Tag Archives: Linda McMahon

News from the Virginia Senate debate: Neither side wants Bowles-Simpson, George Allen wouldn’t force anyone out of Social Security

Posted on by
Reply

News from the Virginia Senate debate: Neither side wants Bowles-Simpson, George Allen wouldn’t force anyone out of Social Security

 

Kaine

C-Span televised the final encounter of Virginia Senate candidates Tim Kaine (D) and George Allen (R) last night. Kaine has an enviable ability to stay cheerful while crisp, on-point in rebuttal while upbeat. That kind of internal energy is refreshing to see. Virginia enjoys the distinction in 2012 of having two former governors running for senate, one of them—Allen—also a former senator.

Thus part of the meeting involved the candidates each bulleting reminders about the other’s track record in office. Kaine got the better of the exchanges: he speaks faster, stays clear, doesn’t get tongue-twisted, and has a sharp memory. Also he had more to work with than Allen did.

 

Allen

Allen, for his part, targeted the old-fashioned white vote to some extent, attempting to tie Kaine to President Obama as though that were the recipe for victory. Kaine came off better in that one, too, emphasizing national-state partnership as well as public-private partnership. He did not run away from Obama or from the administration.

 

Debate forum at Virginia Tech

Allen also referred to “this sequestration deal” (in Congress) more than once, pejoratively.

Given the opportunity to repudiate the debt-ceiling deal (sequestration), however, Allen pfaffed. Moderator Jay Warren, of WSLS-TV, asked both candidates point-blank whether they would vote for the Bowles-Simpson plan of tax hikes and spending cuts “as is.” Allen instantly riposted that Bowles-Simpson was “the president’s idea.” On the direct question he was less emphatic, saying that some parts of Bowles-Simpson need changing while other provisions are good, referring to the deficit, but declining to say that he would vote for Bowles-Simpson. Kaine got the same question and after some repetition, back-and-forth, and cross-talk, summed up both his and Allen’s response: “No, and no.”

Moderator Warren stuck with that answer, quitting while ahead.

It would be interesting to find out whether any senate candidate, in a competitive race, anywhere in the U.S., supports Bowles-Simpson unequivocally.

Kaine’s question for Allen was at least equally significant: Kaine asked Allen whether he would privatize Social Security. Allen did not come up with the right answer, a direct ‘No’. Instead he declared, “I would never force anyone out of Social Security. He did mention “income adjustment,” without defining the adjustment envisioned.

Forcing someone out of Social Security is not usually on the table in discussing entitlement programs. A central flaw in the privatization ideas floated is that they might entice younger workers not to get into Social Security.

This is exactly the possibility hinted at in Republican talking points about ‘choice’. You can ‘choose’, under some plans, to gamble your retirement on the stock market instead of placing it in a stable program. (Social Security, by the way, does not increase the federal budget deficit. Quite the contrary.)

Predictions are vain, but somehow it is hard to imagine Allen re-capturing the Virginia senate seat he lost to Jim Webb, even without a ‘macaca moment’.

[Update]

They’re all using the same playbook. Connecticut GOP senatorial candidate Linda McMahon, of World Wrestling Federation fame, also declined to say what exactly she would recommend for Social Security and Medicare. McMahon and Democrat Chris Murphy also appeared in debate last night. Murphy, like Kaine, leads in recent polling.

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.