Tag Archives: 2012 elections

Will Paul Ryan run for the House?

Posted on by
Reply

Paul Ryan Saturday, primaries Tuesday

The biggest news out of Tuesday’s primaries was Wisconsin: former Gov. Tommy Thompson?  Yup. Thompson won with a plurality, 34 percent. If the opposition was a big anti-Thompson vote, it was split–with Grover Norquist’s help, interestingly. Self-funder Eric Hovde was thus unable to put together quite enough votes to beat Thompson.

Former Governor Thompson

If Wisconsin had a run-off rule like that in Texas–where a nominee has to get over 50 percent–presumably Thompson would be headed for a loss like that of Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. Thompson’s unofficial vote total yesterday was 197,772. His opponents totaled 384,347, approaching double the vote for Thompson. Again, it is interesting that the big-money wing of the so-called Tea Party insurgency–mainly Norquist’s Club for Growth–would weigh in so decisively in Wisconsin. Surely Norquist’s faction can read opinion polls. Can the big-business anti-taxers and anti-regulationers really have thought that Neumann, who came in third, could be put over Thompson? Or did they achieve their actual goal, of damaging Thompson’s main challenger, who fell to second place, thus sending on a more plausible GOP nominee?

Hovde

Will Paul Ryan resign from the U.S. House?

Also in Wisconsin: incumbent Rep. Paul Ryan won his uncontested primary, to face Democratic nominee Rob Zerban. Speaking of polls–if Ryan and his team are reading current election trends, he may not resign from the House to run for Vice President. It will be mildly interesting to see which way they choose to go.

For major self-financing candidates, it was one up and one down yesterday. Hovde lost in Wisconsin, but Linda McMahon won in Connecticut, running again for Senate, this time against Chris Murphy.

Murphy, McMahon

2012 self funding and the state of Florida

Posted on by
Reply

More on self funding in 2012

 

Rick Scott

Self financing, once again, has not lighted up on the big board as one of the top political stories in 2012, and not merely because it is overshadowed by Mitt Romney’s refusal to disclose his tax returns. While there are some expensively self-financed mayor’s races, including in California–where, incidentally, more cities may soon declare bankruptcy than in any other state–the self-financing bug has simply not bitten in most big races.

 

Meg Whitman

Of the eleven governor’s races in 2012, only one involves major self financing. The gubernatorial primary in Missouri takes place Aug. 7, and so far, it looks as though the self-funding effort by David (Dave) Spence (R) is paying off. Spence has contributed more than $2 million to his gubernatorial effort and is competing for the GOP nomination against two candidates whose combined financial support does not equal his. The nominee will challenge incumbent Gov. Jay Nixon (D). Nobody claims that the copious self financing will make Spence a shoo-in for governor if he becomes the nominee. Spence was not projected to be the strongest potential nominee to begin with, and has gotten into trouble by  seeming to over-enhance his academic credentials in his resume. Calling a degree in Home Ec an economics degree may not be a crime but does have potential for generating effective television ads, and humor, about his candidacy.

 

Dave Spence, Missouri

Self financing in governor’s races in 2012 is dwarfed, of course, by the gargantuan tries for governor in 2010. Spence’s effort in Missouri comes to (so far) about one sixty-fourth the total contributed by Meg Whitman to her unsuccessful run against Jerry Brown in California. It comes to about one thirty-second the self financing by Rick Scott (R) in Florida, who won, contravening the predictions.

For further perspective, Spence’s self funding comes to about one eighteenth the amount donated to herself by Linda McMahon (R) in her unsuccessful senate race against Richard Blumenthal (D) in Connecticut.

Linda McMahon is back in the self-funding news again, running again for senator from Connecticut in 2012. Again, she is one of the top self funders according to the Center for Responsive Politics. It remains to be seen whether the self financing contributes more to a win, or to fuel more misogyny in politics.

A more noteworthy item is that the state of Florida is back in the self funding picture again in 2012. It’s not like Rick Scott’s run in 2010, not being written up much nationally, but Florida’s lengthy redistricting process, now theoretically complete, held up normal fundraising efforts for months. That doesn’t mean the money hasn’t come in. It just means that candidate money has been at least as important as usual in Florida, especially in the Florida state senate. Candidate self-financing looks to have kept some state senate campaigns going.

Another melancholy reflection of the use of redistricting delaying tactics, for the state GOP. I’ve seen the same thing in my home state of Texas. First the state party apparatus pushes through a redistricting plan that any attorney can see will not pass constitutional muster. (In Florida, by the way, the GOP is not the majority party by voter registration. It has a lock on the state government acquired through tactics, not through the ballot.) Then the state government, acting as a tool of the party apparatus, stonewalls, foot-drags and otherwise obstructs correction. Generally it pours more citizen money down the drain arguing the losing proposition in court. Then, once the courts have had their say and the state is mandated by law to fix the redistricting at least somewhat, it does exactly the minimum necessary to enable it to hold an election in November. Typically it blames the delay on the opposition–especially if the Dems file suit–and on ‘activist judges’ if not on judicial ‘tyranny’. (Money pays for the ad campaigns, remember.) Meanwhile, issuing ballots–including ballots mailed to overseas voters and to voters in the military–has been held up. The process determining placement of candidates’ names on the ballot has also been held up. And, of course, as long as the district lines are in flux/jeopardy, candidates’ ability to campaign effectively, or to raise funds, has also been held up.

This process of obstruction has disproportionate effect on money-strapped candidates or on comparatively disadvantaged candidates. Campaign fundraising is necessary for almost all people running for office. It is already dicier for challengers, for the minority party in the state legislature, for lesser known candidates and for candidates from poorer neighborhoods. Factor in undefined district boundaries, and it becomes more difficult.

A predominant note sounded after the 2010 elections was that, where candidate self funding is concerned, money cannot buy elections. True as far as it goes–see above, and the previous post–but money can, and does, have disproportionate impact gumming up the works for everyone else. It is at least as effective in buying the influence, behind the scenes, that obtains squirrelly redistricting proposals as in its more public form of campaign finance–where ironically it can call attention to a candidate’s shortcomings, or negatives, by highlighting them in the white-hot glare of big-bucks publicity.

Update August 10:

Sure enough, self funder Dave Spence won the Aug. 7 GOP gubernatorial primary in Missouri. Neither purely establishment GOPer nor pure tea-party outsider, Spence’s victory is something of an exception to the over-all pattern for self-financed candidates.

2012 self funded candidates: Going anywhere?

Posted on by
3

2012 self funded candidates

 

This year, with all the rightful attention to Mitt Romney’s undisclosed tax returns and other financial records, the spotlight has moved away temporarily from some other big money–several large self-funded campaigns for federal office. But a quick check into who is self-funding suggests that the phenomenon of self-funding is continuing to drain GOP prospects in fall. This suggestion should not be oversimplified or exaggerated. But so far, glittering vistas are not opening as the result of wealthy individuals’ pouring millions of their own money–or at least half a million–into their own campaigns. See below.

 

U.S. House:

Of the twelve top self funders in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, four faced each other in expensive house primaries in Texas and New York. David Alameel (D) in Texas 33rd, top self funder in the cycle at the time, lost his primary. Domingo Alberto Garcia, seventh in self funding, beat Alameel but faces Mark Veasey in a July 31 run-off. Jack Davis (R) in New York’s 26th lost his primary, possibly not well positioned anyway but further disadvantaged after scuffling with a cameraman. Jane Corwin (R)  successfully weathered the challenge from former Independent Davis and faces incumbent Kathy Hochul in the general election. Hochul , of course, won the congressional seat in a special election after previous incumbent Chris  Lee (R) aired shirtless photos of himself via craigslist.

Former Rep. Chris Lee, R-Conn.

Texas 33 generally votes D, New York 26 generally votes R. These two races fit the familiar pattern of people pouring money into races they think they can actually win.

Not all self-funded candidacies fit that pattern.

Davis and Corwin were # 2 and 3 respectively in amounts self funded. Number 4, Robert Pittenger (R) in North Carolina’s 9th, won the primary race Tuesday July 17 (yesterday) and will face Jennifer Roberts (D) and Curtis Campbell (I) in the general. Numbers 5 and 6, John K. Delaney (D) and Mark Greenberg (R), won their respective primaries in Maryland’s 6th and Connecticut’s  5th.

Maryland 6 and Connecticut 5 are both iffy, though the Maryland district is much less so.

 

p

Scott Peters

Number 8 on the house self funding list, Independent Bill Bloomfield, faces incumbent Rep. Henry Waxman in California 33. New rules–CA now has a top-two structure in place. Waxman is still favored. Under the same system, Scott Peters (D) in California’s 52nd will face incumbent Rep. Brian Bilbray (R) in November. Peters and Craig Huey in California’s 36th were ninth and tenth among self funders.

Looks as though CA new top-two rule has done nothing so far to diminish the importance of money in politics, or to invigorate intra-party challenges to incumbents.

Number eleven on the self funder list, Suzan DelBene (D) in Washington 1, is the remaining candidate still facing a primary, also under a top-two rule. Hers will take place Aug. 7. Number twelve, Joseph Carvin (R) in New York 17, won his primary and will face incumbent Rep. Nita Lowey (D).

 

U.S. Senate:

In Senate races as in House, two of the top ten 2012 self-funders faced each other in Texas. Top self-funder David Dewhurst (R) bested #4 Thomas Leppert (R) among others in the primary and now faces Ted Cruz in the July 31 run-off. Two others faced each other in Pennsylvania, where #2 Tom Smith (R) was defeated by #9 Steven Welch. He is running against incumbent Sen. Bob Casey, Jr (D).

 

Wil Cardon

Of the other top senate self funders, #3 Wil Cardon (R) in Arizona, #5 Eric Hovde (R) in Wisconsin, #6 Linda McMahon (R) in Connecticut and #7 John Brunner (R) in Wisconsin are still in primary races. Cardon is challenging Sen. Jeff Flake; Flake is possibly not aided by some remarks just released by the Flake campaign. Hovde, just endorsed by FreedomWorks, is running against former Rep. Mark Neumann and former Gov. Tommy Thompson. The winner of the heated primary will face Dem nominee [ ] Tammy Baldwin.  McMahon faces Chris Shays August 14, to run for the seat being vacated by Sen. Joe Lieberman.  Sarah Steelman in the crowded Missouri GOP field leading to August 7 was just endorsed by Sarah Palin, if that makes a difference. The winner challenges Sen. Claire McCaskill (D).

Last two spots on the top-ten self funder list for 2012: Greg Sowards (R) defeated Rep. Heather Wilson for the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate in New Mexico, and Julien Modica (D) withdrew before the Virginia primary, won by former Gov. Tim Kaine.

 

Heather Wilson

A few simple patterns emerge, with few surprises.

  • All the top self funders in Senate races, or victorious self funders, are Republicans.
  • The sword may cut both ways, however; of the six victorious GOP self funders in Senate races, four are still running strong in their party’s primaries.
  • Of the six, nominees in five states are or will be in iffy senate races–Arizona, Connecticut, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. One take-away here is to keep an eye out for election rules and other election tactics to suppress the vote in these states (as in Florida).
  • More of the top self funders in House races are Democrats.
  • Self-funded Democratic nominees have a higher win ratio than self funded Republican nominees. That is, if they manage to get through the nomination process, they have a statistically better shot at winning the general. That may be partly a function of more negative Dem attitude toward self funders running for office than GOPers have (in general).
  • Women self funders do not fare better than other women or better than other self funders. It looks as though any negative perception of self funding tends to work more harshly against a woman candidate, just as a negative perception of pennilessness tends to work more harshly against a woman candidate, other things being equal. Male self funders do not fare better than other men candidates but do fare better than women self funders.
  • The state of New York, as ever, demonstrates premier ability to match candidates against each other with extraneous factors level: wealth runs on par with wealth, just as ethnicity tends to meet similar ethnicity, etc. The occasional exception–Jonathan Tasini taking on Hillary Clinton–does nothing to disprove the general rule.

Of the eighteen current top self funders in races for House and Senate, only three at this point look like strong bets to win their elections–Brad Sherman and Scott Peters in California, and Domingo Garcia in Texas.

This kind of guess, of course, is lightweight in some ways despite the destructiveness of money in politics. But it is a reminder that money is not the only thing in the picture. The interplay of media reporting and other media representations with political campaigns is part of the public discourse.

Take 2010, for example. Numerous prognosticators suggested that 2010 would not be a good year for Democrats nationally, and the broad suggestion was right. Predictions about self funding, that year, were less on the nose.

Broadly, here is the pattern of media representations in that cycle. Big pop-news periodicals–specifically U.S. News and USA Today–began with pretty rosy assessments for candidates with more money than Creosote, as they say in P. G. Wodehouse. Here is a May 13, 2010, piece from USNews, and here is a June 22, 2010, piece from USAToday.

The assessment was shared by some progressive publications, less rosily. Here for example is the estimable Washington Independent Aug. 4.

On the other hand, on June 23 the Seattle Post Globe weighed in with a more detached assessment drawn from history, as did Poynter on Aug. 2.

The Center for Responsive Politics crunched the mixed numbers for self funders on Oct. 6. This analysis was quickly followed by similar treatment of the topic in American Prospect on Oct. 8.

With election returns and hard numbers in, the Center for Responsive Politics published a quick results list for self funders on Nov. 3, followed, quickly again, by a WashPost article the next day to the same effect.

Update August 10:

In Missouri August 7, Rep. Todd Akin defeated the self-financing candidate among others to take on Sen. Claire McCaskill. A good editorial on the senate race shaping up is found here. Another win for far-righters–not that Akin was the only one–and another loss for self financers.

May 8 primary results hold interest for Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

May 8th primary more interesting for Dems

The series-of-oddities parade of GOP presidential contests since summer 2011 seems to be over for now, and the May 8 primary results hold some potential for improvement in government at the federal and state level. Quick spot-check below.

Sen. Lugar

Indiana:

  • Most famously, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) will leave the Senate at the end of 2012, after thirty-five years in Washington. Represented as a statesman, Lugar did not question either the Iraq war or trillion-dollar tax breaks for the wealthy under GWBush. Some Pale-Blue-Dog media commentators are spinning this as a political loss for Democrats–oddly, since the GOP senate nominee in Indiana will be State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, who filed a losing lawsuit against the Obama administration’s bailout of the auto industry. Auto parts and supplies are a significant industry in Indiana. Mourdock, a former coal and oil geologist running as an outsider, tried for Congress unsuccessfully three times in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
  • Lugar’s loss to Mourdock has been represented in media almost entirely as a story of Tea-Party-wins-one. Dick Armey of FreedomWorks sent around the same line by mass email. A version of the same narrative has Lugar the statesman driven out by extreme partisanship, faulted for his votes to confirm the president’s Supreme Court nominees, for example. Lugar’s own statement takes this line. No one points out that Lugar’s Senate votes since 2006 may have made sense as political calculation also, given that Obama won Indiana in 2008. Indeed, given not only that Obama carried the state but also that Democratic party affiliation in Indiana exceeded the GOP by nine percentage points, it looks less than wizardly that Dems didn’t bother putting up a senate opponent for Lugar in 2006. Lugar ran unopposed in 2006, but can’t even win his own primary in 2012? –Q whether that’s a major sea change, or another polite major-party bargain to ignore the popular voice.
  • That Lugar’s giving a false home address for decades went unremarked does not speak well either for political participation in Indiana or for national political reporting. If memory serves, Indiana was represented exclusively as a ‘red state’ in the 2008 elections, with no media reportage of the Dem party advantage in the state. Typically, that kind of thing gets reported only after Dems have lost the advantage; no media outlets reported that Dems outnumbered Repubs in Texas, either—until Gallup argued that Obama should have won even more states than he did, in the link above. The bright spot here is that the large media outlets have lost so much credibility in political reporting that most people know to get their information elsewhere.
  • Democrats have shown the sense to field solid candidates in all Indiana congressional districts, contesting some held by the GOP and leaving no current GOP Reps to coast to reelection unopposed. The GOP nominees all defeated Tea Party challenges except for incumbent Marlin Stutzman in the 3rd District, a Tea Partyer himself; he is challenged by Pastor Kevin Boyd (D). Two women House nominees are Democrats, Shelli Yoder in the 9th District and Tara Nelson in Indiana’s 4th District.
  • Indiana’s 5th District has State Rep. Scott Reske (D) facing GOP former U.S. Attorney Susan Brooks. The seat opened up through the retirement of Rep. Dan Burton (R). If Brooks won, she would be the first woman elected to the House by Indiana Republicans in more than fifty years. Brooks is a self-declared ‘anti-choice’ candidate linked to funding Planned Parenthood. One of the GWBush U.S. Attorneys (Southern District of Indiana) not fired, she like Mourdock is receiving heavy anti-labor support.
  • Indiana’s 6th District also has a good House contest, GOP Rep. Mike Pence leaving to run for governor. Bradley T. Bookout is the Dem nominee, a strong contestant in a Republican district against a far-right ‘young gun’ GOPer, Luke Messer. Messer like Brooks has received funding from the anti-labor ‘Citizens for a Working America’, based in Virginia.
  • In the governor’s race, the dubious Pence faces Dem attorney and former state house speaker John R. Gregg. Gregg also hosts an Indiana radio call-in talk show.
  • Unfortunately, the Indiana state legislature is so horrendously gerrymandered that only devoted legwork from the ground up will retrieve anything. State Democrats stupidly engaged in same when they were in office, leaving a field depleted of grassroots credibility for the GOP to move in on and take over in 2010.

 

Renee Ellmers

North Carolina:

  • Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton won the Democratic primary outright to run against GOPer Pat McCrory for governor. The North Carolina governorship has been Democratic for twenty years, although the GOP has money advantage. Top of the ticket is a boost in NC, which Barack Obama carried in 2008. Dems will have to work to keep the Pale-Blue-Dog media from torpedo-ing this one.
  • The Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor is former Director of State Personnel Linda Coleman.
  • More notoriously, of course, an anti-same-sex marriage amendment was added to the NC state constitution. Setting aside larger issues for the narrowly political assessment, this move in other states has yet to augment GOP successes in fall elections following. Nut-right victories are usually followed by general-electorate pullback, a point that has yet to be noticed in most ‘insider’ political commentary. These are not inspirational moves, and they offer nothing for most young voters.
  • Weird-right GOP nominees and incumbents Virginia Foxx in North Carolina’s 5th District and Renee Ellmers in the 2nd face solid Dem challengers—Elisabeth Motsinger and retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Steve Wilkins. Foxx is on recent record criticizing people who take out student loans. Foxx, on G. Gordon Liddy’s radio show, proclaimed that she worked her way through college without borrowing—although her husband did take out some loans. No record of whether Foxx knows about the gap between 2012 college tuition and entry-level pay, or about the difference between 2012 and 1961, when she started college. While Foxx’s early self-support and commitment to her own education are laudable, it might be noted that Foxx has had what Repubs call ‘government jobs’ since 1987. That’s 25 straight years of ‘government jobs’.
  • The Democratic challenger in the 10th District is NC Rep. Patricia Keever. The incumbent is another GWBush appointee, Patrick McHenry. McHenry was among other things one of Karl Rove’s men in the 2000 political campaign. He is another long-time labor-hater, having worked for Bush’s Sec. of Labor, Elaine Chao, as a Special Assistant.

 

Mountaintop removal in WV revisited

West Virginia:

  • Obama did not carry West Virginia before, in either the primary or the general in 2008, and has little chance of doing so this time—even if the mind rejects an image of West Virginians turning out enthusiastically to vote for Mitt Romney. Sadly for it, West Virginia is not a makeweight in presidential politics, and its unimportance this primary season was highlighted by the relative success of a Texas inmate named Keith Judd as the mickey-mouse candidate who got votes. Sadly, the declining population of the state is preyed upon by vested interests. West Virginia is one of the states that most benefited from the New Deal and the Rural Electrification Administration, but any populace that sees the president as a ‘muslim’ gets little chance at a better life now.
  • That said, Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin and Sen. Joe Manchin are both incumbents, and neither faces a strong challenger. Tomblin’s is conservative Republican Bill Maloney, who has no experience in public office but ran a drilling company and was involved in planning the successful rescue of the trapped Chilean miners. Manchin’s is businessman John R. Raese, who lost to him before in the campaign with the infamous ‘hick’ ad. Raese also lost elections in 1984, 1988, and 2006.
  • Dems nominated two women, Robin Jean Davis and Kanawha County attorney Letitia Chafin, for seats on the West Virginia Supreme Court. Davis is also an incumbent. Reportedly the races will be expensive. The combination of low education levels and a dearth of viable newspapers means that WV, like Tennessee and Kentucky, is targeted by lobbyists against legislation and regulation in the public interest. Fertile fields.

 

Wisconsin:

 

More later