups
In various ways, states tended to deny Native Americans, Asian Americans and Latinos the vote in ways similar to African Americans. Their ability to vote was spotty until citizenship laws governing the citizenship of members of these groups changed and voting restrictions, like the literacy requirement, were outlawed.
Who Should Get to Vote?
Let’s start with the presumption that everyone should get to vote. Then we can peel off certain groups. The federal government has already peeled of citizens under the age of 18. Why? The age of eighteen is arbitrary. I remember when I was in middle school, my history teacher would grill my class every week on current events. I knew Dick Cheney was the Secretary of Defense (and remembered his name because as a seventh grader, I found it particularly amusing). I assure you that in 1991, my seventh grade class was better informed than many adults. Certainly, children who lack the capacity to reason for themselves should not be permitted to vote. But all others? Why not?
States treat the right to vote of convicted felons differently. Some deny the franchise to convicted felons while incarcerated, others through post-incarceration parole and yet others forever. Why? Because convicted felons have violated their contract with society to adhere to the law. This is society’s way of punishing convicted felons. That and sending them to up to Rikers, probably the less appealing of the two.
States also have different standards for denying the vote to the mentally insane. In 2007, the American Bar Association recommended withholding the vote from only those who cannot indicate, with or without assistance, “a specific desire to participate in the voting process.” Why? Maybe for the same reason as denying the vote to a newborn baby. No capacity to reason. Although another justification could be avoidance of coercion. No independent judgment. But in this case, is a mentally insane person any different than your friend who knows nothing about politics, asks you how to vote and then votes that way? He is certainly not exercising independent judgment.
Who else should we peel off? The guy who sits next to you at work who doesn’t even know who’s running for President? Or the New York City cab driver you rode with yesterday who did not know where Times Square was? Or anyone who plans to vote for the other guy (or gal)?
While there might not exist an equitable way to determine who is informed and who is not informed, I still think that our democracy would benefit from a well-informed electorate. It does concern me that people vote who do not understand the true ramifications of their vote. Many do understand. But many do not. Although it is also important to note that even if a voter does understand precisely the ramifications of his vote at the present time, the preferred candidate might change positions or act totally contrary to the words and actions upon which the voter based his vote.
I know what you are thinking. “Of course only informed people should have the right to vote. Because I am an informed person!” Really, are you?
12 Questions
See how many of the following twelve questions you can answer (see answers below). I actually had to double-check the answer to #6.
1. Name the Democratic and Republican nominees for President.
2. Name the Governor of your State.
3. Who must approve a nominee to the U. S. Supreme Court?
4. What President established Social Security?
5. What three countries made up George W. Bush’s Axis of Evil?
6. Allegedly, nine world nations have nuclear weapons. Name five of them.
7. Who is the Prime Minister of Great Britain?
8. With what governmental body must all federal taxation laws originate?
9. What is the Laffer Curve?
10. Who is second in the line of Presidential Succession (after the Vice President)?
11. What does NAFTA stand for?
12. Into what independent nation did Russia recently move Russian troops?
Still think only well-informed citizens should vote?
Who Should Vote?
I am confident that the majority of eligible American voters could not answer even half of the questions above correctly. But does that mean that we should not permit them to vote. If only the truly informed could vote, how many of us would actually cast a ballot. I assure you that I would not.
Winston Churchill once said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” I can assure you that the average voter does not know what the Bush Doctrine is. Or the purported benefits of a flat tax. Or the arguments for and against ethanol subsidies. Or the non-monetary benefits of an entire citizenry that has heath insurance. Or what caused the melt down on Wall Street and how to fix it (if you know that, please call Hank Paulson immediately).
Which is not to say that the voter is uninformed. Policy in the twenty-first century is more complicated than policy in the eighteenth century. To understand every nuance of every issue would be a full-time job. Most elected officials do not know all the answers either. Which is why they have a staff and why lobbyists prosper.
Unfortunately, there is no simple or equitable way to purge the ranks of the voting public of those who are underinformed or uninformed. Primarily because we cannot precisely define a precise standard of “informed.” Even if you answered all ten questions above correctly, don’t pat yourself on the back so quickly. You are not necessarily informed.
How Do Voters Decide How to Vote?
If every American voter knew every little detail of every policy issue and understood precisely the implications of the policy positions of each candidate, would that change how the voter votes? Do voters even vote based on policy?
Voters decide for whom to cast their ballot for a wide variety of reasons. There may be one issue (eg. abortion) that trumps all others. Or across all issues, one candidate is more in line with the beliefs of the voter. Or one candidate exudes better character. Or is more trustworthy. Or is a better leader. Or is a better speaker. Or shares the same values as the voter.
There are myriad reasons why a voter votes for one candidate over another. Some reasons are good (eg. I like Obama’s plan for universal health care). Others are bad (eg. Obama is a Muslim).
Ask yourself the following question. Because while I suspect you have strong reasons for voting for whichever candidate you intend to vote for (to the extent you have already decided), you may not precisely understand why.
Why am I voting for Obama? Or McCain? Make a list of reasons.
Once you have the list, I ask that you check to make sure that those reasons, if fact based (eg. policy positions, personal facts about the candidate) are accurate. Make sure you have all the facts, because with all the emails flying around, misleading commercials and rumors, it is often hard to parse truth from the falsity.
And once you have the facts, go vote! Unless you are going to vote for the other guy… Just kidding.
Some Current Events of Note
Presidential Election Update
Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin and New Hampshire are no longer swing states. Senator Obama leads by a solid margin in each of the four. Obama is now leading by at least 5% in each of New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota and Virginia. Of the seven states that now look like swing states (Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Nevada, North Carolina and Florida), Obama leads in all but West Virginia (he trails by 1.5%) and Indiana (he trails by 3.8%).
Canadian Elections
Congratulations to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper for securing enough seats in Parliament, although not a majority, to hold onto his post as PM, at least for a little while longer.
They Never Learn
Do you remember former Congressman Mark Foley (R-Fl.), who resigned amidst a scandal of sending sexually charged instant messages to male House pages? Since the Republican Party could not replace his name on the 2006 ballot, his Democratic opponent, Tim Mahoney, won the election (although by only about 4,500 votes) in a reliably Republican District. I guess Mahoney did not learn that a sex scandal is not good for one’s reelection prospects. Recent reports indicate that Mahoney was having an affair with one of his Congressional staffers, who found out that she was not the only one, and threatened to sue the Congressman. Mahoney then agreed to pay her over $100,000 to avoid a lawsuit. Extramarital affair. Staffer. Payoff. Representative Mahoney better call the movers. And given the sunny prospects for Democrats at the polls this year, Mahoney’s own Democratic will not bother to come to his rescue. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already asked for a House Ethics investigation. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
------------------------------
Answers
1. Democrat: Senator Barack Obama; Republican: Senator John McCain;
2. Depends on state. See http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.42b929b1a5b9e4eac3363d10501010a0/?vgnextoid=d54c8aaa2ebbff00VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=curgov;
3. United States Senate;
4. Franklin Roosevelt;
5. Iraq, Iran and North Korea;
6. United States, France, Russia, China, Great Britain, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel;
7. Gordon Brown;
8. House of Representatives;
9. A graph showing that sometimes increasing tax rates can lower total tax receipts;
10. Speaker of the House of Representatives;
11. North American Free Trade Agreement;
12. Georgia.
------------------------------
Sources
CNN.com: www.cnn.com
US Constitution Online: www.usconstitution.net
OpenElections: www.openelections.org
Drug Policy Alliance Network: www.drugpolicy.org
The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/us/19vote.html
Real Clear Politics: www.realclearpolitics.com
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Four More Weeks
Four More Weeks
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
We are exactly four weeks from Election Day 2008, which is Tuesday, November 4. The general election season is in full swing. The conventions are over. We are on the last leg of the elective marathon that began for many almost two years ago. And for others including Senator John McCain (R-Az.), even longer than two years ago.
Running for office is no easy feat. It is physically, mentally and emotionally grueling. For a candidate, each race is like a personal Superbowl. The entire elective process builds to one climax, Election Day, and a binary outcome. Victory or defeat. After the voters decide, none of the yard signs, TV commercials, endorsements, fundraising milestones or catchy slogans matter.
To the winner goes the spoils; to the loser goes absolutely nothing save constant reflection on mistakes the campaign made. In many ways, American elections are akin to two men competing for the affection of the same woman. And only one ultimately wins her.
Emotional Impact
There are two kinds of losing candidates. One who cannot win and another who can win. The emotional strain of losing an election is directly proportional to the chance a candidate has of winning that election. The emotional strain for a candidate with no chance of winning (eg. Libertarian Presidential nominee, and former Congressman, Bob Barr (R-Ga.)) is minimal. He knows his chances. The emotional strain for a candidate with a reasonable chance of winning (eg. Democrat Mark Begich, Democratic nominee for Senate in Alaska) is larger.
But even the candidate who cannot win, and intuitively knows he cannot win, still thinks he can win. Because like the guy at the poker table chasing one card in the deck to the river, there is always that small chance of winning.
Take Senator Joe Biden (D-De.), the Democratic nominee for Vice President. In 1972, at the tender age of 29, he ran against incumbent Senator J. Caleb Boggs (R-De.), who had the strong backing of the Republican Party and President Richard Nixon. Biden stood no chance of winning. But in a stunning upset, he beat Boggs by about 3,000 votes.
Even the sure losers feel the emotional loss. But as a candidate’s strength increases, so does the intensity of the emotional impact of the loss.
Take Democratic National Committee Chairman, and former Vermont Governor, Howard Dean (D-Vt.). At the outset of his campaign in 2001, only the most avid political junkie even knew the name Howard Dean. But the Vermont Governor gained traction and became the frontrunner for the Democratic Presidential nomination. At some point before the Iowa Caucuses, in which Dean placed third behind Senator John Kerry (D-Ma.) and Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), Dean believed he would be the next President of the United States. Then his campaign collapsed. Quite a fall. From thinking he would be President to, “Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.”
Or take former Senator George Allen (R-Va.). In 2005 and most of 2006, Allen was arguably the frontrunner for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination. Never heard of George Allen? Well, that might be because he lost his 2006 race for reelection to the United States Senate to challenger Jim Webb (D-Va.). Can you imagine the emotional impact of falling from the Republican frontrunner to unemployed (in the short span of a few months)?
The emotional roller coaster is real for all candidates, from sure losers to sure winners (unless no one challenges them). While sure winners like Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Ut.) do not lose sleep when running against sacrificial lambs like 2006 Democratic nominee Pete Ashdown (http://peteashdown.org/election-2006.html), I assure you that sure winners breath a sign of relief when Election Day is over and CNN airs the opponent’s concession speech. Ashdown won 31% of the vote. He never had a chance. Unless Hatch suddenly dropped dead before the election. Or the press uncovered an extramarital affair or something worse. As my friend Peter Hort, who was the 2004 Republican nominee for Congress in New York’s Eighth Congressional District, told me, you put yourself in a position to get lucky. And for that, hope always exists.
Example: Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick
My favorite example of the raw emotions evoked by elections is a picture that Rusty Hills, former Michigan GOP Chair and former professor of mine, showed our class. The photograph pictured former Detroit Mayor, Democrat Kwame Kilpatrick, immediately after Kilpatrick won his 2005 reelection race. The Mayor was slumped in a chair, grinning ear-to-ear and physically drained. The photograph personified the emotional trial of running for elective office. The human reaction to triumphing in an emotionally tough adventure. Imagine his demeanor if he lost.
According to polls leading up to Election Day 2005, Kilpatrick trailed his opponent, fellow Democrat Freman Hendrix, by double digits. The deficit was the result of various scandals and questionable behavior. Kilpatrick improperly spent taxpayer dollars on a car for his wife and hotel rooms and meals for himself. He also stood watching as one of his bodyguards beat up a reporter. Mayor Kilpatrick lost the Democratic Primary by 10 points. But in the Election Day runoff, Kilpatrick rebounded to win a second term with approximately 53% of the vote.
The Feeling of Loss
Think of what an election might tell a losing candidate. Voters did not like his message. Or his policies. Or even the candidate as a person. In a Presidential Election, that could mean 60 million people. 60 million people telling a candidate that he is not good enough, not smart enough, not trustworthy enough and/or not capable of effectively handling the office.
Of course, the voters may not think all of these things. They may not think any of these things. But when a constituency picks the other guy, what else can the losing candidate think?
I remember running once for Class President in High School. I lost. And I thought, how stupid are all of the people in my class. How could they not vote for me? I mean, it’s ME!
Most candidates cannot avoid the feeling. Especially since the decision to run for office is partly predicated upon the confidence of a candidate in himself. And given the amount of time, money and energy candidates spend running for office, the feeling is understandable. Run for office and see for yourself.
Jon Lovitz, playing 1988 Democratic Presidential Nominee, and Massachusetts Governor, Michael Dukakis (D-Ma.), in the 1988 SNL Presidential Debate skit articulates the sentiment in his response to Dana Carvey playing George H. W. Bush. (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=23764935).
In the end, the winner-take-all system of voting means that there is only one Prom King. One officeholder. The other guy goes home to find a job. Unless he already has one. Senator John Kerry (D-Ma.) returned to the Senate. Vice President Al Gore went to teach at the Journalism School at Columbia University, became active in the fight against global warming among other pursuits. Senator Bob Dole retired.
So in 2008, who are the David Cooks and who the David Archuletas?
Election Update
Within the last two months, much has changed. The Vice Presidential nominees were selected. The Conventions occurred. The subprime mortgage debacle sent some banks into bankruptcy, others into the hands of new owners. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson pushed a recovery plan through Congress, making the federal government a new heavyweight on Wall Street. The Palin Bump is flattening. The first Presidential Debate was held. And the Vice Presidential Debate happened.
So how did these events affect the Presidential and down-ticket races? Hard to say. But it does seem clear that the nation prefers Senator Obama to manage the economy than Senator McCain. Because if Senator McCain wins the election, maybe he will suspend his Presidency during the next economic crisis (sorry, I could not help myself).
Here are the latest polls and predictions on the Presidential, Congressional and Gubernatorial races.
The White House
Two months ago, national polls (which we all know are largely worthless) forecasted a very close race. About a month ago, national polls indicated that John McCain enjoyed a slight lead. Currently, Senator Obama leads nationwide and is in firm command of the Presidential Election.
Check out the most recent swing state poll numbers (from RealClearPolitics). Obama leads in every one of them. These are the important polls because they foreshadow how the electoral votes will fall. Brackets contain the name of the poll followed by the date of the poll.
Colorado (InAdv/PollPosition, 10/7/08): Obama 51, McCain 45 (OBAMA +6)
Florida (Mason-Dixon, 10/7/08): Obama 48, McCain 46 (OBAMA +2)
Iowa (Research 2000, 10/1/08): Obama 55, McCain 39 (OBAMA +16)
Michigan (PPP (D), 10/2/08): Obama 51, McCain 41 (OBAMA +12)
Missouri (FOX News/Rasmussen, 10/6/08): Obama 50, McCain 47 (OBAMA +3)
Nevada (InAdv/PollPosition, 10/7/08): Obama 49, McCain 47 (OBAMA +2)
Nevada (Reno Gazette-Journal, 10/7/08): Obama 50, McCain 43 (OBAMA +7)
New Hampshire (CNN/Time, 10/7/08): Obama 53, McCain 45 (OBAMA +8)
New Mexico (Albuquerque Journal, 10/7/08): Obama 45, McCain 40 (OBAMA +5)
Ohio (PPP (D), 10/7/08): Obama 49, McCain 43 (OBAMA +6)
Ohio (CNN/Time, 10/7/08): Obama 50, McCain 47 (OBAMA +3)
Virginia (SurveyUSA, 10/7/08): Obama 53, McCain 43 (OBAMA +10)
Virginia (Suffolk, 10/7/08): Obama 51, McCain 39 (OBAMA +10)
Wisconsin (SurveyUSA, 10/7/07): Obama 52, McCain 42 (OBAMA +10)
Wisconsin (CNN/Time, 10/7/08): Obama 51, McCain 46 (OBAMA +5)
Some states once thought to be safe for the Republicans are now becoming competitive for Senator Obama.
Georgia (InAdv/PollPosition, 10/2/08): McCain 50, Obama 44 (MCCAIN +6)
Indiana (CNN/Time, 10/7/08): McCain 51, Obama 46 (MCCAIN +5)
Indiana (Research 2000, 10/7/08): McCain 46, Obama 46 (TIED)
North Carolina (CNN/Time, 10/7/08): McCain 49, Obama 49 (TIED)
West Virginia (Rasmussen, 9/24/08): McCain 50, Obama 42 (MCCAIN +8)
West Virginia (CNN/TIME, 9/23/08): McCain 50, Obama 46 (MCCAIN +4)
Four weeks before Election Day, Senator Obama wins the election with 364 electoral votes.
Congress (Senate and House)
On the coattails of the emergent Barack Obama, the Senate races are heavily favoring Democrats. As I mentioned in my August 14, 2008 article, “The Magic Number 60,” only Senate Democrat Mary Landrieu (D-La.) was in jeopardy of defeat. The most recent poll shows Landrieu leading her Republican opponent, State Treasurer John Kennedy (R-La.), by 13%.
Not a single Democratic Senate seat will be lost in 2008.
As for Republican seats, I will now predict that the Democrats will pick up 8.5 of them. Although I am confident that 8.5 will round up to 9 or higher come Election Day.
Certain Democratic Pick-Ups (4)
Colorado (Open): Former Congressman Bob Schaffer (R) v. Congressman Mark Udall (D)
New Mexico (Open): Congressman Steve Pearce (R) v. Congressman Tom Udall (D)
Virginia (Open): Former Governor Jim Gilmore (R) v. former Governor Mark Warner (D)
New Hampshire: Senator John Sununu Jr. (R) v. former Governor Jeanne Shaheen (D)
Likely Democratic Pick-Ups (3)
Alaska: Senator Ted Stevens (R) v. Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D)
North Carolina: Senator Elizabeth Dole v. State Senator Kay Hagan (D)
Oregon: Senator Gordon Smith (R) v. State House Speaker Jeff Merkley (D)
Toss Ups (4)
Mississippi (Special Election): Senator Roger Wicker (R) v. former Governor Ronnie Musgrove (D)
Minnesota: Senator Norm Coleman (R) v. Al Franken (D) v. former Senator Dean Barkley (I)*
Kentucky: Senator Mitch McConnell (R) v. Bruce Lunsford (D)
Georgia: Senator Saxby Chambliss (R) v. former State Representative Jim Martin (D)
If the trend toward Democrats continues in the next four weeks, even more states, such as Maine, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas could become competitive.
Generally, as the Senate goes, so goes the House. In my August 28, 2008 article, “Breaking Down the House,” I predicted that the Democrats would pick up 21 seats. Given recent polling trends and the overall political environment, I now believe that the number will be closer to 30.
Governor
In 2008, there are 11 gubernatorial contests.
8 are safe for 6 incumbents and 2 candidates of the incumbent party in open seat contests. Democratic Governors Brian Schweitzer of Montana, John Lynch of New Hampshire and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia will win reelection. Republican Governors John Hoeven of North Dakota, John Huntsman Jr. of Utah and Jim Douglas of Vermont will also return to their respective State Capitols.
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon (D-Mo.) and Delaware State Treasurer Jack Markell (D-De.) will be the next Governors of their respective states.
3 races are toss-ups.
Indiana: Incumbent Governor Mitch Daniels (R-In.), former Budget Director under President George W. Bush, is battling former Congresswoman Jill Long Thompson (D-In.) for a second term. Recent polls indicate the race is very close.
North Carolina: Governor Michael Easley (D-N.C.) is term limited. Charlotte Mayor, Republican Pat McCrory (R-N.C.), and Lieutenant Governor Bev Perdue (D-N.C.) are running to succeed Easley. Recent polls give McCrory a narrow lead.
Washington: Incumbent Governor Christine Gregoire (D-Wa.) is facing a rematch against former State Senator, and 2004 Republican Gubernatorial nominee, Dino Rossi. Recent polls evidence a tight race.
In a year favoring Democrats, each of Thompson in Indiana, Perdue in North Carolina and Gregoire in Washington has some additional wind in their sails. Which is not to say that each will win; however, in close races, every vote helps.
Conclusion
In the past two months, the tides have risen dramatically for Democratic candidates at all levels. Senator Barack Obama is leading and extending his leads in each of the battleground states. Senate Democrats are within striking distance of a filibuster-proof majority (i.e. 60 votes for cloture). And the House Democratic Caucus is certain to expand; the only question is by how much.
So that leaves the question, then what?
Will Democratic control of the White House and Congress lead to the change that Senator Obama regularly speaks of? Will the Democrats pull troops out of Iraq? Send more to Afghanistan? Find Osama bin Laden? Address nuclear weapons in Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and Russia? Establish universal health care? Lower taxes on the middle class? Make college tuition tax deductible? Fix the financial crisis and credit markets? Work to make America energy independent? Tackle global warming? Institute a program of national service? Stop making air travelers remove their shoes at airports (neither the United Kingdom nor Israel make passengers do this)? Secure the northern and southern borders (and pacify Lou Dobbs)?
We have to wait and see. Although historically, candidates seem to make more promises than they deliver results. Because delivering change is hard. Like moving a brick wall. But ultimately, through the effort of former President Ronald Reagan and others, even the Berlin Wall fell. But after Reagan left office.
Change is difficult, but possible. And it takes a long time. But change must start sometime. Maybe that day is Election Day 2008.
-------------------------------------
Notes
* Former Governor Jesse Ventura (I-Mn.) appointed Dean Barkley, of the same Independence Party of Minnesota, to fill the Senate seat vacated by Senator Paul Wellstone (D-Mn.), who died in a plane crash before Election Day 2002. Former Vice President Walter Mondale (D-Mn.) replaced Wellstone on the ballot and lost to former St. Paul Mayor, and now United States Senator, Norm Coleman on Election Day. Barkley vacated the Senate seat just a few short months after taking office when the 108th Congress was sworn in.
-------------------------------------
Sources
NYTimes.com: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/opinion/13clemens.html
CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/senate/full.list/
RealClearPolitics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com
Politics1: http://www.politics1.com
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
We are exactly four weeks from Election Day 2008, which is Tuesday, November 4. The general election season is in full swing. The conventions are over. We are on the last leg of the elective marathon that began for many almost two years ago. And for others including Senator John McCain (R-Az.), even longer than two years ago.
Running for office is no easy feat. It is physically, mentally and emotionally grueling. For a candidate, each race is like a personal Superbowl. The entire elective process builds to one climax, Election Day, and a binary outcome. Victory or defeat. After the voters decide, none of the yard signs, TV commercials, endorsements, fundraising milestones or catchy slogans matter.
To the winner goes the spoils; to the loser goes absolutely nothing save constant reflection on mistakes the campaign made. In many ways, American elections are akin to two men competing for the affection of the same woman. And only one ultimately wins her.
Emotional Impact
There are two kinds of losing candidates. One who cannot win and another who can win. The emotional strain of losing an election is directly proportional to the chance a candidate has of winning that election. The emotional strain for a candidate with no chance of winning (eg. Libertarian Presidential nominee, and former Congressman, Bob Barr (R-Ga.)) is minimal. He knows his chances. The emotional strain for a candidate with a reasonable chance of winning (eg. Democrat Mark Begich, Democratic nominee for Senate in Alaska) is larger.
But even the candidate who cannot win, and intuitively knows he cannot win, still thinks he can win. Because like the guy at the poker table chasing one card in the deck to the river, there is always that small chance of winning.
Take Senator Joe Biden (D-De.), the Democratic nominee for Vice President. In 1972, at the tender age of 29, he ran against incumbent Senator J. Caleb Boggs (R-De.), who had the strong backing of the Republican Party and President Richard Nixon. Biden stood no chance of winning. But in a stunning upset, he beat Boggs by about 3,000 votes.
Even the sure losers feel the emotional loss. But as a candidate’s strength increases, so does the intensity of the emotional impact of the loss.
Take Democratic National Committee Chairman, and former Vermont Governor, Howard Dean (D-Vt.). At the outset of his campaign in 2001, only the most avid political junkie even knew the name Howard Dean. But the Vermont Governor gained traction and became the frontrunner for the Democratic Presidential nomination. At some point before the Iowa Caucuses, in which Dean placed third behind Senator John Kerry (D-Ma.) and Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), Dean believed he would be the next President of the United States. Then his campaign collapsed. Quite a fall. From thinking he would be President to, “Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.”
Or take former Senator George Allen (R-Va.). In 2005 and most of 2006, Allen was arguably the frontrunner for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination. Never heard of George Allen? Well, that might be because he lost his 2006 race for reelection to the United States Senate to challenger Jim Webb (D-Va.). Can you imagine the emotional impact of falling from the Republican frontrunner to unemployed (in the short span of a few months)?
The emotional roller coaster is real for all candidates, from sure losers to sure winners (unless no one challenges them). While sure winners like Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Ut.) do not lose sleep when running against sacrificial lambs like 2006 Democratic nominee Pete Ashdown (http://peteashdown.org/election-2006.html), I assure you that sure winners breath a sign of relief when Election Day is over and CNN airs the opponent’s concession speech. Ashdown won 31% of the vote. He never had a chance. Unless Hatch suddenly dropped dead before the election. Or the press uncovered an extramarital affair or something worse. As my friend Peter Hort, who was the 2004 Republican nominee for Congress in New York’s Eighth Congressional District, told me, you put yourself in a position to get lucky. And for that, hope always exists.
Example: Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick
My favorite example of the raw emotions evoked by elections is a picture that Rusty Hills, former Michigan GOP Chair and former professor of mine, showed our class. The photograph pictured former Detroit Mayor, Democrat Kwame Kilpatrick, immediately after Kilpatrick won his 2005 reelection race. The Mayor was slumped in a chair, grinning ear-to-ear and physically drained. The photograph personified the emotional trial of running for elective office. The human reaction to triumphing in an emotionally tough adventure. Imagine his demeanor if he lost.
According to polls leading up to Election Day 2005, Kilpatrick trailed his opponent, fellow Democrat Freman Hendrix, by double digits. The deficit was the result of various scandals and questionable behavior. Kilpatrick improperly spent taxpayer dollars on a car for his wife and hotel rooms and meals for himself. He also stood watching as one of his bodyguards beat up a reporter. Mayor Kilpatrick lost the Democratic Primary by 10 points. But in the Election Day runoff, Kilpatrick rebounded to win a second term with approximately 53% of the vote.
The Feeling of Loss
Think of what an election might tell a losing candidate. Voters did not like his message. Or his policies. Or even the candidate as a person. In a Presidential Election, that could mean 60 million people. 60 million people telling a candidate that he is not good enough, not smart enough, not trustworthy enough and/or not capable of effectively handling the office.
Of course, the voters may not think all of these things. They may not think any of these things. But when a constituency picks the other guy, what else can the losing candidate think?
I remember running once for Class President in High School. I lost. And I thought, how stupid are all of the people in my class. How could they not vote for me? I mean, it’s ME!
Most candidates cannot avoid the feeling. Especially since the decision to run for office is partly predicated upon the confidence of a candidate in himself. And given the amount of time, money and energy candidates spend running for office, the feeling is understandable. Run for office and see for yourself.
Jon Lovitz, playing 1988 Democratic Presidential Nominee, and Massachusetts Governor, Michael Dukakis (D-Ma.), in the 1988 SNL Presidential Debate skit articulates the sentiment in his response to Dana Carvey playing George H. W. Bush. (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=23764935).
In the end, the winner-take-all system of voting means that there is only one Prom King. One officeholder. The other guy goes home to find a job. Unless he already has one. Senator John Kerry (D-Ma.) returned to the Senate. Vice President Al Gore went to teach at the Journalism School at Columbia University, became active in the fight against global warming among other pursuits. Senator Bob Dole retired.
So in 2008, who are the David Cooks and who the David Archuletas?
Election Update
Within the last two months, much has changed. The Vice Presidential nominees were selected. The Conventions occurred. The subprime mortgage debacle sent some banks into bankruptcy, others into the hands of new owners. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson pushed a recovery plan through Congress, making the federal government a new heavyweight on Wall Street. The Palin Bump is flattening. The first Presidential Debate was held. And the Vice Presidential Debate happened.
So how did these events affect the Presidential and down-ticket races? Hard to say. But it does seem clear that the nation prefers Senator Obama to manage the economy than Senator McCain. Because if Senator McCain wins the election, maybe he will suspend his Presidency during the next economic crisis (sorry, I could not help myself).
Here are the latest polls and predictions on the Presidential, Congressional and Gubernatorial races.
The White House
Two months ago, national polls (which we all know are largely worthless) forecasted a very close race. About a month ago, national polls indicated that John McCain enjoyed a slight lead. Currently, Senator Obama leads nationwide and is in firm command of the Presidential Election.
Check out the most recent swing state poll numbers (from RealClearPolitics). Obama leads in every one of them. These are the important polls because they foreshadow how the electoral votes will fall. Brackets contain the name of the poll followed by the date of the poll.
Colorado (InAdv/PollPosition, 10/7/08): Obama 51, McCain 45 (OBAMA +6)
Florida (Mason-Dixon, 10/7/08): Obama 48, McCain 46 (OBAMA +2)
Iowa (Research 2000, 10/1/08): Obama 55, McCain 39 (OBAMA +16)
Michigan (PPP (D), 10/2/08): Obama 51, McCain 41 (OBAMA +12)
Missouri (FOX News/Rasmussen, 10/6/08): Obama 50, McCain 47 (OBAMA +3)
Nevada (InAdv/PollPosition, 10/7/08): Obama 49, McCain 47 (OBAMA +2)
Nevada (Reno Gazette-Journal, 10/7/08): Obama 50, McCain 43 (OBAMA +7)
New Hampshire (CNN/Time, 10/7/08): Obama 53, McCain 45 (OBAMA +8)
New Mexico (Albuquerque Journal, 10/7/08): Obama 45, McCain 40 (OBAMA +5)
Ohio (PPP (D), 10/7/08): Obama 49, McCain 43 (OBAMA +6)
Ohio (CNN/Time, 10/7/08): Obama 50, McCain 47 (OBAMA +3)
Virginia (SurveyUSA, 10/7/08): Obama 53, McCain 43 (OBAMA +10)
Virginia (Suffolk, 10/7/08): Obama 51, McCain 39 (OBAMA +10)
Wisconsin (SurveyUSA, 10/7/07): Obama 52, McCain 42 (OBAMA +10)
Wisconsin (CNN/Time, 10/7/08): Obama 51, McCain 46 (OBAMA +5)
Some states once thought to be safe for the Republicans are now becoming competitive for Senator Obama.
Georgia (InAdv/PollPosition, 10/2/08): McCain 50, Obama 44 (MCCAIN +6)
Indiana (CNN/Time, 10/7/08): McCain 51, Obama 46 (MCCAIN +5)
Indiana (Research 2000, 10/7/08): McCain 46, Obama 46 (TIED)
North Carolina (CNN/Time, 10/7/08): McCain 49, Obama 49 (TIED)
West Virginia (Rasmussen, 9/24/08): McCain 50, Obama 42 (MCCAIN +8)
West Virginia (CNN/TIME, 9/23/08): McCain 50, Obama 46 (MCCAIN +4)
Four weeks before Election Day, Senator Obama wins the election with 364 electoral votes.
Congress (Senate and House)
On the coattails of the emergent Barack Obama, the Senate races are heavily favoring Democrats. As I mentioned in my August 14, 2008 article, “The Magic Number 60,” only Senate Democrat Mary Landrieu (D-La.) was in jeopardy of defeat. The most recent poll shows Landrieu leading her Republican opponent, State Treasurer John Kennedy (R-La.), by 13%.
Not a single Democratic Senate seat will be lost in 2008.
As for Republican seats, I will now predict that the Democrats will pick up 8.5 of them. Although I am confident that 8.5 will round up to 9 or higher come Election Day.
Certain Democratic Pick-Ups (4)
Colorado (Open): Former Congressman Bob Schaffer (R) v. Congressman Mark Udall (D)
New Mexico (Open): Congressman Steve Pearce (R) v. Congressman Tom Udall (D)
Virginia (Open): Former Governor Jim Gilmore (R) v. former Governor Mark Warner (D)
New Hampshire: Senator John Sununu Jr. (R) v. former Governor Jeanne Shaheen (D)
Likely Democratic Pick-Ups (3)
Alaska: Senator Ted Stevens (R) v. Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D)
North Carolina: Senator Elizabeth Dole v. State Senator Kay Hagan (D)
Oregon: Senator Gordon Smith (R) v. State House Speaker Jeff Merkley (D)
Toss Ups (4)
Mississippi (Special Election): Senator Roger Wicker (R) v. former Governor Ronnie Musgrove (D)
Minnesota: Senator Norm Coleman (R) v. Al Franken (D) v. former Senator Dean Barkley (I)*
Kentucky: Senator Mitch McConnell (R) v. Bruce Lunsford (D)
Georgia: Senator Saxby Chambliss (R) v. former State Representative Jim Martin (D)
If the trend toward Democrats continues in the next four weeks, even more states, such as Maine, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas could become competitive.
Generally, as the Senate goes, so goes the House. In my August 28, 2008 article, “Breaking Down the House,” I predicted that the Democrats would pick up 21 seats. Given recent polling trends and the overall political environment, I now believe that the number will be closer to 30.
Governor
In 2008, there are 11 gubernatorial contests.
8 are safe for 6 incumbents and 2 candidates of the incumbent party in open seat contests. Democratic Governors Brian Schweitzer of Montana, John Lynch of New Hampshire and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia will win reelection. Republican Governors John Hoeven of North Dakota, John Huntsman Jr. of Utah and Jim Douglas of Vermont will also return to their respective State Capitols.
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon (D-Mo.) and Delaware State Treasurer Jack Markell (D-De.) will be the next Governors of their respective states.
3 races are toss-ups.
Indiana: Incumbent Governor Mitch Daniels (R-In.), former Budget Director under President George W. Bush, is battling former Congresswoman Jill Long Thompson (D-In.) for a second term. Recent polls indicate the race is very close.
North Carolina: Governor Michael Easley (D-N.C.) is term limited. Charlotte Mayor, Republican Pat McCrory (R-N.C.), and Lieutenant Governor Bev Perdue (D-N.C.) are running to succeed Easley. Recent polls give McCrory a narrow lead.
Washington: Incumbent Governor Christine Gregoire (D-Wa.) is facing a rematch against former State Senator, and 2004 Republican Gubernatorial nominee, Dino Rossi. Recent polls evidence a tight race.
In a year favoring Democrats, each of Thompson in Indiana, Perdue in North Carolina and Gregoire in Washington has some additional wind in their sails. Which is not to say that each will win; however, in close races, every vote helps.
Conclusion
In the past two months, the tides have risen dramatically for Democratic candidates at all levels. Senator Barack Obama is leading and extending his leads in each of the battleground states. Senate Democrats are within striking distance of a filibuster-proof majority (i.e. 60 votes for cloture). And the House Democratic Caucus is certain to expand; the only question is by how much.
So that leaves the question, then what?
Will Democratic control of the White House and Congress lead to the change that Senator Obama regularly speaks of? Will the Democrats pull troops out of Iraq? Send more to Afghanistan? Find Osama bin Laden? Address nuclear weapons in Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and Russia? Establish universal health care? Lower taxes on the middle class? Make college tuition tax deductible? Fix the financial crisis and credit markets? Work to make America energy independent? Tackle global warming? Institute a program of national service? Stop making air travelers remove their shoes at airports (neither the United Kingdom nor Israel make passengers do this)? Secure the northern and southern borders (and pacify Lou Dobbs)?
We have to wait and see. Although historically, candidates seem to make more promises than they deliver results. Because delivering change is hard. Like moving a brick wall. But ultimately, through the effort of former President Ronald Reagan and others, even the Berlin Wall fell. But after Reagan left office.
Change is difficult, but possible. And it takes a long time. But change must start sometime. Maybe that day is Election Day 2008.
-------------------------------------
Notes
* Former Governor Jesse Ventura (I-Mn.) appointed Dean Barkley, of the same Independence Party of Minnesota, to fill the Senate seat vacated by Senator Paul Wellstone (D-Mn.), who died in a plane crash before Election Day 2002. Former Vice President Walter Mondale (D-Mn.) replaced Wellstone on the ballot and lost to former St. Paul Mayor, and now United States Senator, Norm Coleman on Election Day. Barkley vacated the Senate seat just a few short months after taking office when the 108th Congress was sworn in.
-------------------------------------
Sources
NYTimes.com: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/opinion/13clemens.html
CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/senate/full.list/
RealClearPolitics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com
Politics1: http://www.politics1.com
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The Presidential Center of Gravity
The Presidential Center of Gravity
September 25, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
Senator John McCain (R-Az.), the 2008 Republican nominee for President, cannot win the White House.
Now some of you are thinking, of course John McCain cannot win the election after eight years of Republican rule under President George W. Bush. America will never elect him President. And the rest of you are thinking, of course he can (and will) win the Presidency. He was right on the troop surge in Iraq, he will defend America’s borders and he will cut our taxes. America understands what it needs over the next four years and John McCain is the man who will deliver it.
Well, as much as I would like to debate the differences in policy and leadership styles of John McCain and Barack Obama, my opening statement is not premised upon the will of the electorate. My argument that John McCain cannot with the Presidency is based upon history.
The Theory
I developed my own theory on Presidential Elections called “The Presidential Center of Gravity Theory.” My theory is this. Whichever Presidential ticket has the lower geographical center of gravity wins the election. To be more precise, whichever Presidential ticket has, between the home states of the Presidential nominee and Vice Presidential nominee, the lower average latitude, wins the White House.
This sounds crazy. But not since 1928 has a ticket with a higher center of gravity occupied the Oval Office. I am including the evidence at the end of the article for your reference. Feel free to check yourself.
Some Qualifications
My theory is not based on precise science. I did not map out all the arcs on a globe and incorporate GPS to find the exact midpoint. There is room for error. Although in most of the Elections since 1932, the midpoints between the two Presidential tickets have not been that close. One can also choose to measure from different points within each state (eg. I chose to measure from Southern California, as that was where each of Earl Warren, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were from), which may also vary the results.
But what struck me was the idea that tickets with a Southern weight seem to have an advantage in Presidential Elections.
Analysis
If this theory holds any weight, then some connection must exist between the lower center of gravity and the way the electorate votes. There are several possible explanations.
The South Votes for the South
First, southern states vote for southern candidates. The evidence does link the center of gravity with historical southern voting patterns, but this connection is likely coincidental and not causal. Especially in light of the fact that Vice Presidential nominees rarely affect electoral outcomes (or so conventional wisdom holds).
Here is the evidence. Since 1932, only one Presidential candidate has won the White House without winning at least 4 of the 8 southern border states (from east to west, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California). That lone victor was Bill Clinton in 1992. He won 3 (Louisiana, New Mexico and California). However, in 1992, remember the Perot factor. Ross Perot is one of only four non-major party candidates to break 10% in the popular vote since Reconstruction. He won almost 19% of the popular vote in 1992. The others were former President, and Bull Moose Party Nominee, Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (27.4%), Progressive Party Nominee Robert LaFollette in 1924 (16.6%) and American Independent Party Nominee George Wallace in 1968 (13.5%).
Another piece of evidence is that since 1932, no candidate has won the White House without carrying the electoral votes of less than five of the thirteen states of the Old South (Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas). And all winners won at least half except for Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. They won 5.
The evidence makes clear that electoral votes in the South are pivotal. But it does not make clear whether the relationship between the center of gravity and southern voting patters are causal or merely casual.
Personality of the Presidential Candidate
A second explanation is that the center of gravity reflects the personality and values of the Presidential candidate. For a lower center of gravity, the Presidential candidate is either already geographically southern or selects a running mate who makes his ticket more geographically southern. And not just in the Southern sense of southern. Just southern in geographical sense (as Arizona has just as much claim on “southern” as Mississippi).
Maybe voters are reacting to these non-Northern values in voting for a Presidential ticket. One primary reason that Senator John Kennedy selected Senator Lyndon Johnson (D-Tx.) to be his running mate in 1960 was precisely because the New England Catholic Kennedy needed help appealing to voters in the South.
Since Franklin Roosevelt won his fourth term in 1944, no President except Kennedy has come from a state that sits north of the latitude that runs through the middle of the United States. Maybe there exists a Presidential bias against the North.
And if one does exist, the Republicans have taken advantage of it. Since the time of Roosevelt, the GOP has only nominated one Presidential candidate from above the middle latitude. Gerald Ford, the incumbent President, in 1976. And he lost.
This is clear evidence that electoral votes in the South are important, but does one ticket beat another in the South because its center of gravity is closer to the South? Especially in light of the fact that generally, Vice Presidential candidates do not affect election outcomes?
Just a Coincidence
A third, and the most likely explanation, is that the theory is simply a coincidence. The geographic midpoint does not matter. It is just an interesting tidbit that I discovered because I have too much free time on my hands.
Maybe geography is just one, or none, of a host of determinative factors.
In 1932, America found itself in economic dire straits and decided to switch parties to Franklin Roosevelt. Then America decided to stick with Roosevelt and Truman through the end of World War II. And who could vote against a war hero in Dwight Eisenhower? He was the Supreme Allied Commander. Try coming up with a more intimidating title than Supreme Allied Commander. But then the country just did not trust the shifty Richard Nixon and elected a young, idealist in John Kennedy in 1960. And then Barry Goldwater scared America with his belligerent rhetoric and by implying that he might saw off the eastern seaboard, so we stayed with the incumbent Johnson. And then the country was sick of Vietnam and decided to change parties by electing Richard Nixon to bring the troops home. And then we wanted change again after Watergate and picked Jimmy Carter over the guy who pardoned Nixon. But Carter depressed rather than inspired us and proved ineffective at protecting us, so America voted for the upbeat actor strong on defense. And how could America vote for a clown riding around in a tank who released murderers and rapists from prison and could not clean up his hometown harbor? So we picked George H. W. Bush. But we thought he ruined the economy, so we went with the other guy in 1992 and stayed with him amidst a sex scandal in 1996 because the other guy was just too old and out of touch. In 2000, well, I cannot explain that one. And then 2004. If the guy could not defend himself and his own record, how could he defend his country?
Certainly, each election is not so simple. Each election is a race unto itself, which is determined by literally myriad factors that can truly only be understood by those who experienced the election up close and in person.
Election of 2008
According to “The Presidential Center of Gravity Theory,” Senator John McCain could have selected almost anyone and kept the lower center of gravity. But he chose the most northern running mate he could find in Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R-Ak.). Where is the center of gravity? Not in the United States.
Therefore, according to my theory, John McCain cannot with the White House. Senator Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.
Who Wins and Who Loses?
As I alluded to last week in the article, “And the Winner Is…” analyzing any Presidential Election cannot be done correctly on a macro, nationwide level. Because one candidate does not win every vote. And most elections are close.
Only three times in the history of U. S. Presidential Elections has one candidate broken 60% of the popular vote. Lyndon Johnson in 1964 (61.05%), Franklin Roosevelt in 1936 (60.8%), Richard Nixon in 1972 (60.67%) and Warren Harding in 1920 (60.32%). Only Roosevelt’s career did not end in some crushing defeat during the ensuing 4 years.
In 1976, sure, plenty of Americans were frustrated that President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon and punished Ford for doing so at the polls. So pundits then and historians now charge the pardon, at least in part, with the Ford loss. But if Ford won 12,000 more votes in Ohio (about 0.3%) and 15,000 more votes in Mississippi (about 1.9%), Jimmy Carter would have remained Governor of Georgia and would have never occupied the White House. And if Ford did win reelection 1976, the debate about the wisdom of his pardon would have been put to rest.
Presidential Elections are close. Voters are the margins decide the outcome. And what drives them to vote for one candidate or another, only they truly know. So the talking heads can talk and the typing hands can type, but our theories and analyses are mere speculation. Sure, we can cite overwhelming evidence to back up our statements (and some people do not even bother to do that), but in the end, we are simply reading the same polls, the same news and the same data as everyone else. The only thing we really know is that we do not know why one candidate won and the other lost. Even if we think we do.
Did Gore lose because he did not use Clinton enough? Did Kerry lose because Americans did not trust him to defend the United States? Will John McCain lose because people do not want a third Bush term? Or will Barack Obama lose because he is too out of touch with American values?
Only that middle voter knows the answer. That one voter that takes the candidate from 50% of the popular vote in a state to 50.00000000001%. Find that voter and you’ll find the answer. Well, at least that one answer.
The Evidence
ELECTION OF 1932
Republican Presidential Candidate: Herbert Hoover (Iowa)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Charles Curtis (Kansas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere on the northern border of Kansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Franklin Roosevelt (New York)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: John Garner (Texas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in western Tennessee
Winner: Roosevelt-Garner
ELECTION OF 1936
Republican Presidential Candidate: Alf Landon (Kansas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Frank Knox (Illinois)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northeastern Kansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Franklin Roosevelt (New York)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: John Garner (Texas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in western Tennessee
Winner: Roosevelt-Garner
ELECTION OF 1940
Republican Presidential Candidate: Wendell Willkie (New York)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Charles McNary (Oregon)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southern South Dakota
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Franklin Roosevelt (New York)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Henry Wallace (Iowa)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northern Indiana/Ohio
Winner: Roosevelt-Wallace
ELECTION OF 1944
Republican Presidential Candidate: Thomas Dewey (New York)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: John Bricker (Ohio)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southwestern Pennsylvania
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Franklin Roosevelt (New York)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Harry Truman (Missouri)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northern Kentucky
Winner: Roosevelt-Truman
ELECTION OF 1948
Republican Presidential Candidate: Thomas Dewey (New York)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Earl Warren (California)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northeastern Kansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Harry Truman (Missouri)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Alben Barkley (Kentucky)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southern Illinois/western Kentucky
Winner: Truman-Barkley
ELECTION OF 1952
Republican Presidential Candidate: Dwight Eisenhower (Kansas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Richard Nixon (California)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northern New Mexico
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Adlai Stevenson (Illinois)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: John Sparkman (Alabama)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in western Kentucky
Winner: Eisenhower-Nixon
ELECTION OF 1956
Republican Presidential Candidate: Dwight Eisenhower (Kansas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Richard Nixon (California)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northern New Mexico
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Adlai Stevenson (Illinois)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Estes Kefauver (Tennessee)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in western Indiana
Winner: Eisenhower-Nixon
ELECTION OF 1960
Republican Presidential Candidate: Richard Nixon (California)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Henry Cabot-Lodge (Massachusetts)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northeastern Kansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: John Kennedy (Massachusetts)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Lyndon Johnson (Texas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northern Tennessee
Winner: Kennedy-Johnson
ELECTION OF 1964
Republican Presidential Candidate: Barry Goldwater (Arizona)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: William Miller (New York)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in eastern Kansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Lyndon Johnson (Texas)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Hubert Humphrey (Minnesota)
Center of Gravity: A little farther south in eastern Kansas
Winner: Johnson-Humphrey
ELECTION OF 1968
Republican Presidential Candidate: Richard Nixon (California)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Spiro Agnew (Maryland)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southern Kansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Hubert Humphrey (Minnesota)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Ed Muskie (Maine)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in Canada
Winner: Nixon-Agnew
ELECTION OF 1972
Republican Presidential Candidate: Richard Nixon (California)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Spiro Agnew (Maryland)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southern Kansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: George McGovern (South Dakota)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Sargent Shriver (Maryland)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southern Wisconsin
Winner: Nixon-Agnew
ELECTION OF 1976
Republican Presidential Candidate: Gerald Ford (Michigan)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Bob Dole (Kansas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northern Missouri/southern Iowa
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Jimmy Carter (Georgia)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Ernest Mondale (Minnesota)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in central Illinois (just south of the GOP ticket)
Winner: Carter-Mondale
ELECTION OF 1980
Republican Presidential Candidate: Ronald Reagan (California)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: George H. W. Bush (Texas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in western Texas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Jimmy Carter (Georgia)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Ernest Mondale (Minnesota)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in central Illinois
Winner: Reagan-Bush
ELECTION OF 1984
Republican Presidential Candidate: Ronald Reagan (California)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: George H. W. Bush (Texas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in western Texas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Ernest Mondale (Minnesota)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Geraldine Ferraro (New York)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in Lake Michigan
Winner: Reagan-Bush
ELECTION OF 1988
Republican Presidential Candidate: George H. W. Bush (Texas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Dan Quayle (Indiana)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in central Arkansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Michael Dukakis (Massachusetts)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Lloyd Bentsen (Texas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in western Tennessee
Winner: Bush-Quayle
ELECTION OF 1988
Republican Presidential Candidate: George H. W. Bush (Texas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Dan Quayle (Indiana)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in central Arkansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Bill Clinton (Arkansas)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Al Gore (Tennessee)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southern Tennessee (just south of the GOP ticket)
Winner: Clinton-Gore
ELECTION OF 1996
Republican Presidential Candidate: Bob Dole (Kansas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Jack Kemp (New York)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in eastern Illinois
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Bill Clinton (Arkansas)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Al Gore (Tennessee)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southern Tennessee (just south of the GOP ticket)
Winner: Clinton-Gore
ELECTION OF 2000
Republican Presidential Candidate: George W. Bush (Texas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Richard Cheney (Wyoming)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in on the New Mexico/Oklahoma/Texas border
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Al Gore (Tennessee)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in West Virginia
Winner: Bush-Cheney
ELECTION OF 2004
Republican Presidential Candidate: George W. Bush (Texas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Richard Cheney (Wyoming)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in on the New Mexico/Oklahoma/Texas border
Democratic Presidential Candidate: John Kerry (Massachusetts)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: John Edwards (North Carolina)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northern Virginia
Winner: Bush-Cheney
ELECTION OF 2008
Republican Presidential Candidate: John McCain (Arizona)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Sarah Palin (Alaska)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere not in the continental United States
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Barack Obama (Illinois)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Joseph Biden (Delaware)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in the continental United States
Winner: ?
-------------------------
Sources
Wikipedia: www.wikipedia.com
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U. S. Presidential Elections: www.uselectionatlas.org
September 25, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
Senator John McCain (R-Az.), the 2008 Republican nominee for President, cannot win the White House.
Now some of you are thinking, of course John McCain cannot win the election after eight years of Republican rule under President George W. Bush. America will never elect him President. And the rest of you are thinking, of course he can (and will) win the Presidency. He was right on the troop surge in Iraq, he will defend America’s borders and he will cut our taxes. America understands what it needs over the next four years and John McCain is the man who will deliver it.
Well, as much as I would like to debate the differences in policy and leadership styles of John McCain and Barack Obama, my opening statement is not premised upon the will of the electorate. My argument that John McCain cannot with the Presidency is based upon history.
The Theory
I developed my own theory on Presidential Elections called “The Presidential Center of Gravity Theory.” My theory is this. Whichever Presidential ticket has the lower geographical center of gravity wins the election. To be more precise, whichever Presidential ticket has, between the home states of the Presidential nominee and Vice Presidential nominee, the lower average latitude, wins the White House.
This sounds crazy. But not since 1928 has a ticket with a higher center of gravity occupied the Oval Office. I am including the evidence at the end of the article for your reference. Feel free to check yourself.
Some Qualifications
My theory is not based on precise science. I did not map out all the arcs on a globe and incorporate GPS to find the exact midpoint. There is room for error. Although in most of the Elections since 1932, the midpoints between the two Presidential tickets have not been that close. One can also choose to measure from different points within each state (eg. I chose to measure from Southern California, as that was where each of Earl Warren, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were from), which may also vary the results.
But what struck me was the idea that tickets with a Southern weight seem to have an advantage in Presidential Elections.
Analysis
If this theory holds any weight, then some connection must exist between the lower center of gravity and the way the electorate votes. There are several possible explanations.
The South Votes for the South
First, southern states vote for southern candidates. The evidence does link the center of gravity with historical southern voting patterns, but this connection is likely coincidental and not causal. Especially in light of the fact that Vice Presidential nominees rarely affect electoral outcomes (or so conventional wisdom holds).
Here is the evidence. Since 1932, only one Presidential candidate has won the White House without winning at least 4 of the 8 southern border states (from east to west, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California). That lone victor was Bill Clinton in 1992. He won 3 (Louisiana, New Mexico and California). However, in 1992, remember the Perot factor. Ross Perot is one of only four non-major party candidates to break 10% in the popular vote since Reconstruction. He won almost 19% of the popular vote in 1992. The others were former President, and Bull Moose Party Nominee, Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (27.4%), Progressive Party Nominee Robert LaFollette in 1924 (16.6%) and American Independent Party Nominee George Wallace in 1968 (13.5%).
Another piece of evidence is that since 1932, no candidate has won the White House without carrying the electoral votes of less than five of the thirteen states of the Old South (Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas). And all winners won at least half except for Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. They won 5.
The evidence makes clear that electoral votes in the South are pivotal. But it does not make clear whether the relationship between the center of gravity and southern voting patters are causal or merely casual.
Personality of the Presidential Candidate
A second explanation is that the center of gravity reflects the personality and values of the Presidential candidate. For a lower center of gravity, the Presidential candidate is either already geographically southern or selects a running mate who makes his ticket more geographically southern. And not just in the Southern sense of southern. Just southern in geographical sense (as Arizona has just as much claim on “southern” as Mississippi).
Maybe voters are reacting to these non-Northern values in voting for a Presidential ticket. One primary reason that Senator John Kennedy selected Senator Lyndon Johnson (D-Tx.) to be his running mate in 1960 was precisely because the New England Catholic Kennedy needed help appealing to voters in the South.
Since Franklin Roosevelt won his fourth term in 1944, no President except Kennedy has come from a state that sits north of the latitude that runs through the middle of the United States. Maybe there exists a Presidential bias against the North.
And if one does exist, the Republicans have taken advantage of it. Since the time of Roosevelt, the GOP has only nominated one Presidential candidate from above the middle latitude. Gerald Ford, the incumbent President, in 1976. And he lost.
This is clear evidence that electoral votes in the South are important, but does one ticket beat another in the South because its center of gravity is closer to the South? Especially in light of the fact that generally, Vice Presidential candidates do not affect election outcomes?
Just a Coincidence
A third, and the most likely explanation, is that the theory is simply a coincidence. The geographic midpoint does not matter. It is just an interesting tidbit that I discovered because I have too much free time on my hands.
Maybe geography is just one, or none, of a host of determinative factors.
In 1932, America found itself in economic dire straits and decided to switch parties to Franklin Roosevelt. Then America decided to stick with Roosevelt and Truman through the end of World War II. And who could vote against a war hero in Dwight Eisenhower? He was the Supreme Allied Commander. Try coming up with a more intimidating title than Supreme Allied Commander. But then the country just did not trust the shifty Richard Nixon and elected a young, idealist in John Kennedy in 1960. And then Barry Goldwater scared America with his belligerent rhetoric and by implying that he might saw off the eastern seaboard, so we stayed with the incumbent Johnson. And then the country was sick of Vietnam and decided to change parties by electing Richard Nixon to bring the troops home. And then we wanted change again after Watergate and picked Jimmy Carter over the guy who pardoned Nixon. But Carter depressed rather than inspired us and proved ineffective at protecting us, so America voted for the upbeat actor strong on defense. And how could America vote for a clown riding around in a tank who released murderers and rapists from prison and could not clean up his hometown harbor? So we picked George H. W. Bush. But we thought he ruined the economy, so we went with the other guy in 1992 and stayed with him amidst a sex scandal in 1996 because the other guy was just too old and out of touch. In 2000, well, I cannot explain that one. And then 2004. If the guy could not defend himself and his own record, how could he defend his country?
Certainly, each election is not so simple. Each election is a race unto itself, which is determined by literally myriad factors that can truly only be understood by those who experienced the election up close and in person.
Election of 2008
According to “The Presidential Center of Gravity Theory,” Senator John McCain could have selected almost anyone and kept the lower center of gravity. But he chose the most northern running mate he could find in Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R-Ak.). Where is the center of gravity? Not in the United States.
Therefore, according to my theory, John McCain cannot with the White House. Senator Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.
Who Wins and Who Loses?
As I alluded to last week in the article, “And the Winner Is…” analyzing any Presidential Election cannot be done correctly on a macro, nationwide level. Because one candidate does not win every vote. And most elections are close.
Only three times in the history of U. S. Presidential Elections has one candidate broken 60% of the popular vote. Lyndon Johnson in 1964 (61.05%), Franklin Roosevelt in 1936 (60.8%), Richard Nixon in 1972 (60.67%) and Warren Harding in 1920 (60.32%). Only Roosevelt’s career did not end in some crushing defeat during the ensuing 4 years.
In 1976, sure, plenty of Americans were frustrated that President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon and punished Ford for doing so at the polls. So pundits then and historians now charge the pardon, at least in part, with the Ford loss. But if Ford won 12,000 more votes in Ohio (about 0.3%) and 15,000 more votes in Mississippi (about 1.9%), Jimmy Carter would have remained Governor of Georgia and would have never occupied the White House. And if Ford did win reelection 1976, the debate about the wisdom of his pardon would have been put to rest.
Presidential Elections are close. Voters are the margins decide the outcome. And what drives them to vote for one candidate or another, only they truly know. So the talking heads can talk and the typing hands can type, but our theories and analyses are mere speculation. Sure, we can cite overwhelming evidence to back up our statements (and some people do not even bother to do that), but in the end, we are simply reading the same polls, the same news and the same data as everyone else. The only thing we really know is that we do not know why one candidate won and the other lost. Even if we think we do.
Did Gore lose because he did not use Clinton enough? Did Kerry lose because Americans did not trust him to defend the United States? Will John McCain lose because people do not want a third Bush term? Or will Barack Obama lose because he is too out of touch with American values?
Only that middle voter knows the answer. That one voter that takes the candidate from 50% of the popular vote in a state to 50.00000000001%. Find that voter and you’ll find the answer. Well, at least that one answer.
The Evidence
ELECTION OF 1932
Republican Presidential Candidate: Herbert Hoover (Iowa)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Charles Curtis (Kansas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere on the northern border of Kansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Franklin Roosevelt (New York)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: John Garner (Texas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in western Tennessee
Winner: Roosevelt-Garner
ELECTION OF 1936
Republican Presidential Candidate: Alf Landon (Kansas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Frank Knox (Illinois)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northeastern Kansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Franklin Roosevelt (New York)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: John Garner (Texas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in western Tennessee
Winner: Roosevelt-Garner
ELECTION OF 1940
Republican Presidential Candidate: Wendell Willkie (New York)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Charles McNary (Oregon)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southern South Dakota
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Franklin Roosevelt (New York)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Henry Wallace (Iowa)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northern Indiana/Ohio
Winner: Roosevelt-Wallace
ELECTION OF 1944
Republican Presidential Candidate: Thomas Dewey (New York)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: John Bricker (Ohio)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southwestern Pennsylvania
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Franklin Roosevelt (New York)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Harry Truman (Missouri)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northern Kentucky
Winner: Roosevelt-Truman
ELECTION OF 1948
Republican Presidential Candidate: Thomas Dewey (New York)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Earl Warren (California)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northeastern Kansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Harry Truman (Missouri)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Alben Barkley (Kentucky)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southern Illinois/western Kentucky
Winner: Truman-Barkley
ELECTION OF 1952
Republican Presidential Candidate: Dwight Eisenhower (Kansas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Richard Nixon (California)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northern New Mexico
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Adlai Stevenson (Illinois)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: John Sparkman (Alabama)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in western Kentucky
Winner: Eisenhower-Nixon
ELECTION OF 1956
Republican Presidential Candidate: Dwight Eisenhower (Kansas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Richard Nixon (California)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northern New Mexico
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Adlai Stevenson (Illinois)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Estes Kefauver (Tennessee)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in western Indiana
Winner: Eisenhower-Nixon
ELECTION OF 1960
Republican Presidential Candidate: Richard Nixon (California)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Henry Cabot-Lodge (Massachusetts)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northeastern Kansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: John Kennedy (Massachusetts)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Lyndon Johnson (Texas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northern Tennessee
Winner: Kennedy-Johnson
ELECTION OF 1964
Republican Presidential Candidate: Barry Goldwater (Arizona)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: William Miller (New York)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in eastern Kansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Lyndon Johnson (Texas)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Hubert Humphrey (Minnesota)
Center of Gravity: A little farther south in eastern Kansas
Winner: Johnson-Humphrey
ELECTION OF 1968
Republican Presidential Candidate: Richard Nixon (California)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Spiro Agnew (Maryland)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southern Kansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Hubert Humphrey (Minnesota)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Ed Muskie (Maine)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in Canada
Winner: Nixon-Agnew
ELECTION OF 1972
Republican Presidential Candidate: Richard Nixon (California)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Spiro Agnew (Maryland)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southern Kansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: George McGovern (South Dakota)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Sargent Shriver (Maryland)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southern Wisconsin
Winner: Nixon-Agnew
ELECTION OF 1976
Republican Presidential Candidate: Gerald Ford (Michigan)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Bob Dole (Kansas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northern Missouri/southern Iowa
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Jimmy Carter (Georgia)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Ernest Mondale (Minnesota)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in central Illinois (just south of the GOP ticket)
Winner: Carter-Mondale
ELECTION OF 1980
Republican Presidential Candidate: Ronald Reagan (California)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: George H. W. Bush (Texas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in western Texas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Jimmy Carter (Georgia)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Ernest Mondale (Minnesota)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in central Illinois
Winner: Reagan-Bush
ELECTION OF 1984
Republican Presidential Candidate: Ronald Reagan (California)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: George H. W. Bush (Texas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in western Texas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Ernest Mondale (Minnesota)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Geraldine Ferraro (New York)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in Lake Michigan
Winner: Reagan-Bush
ELECTION OF 1988
Republican Presidential Candidate: George H. W. Bush (Texas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Dan Quayle (Indiana)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in central Arkansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Michael Dukakis (Massachusetts)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Lloyd Bentsen (Texas)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in western Tennessee
Winner: Bush-Quayle
ELECTION OF 1988
Republican Presidential Candidate: George H. W. Bush (Texas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Dan Quayle (Indiana)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in central Arkansas
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Bill Clinton (Arkansas)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Al Gore (Tennessee)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southern Tennessee (just south of the GOP ticket)
Winner: Clinton-Gore
ELECTION OF 1996
Republican Presidential Candidate: Bob Dole (Kansas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Jack Kemp (New York)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in eastern Illinois
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Bill Clinton (Arkansas)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Al Gore (Tennessee)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in southern Tennessee (just south of the GOP ticket)
Winner: Clinton-Gore
ELECTION OF 2000
Republican Presidential Candidate: George W. Bush (Texas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Richard Cheney (Wyoming)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in on the New Mexico/Oklahoma/Texas border
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Al Gore (Tennessee)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in West Virginia
Winner: Bush-Cheney
ELECTION OF 2004
Republican Presidential Candidate: George W. Bush (Texas)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Richard Cheney (Wyoming)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in on the New Mexico/Oklahoma/Texas border
Democratic Presidential Candidate: John Kerry (Massachusetts)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: John Edwards (North Carolina)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in northern Virginia
Winner: Bush-Cheney
ELECTION OF 2008
Republican Presidential Candidate: John McCain (Arizona)
Republican Vice Presidential Candidate: Sarah Palin (Alaska)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere not in the continental United States
Democratic Presidential Candidate: Barack Obama (Illinois)
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate: Joseph Biden (Delaware)
Center of Gravity: Somewhere in the continental United States
Winner: ?
-------------------------
Sources
Wikipedia: www.wikipedia.com
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U. S. Presidential Elections: www.uselectionatlas.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)