Doc Politics' Do-It-Yourself Democracy

Jackson: 5

2008-12-10T15:01:00.003-06:00

Ah, there's a joke that makes its own gravy. The NYTimes is reporting is that noted Blagoevich critic Jesse Jackson Junior is in fact "Candidate 5," the person that Blagoevich tried to get to pay to play for the Senate seat in question (great graphic on the scam here). Jackson as the hopeful in question makes a lot of sense: the two have a history and it's not a happy one. So if Blagoevich was to appoint Jackson to the Senate position, Blagoevich would undoubtedly want him to pay. And who would relish throwing Blagoevich under the bus more than Jackson? Nobody.

Jackson has taken some liberties with the language. Here's a quote: “It is impossible for someone on my behalf to have a conversation that would suggest any type of quid pro quo or any payments or offers,” Mr. Jackson said in comments broadcast by ABC News. “An impossibility to an absolute certainty.” First off, it's not impossible. It's quite possible. Maybe even probable. Secondly, what's the difference between an impossibility and an absolute certainty? That's right, everything is now in play.

Just wait until we get confirmation on who the other four (or more) hopefuls are. I wonder what they would have had to pay?

Blagoevich Ahoyevich

2008-12-10T10:34:00.002-06:00

Sure, someone with the name "Chapman Rackaway" probably shouldn't be making fun of someone else's name, but Rod Blagoevich sounds like a lung condition so I'm going to go with it.

But it's also important to understand this guy. Illinois politics has been corrupt for longer than I can remember. Blagoevich is an example of how, just when we think we've got a handle on corruption, it's still there. Big Richard Daley would certainly be proud at all of Blagoevich's 'honest graft.'

The worst example from the Politico article about Illinois corruption is here: "The scandal involving Otto Kerner Jr., for example, only came to light because one of the participants deducted the value of bribes paid in the 1960s--to win freeway exits and other favorable treatment for her horsetrack—in her income tax returns. The logic was that the payments were simply a part of doing business in Illinois. By the time the payments for services rendered came to light in the 1970s, Kerner was a federal judge and resigned in the scandal." So corruption is so pervasive it's part of doing business in Illinois.

I don't even need to mention it, but since Obama's invited me to be skeptical I will be. How can a guy come up through this system (four governors indicted in the last forty years) and not get some of that value system imbued in him? I think Obama needs to take a very clear and hard-line stance on Blagoevich to ensure that he's not endorsing that sort of dirty politics.

Speculative!

2007-08-28T10:41:00.000-05:00

One of my great peeves with the mainstream press is their love of the speculative piece. This New York Times article is a prime example. The article is a reaction piece to Karl Rove's recent statement that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee for President in 2008.

On its own, that's a story. But the meat of the story, though, is about the reaction to it on behalf of John Edwards' peripatetic campaign manager Joe Trippi. Now the focus of the story shifts to whether Rove was trying to sabotage Mrs. Clinton or trying to ensure she would be the nominee by rallying Democrats around her.

However, there's no other substance to the story. We don't know Rove's motivation, nor do we know if his words matter enough to Democrats to move them one way or another. So really, what's the point?

Internal Partisan Blogger Wars

2007-08-24T12:39:00.000-05:00

What a mess this could turn out to be. The Politico reports here that OpenLeft.com is actively trying to encourage primary challengers against what the blog's operator calls "Bush Dog" Democrats. Apparently "Bush Dogs" are Democrats in Congress who sided with President Bush on Iraq.

The blogosphere defintely has the potential to shape the political agenda, but I'm not convinced this is the healthiest way to do so. This blogger is basically stepping into the role of a party committee. By encouraging candidates to run and then committing resources (publicity in this case instead of money) to them, the blog becomes a quasi-party. But if everyone can do this, suddenly the party fractures into a million self-interested hacks and no candidate can possibly have a mandate from his or her partisans.

The other factor of concern here is that these "Bush Dog" Democrats tend to be sincere moderates in sincerely moderate districts. The kind of districts that would vote Republican in November if the Democratic nominee's agenda went too far to the left. Dangerous for the Democrats, very dangerous.

Thompson's Eleventh Hour

2007-08-21T13:21:00.000-05:00

Fred Thompson is the default leader in the GOP race for the presidency, that much is clear. No other candidate can unite the Republicans as Thompson can, and no other candidate from the party can even compete with the Democrats running right now. Thompson is the only candidate who can overcome the GOP's Charisma Gap.

But the only problem is . . . Thompson hasn't officially announced his candidacy yet. Primaries are just about six months away, meaning that filing deadlines in a number of states will hit in October. So Thompson has to raise money, but also get signatures on petitions. As this Washington Post article states, Thompson's expected September announcement leaves him precious little time to get signatures.

So as Thompson has wanted to avoid scrutiny and play above the political game, his non-candidacy is starting to become a liability. Thompson needs to announce or back off if the GOP has any chance in 2008.

And this is news because . . . .

2007-07-09T20:31:00.000-05:00

Today's New York Times has an article about how the 2008 Presidential election is playing . . .in France. I don't know why this is newsworthy, quite honestly. Link here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/us/politics/09web-healy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

One important element in the backstory is this line: " Much of the interest in ‘08 comes from the serious disaffection here for the current American president." So that's it! Ah, this article is another opportunity to take shots at President Bush in a veiled fashion.

Really, there's nothing newsworthy about the story.

Welcome to Tier 3, Nancy Boyda

2007-02-21T11:12:00.000-06:00

The national parties set priorities for where their money goes: Tier 1 is the big-time, Tier 2 is for candidates who might have a shot, and Tier 3 is for everyone else. Nancy Boyda and Carol Shea-Porter just placed themselves on Tier 3.

By foregoing money for the DCCC's "Frontline" program which funnels logistical support and campaign cash to vulnerable incumbents, Boyda and Shea-Porter have distanced themselves from their party. Good luck with those leadership posts, ladies. Those will not happen, now or ever.

The two also make a point about the state of play in national politics. During the 1990's and even as recently as 2002, national party targeting was a great value to candidates. Now, you have some who don't even want to take campaign cash.

More than anything, I think we can chalk this up to the Pelosi-Hoyer rift among Democrats in the House. If you're on Pelosi's side, you're probably looked upon askance by Hoyer. And remember that Hoyer was one of the masterminds behind the DNC/DCCC 50-State Strategy that helped Democrats take the House last year.

XM-Sirius Merger and the FCC

2007-02-21T09:10:00.000-06:00

The New York Times reports that the nation's two satellite radio companies would merge. (Personal disclosure: I'm an XM subscriber and miss my XM144 NASCAR channel, now jumped ship to Sirius)

What does this mean in a democratic system? First and foremost, the Federal Communications Commission has something to say about this deal. The FCC, when Michael Powell was chair, made some public statements about their interest in regulating the content of satellite radio. Powell's comments were on the heels of the infamous Janet Jackson exposure at the Super Bowl, of course, and now that time has passed and Powell has moved on his unique brand of puritanism has gone away.

But the FCC would still like to be empowered in satellite radio, and their ability to broker or dismantle the deal might be the way to do it. I predict the fight will be a long one.

It's not a long bridge to content, either. The FCC's main interest is in monopoly control, and they have a point. The equivalent would be Coke and Pepsi trying to merge, as they are the two dominant powers in the market. In fact, it's worse in the case of XM-Sirius, since they are the ONLY two content providers in satellite radio. A 100% market share awaits the combined company.

If the FCC does approve the satellite radio monopoly, then their allowance may take the same form that the feds created for television airwaves: treating it as a distributable utility, subject to all regulation government sees fit. That could mean limiting choice of channels or content, or both.

Part of the reason for satellite radio's recent success has been those who want uncensored content. XM's Opie & Anthony/Ron & Fez shows and Sirius' Howard Stern/Bubba TLS have been magnets to both services (though Major League Baseball for XM and the National Football League for Sirius have likely drawn the most subscribers) for people who want content they cannot get on terrestrial radio. If the FCC steps in, it may effectively squash any content difference between terrestrial and satellite radio, effectively numbing the market value of satellite.

If the merger does not go through, though, another problem arises. Sirius' debt management is awful, having borrowed big to secure the NFL, NASCAR, and Stern contracts. Sirius' stock price hovers below $5. XM, with more subscribers and a softer debt load, has stock price around $14 but it's still likely not enough to sustain a long-term profit. The merger could, through cost-cutting and economies of scale, make the joint venture profitable and thus viable over the long term. Without a merger, one or both of the companies might fold within the next few years.

So, Would Edwards/Kerry '04 Have Won?

2006-11-28T11:10:00.000-06:00

Check out this Washington Post article.

Here's why the 2006 elections don't necessarily translate into a great Democratic year in 2008: they don't have the horses for the courses. Kerry finished DEAD LAST among Democrats in a feeling thermometer rating of likability. Now, anyone who watched his charisma-free 2004 presidential campaign would know that Kerry is a likable as avian flu, so it isn't much of a surprise. In fact, I think a flipped ticket in 2004 would have come closer to Bush or tied like 2000. Also interesting that the poll was conducted before Kerry's hoof-in-mouth moment over the less educated getting 'stuck in Iraq'. Pretty much everyone knows Kerry is a jerk now. So memo to the Senator: stay home in '08. You've done enough damage to your party.
Then again, it might not have been good to have a young 'un at the helm in 2004. Edwards was probably too inexperienced to win it, and the lesson from Edwards goes to the New Democratic Heartthrob (NDH) Barack Obama. Oprah has practically soiled herself trying to get this guy to run, but guess what? Nobody knows who he is! 41% of respondents didn't know enough about the guy to register an opinion. Plus, Kerry taught us that the Senate is a terrible place to make a run from because your voting record can be used against you just as it can be something to run on. Give Obama another few years, let him run for governor of Illinois, serve a term or two, and THEN run. The guy's got time to run in the future after he builds a more national profile. He'll be a much better candidate in 2016 or 2020 and he will still be in his 50's.

Two other things ought to give the Dems pause right now: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Joe Freakin' Lieberman came in ahead of their putative nominee, Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton is still more popular than her, for what that's worth. In other words, the Democratic pool is filled with inexperience and churlishness. Maybe McCain and Lieberman ought to run as an Independent ticket. . ..

Student Body Left!

2006-11-13T11:58:00.000-06:00

Plenty of moderate Democrats won seats in Congress. Narrow victories for most anyone. The most liberal issues anyone ran on was an Iraq exit. So with a mandate to the middle, wouldn't you think Speaker-Elect Pelosi would heed the warnings? No, she's a Democrat. And Democrats just refuse to do what would help them long term: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-dems12nov12,0,4533842.story?track=mostviewed-sectionfront

Despite a declining base of numbers and power, the unions (trial lawyers were conveniently left out of this LA Times piece) will have a significant presence and shift the agenda to the left. Abortion (where was this issue in the '06 campaigns?) will also be a pet project. The Pelosi Saturday Night Live opening skit this past weekend may end up being more prescient than satire. I wonder how many moderate Republicans are going to have some serious buyer's remose next January.

Conveniently, the effects should start right about six months before the 2008 elections. Someone remind me how this party won in the first place . . . . .

Got One Call Right!

2006-11-10T10:56:00.000-06:00

At least I knew Rumsfeld wasn't the only one going down. I had a feeling Ken Mehlmann was on his way out at the RNC. And here he goes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110901815.html

Mehlmann is great at Presidential politics and the RNC is going to miss him. The one who really needs to fall on his sword for this one is Tom Davis of Virginia, the NRCC chair. He's the one who let the "GOP farm team" that Gingrich, Paxton, and DeLay built in the 1980's get thin. No good Republican replacements since 1994 meant a steadily dwindling GOP advantage in House seats that is paying off for the Dems now. But Davis seems popular and probably won't exit.

But why do I have a feeling John Bolton's not long for the road?

One Order of "Wrong!" with a side of bacon, please

2006-11-09T20:53:00.000-06:00

Well, there goes those predictions! Like most of us who wrote predictively about the 2006 midterms, I was wrong and dead wrong.

For what it's worth, divided government is usually a very good thing so the prospect of a Democratic Congress against a Republican President means two delightful years of gridlock ahead!

Now things are getting VERY interesting. And Rumsfeld will NOT be the only casualty of these midterms.

Bold Cold Medicine Induced Predictions

2006-11-06T22:55:00.000-06:00

Wow, is it election eve already? Must be, because the Daily Show is on full-cynical ahead!

Now that the flu is past, I'm back reading everyone's predictions. Chris Bowers sees a split Senate and a 23-29 seat House pickup. I just don't see it. Note that his method is a probability model based on the different likelihood tiers, but I've never found those as reliable methods. Take the top fifty races and look at them instead. If national trends determined Congressional elections, the probability model might work. But it doesn't. Tom DeLay's seat is going Democratic for different reasons than Sherwood Boehlert's old district is going to be represented by Mike Arcuri. That's not probabilistic, that's an individualistic model.

Radley Balko thinks the Dems will have a 20-25 seat advantage in the House with a 51-49 Senate for the GOP. The mighty mighty Gooch has Republicans holding the House by two seats and the Senate is 53-47 Republican.

But what in the world do I think? Somewhere between the two above. So here goes.

House:
Dems pick up the following seats: AZ 5, 8; CA 11; FL 13, 16; IL 6; IN 2, 8; IA 1; NY 24; OH 2, 15, 18; PA 7, 10. That's a fifteen-seat pickup for the Dems.
Republicans picking up one seat: GA 12.
The result, Republicans maintain the House . . . by a single seat.

Senate:
Pennsylvania. Santorum is going down and going down big. Score one for the Dems.
Minnesota. I remember when Mark Kennedy first ran for the House and wasn't even targeted by the GOP. He won then, but I don't see it happening now. And to make it worse, he's losing to someone named "Klobuchar." Yikes. Dems plus two.
Washington. Maria Cantwell keeps her seat. No change.
Michigan. Debbie Stabenow retains her seat. No change.
Ohio. How in the world is Mike DeWine going down? I don't know, but I know Sherrod Brown is winning. Dems up three.
New Jersey. I can't believe this, but Menendez is going to lose to Kean. Republicans pick a seat up, but still down two.
Rhode Island. Chafee ends up holding on to the seat despite a big scare. No change.
Arizona. Kyl wins again, no change.
Maryland. I could beef it on this one, but I'm picking Steele. The race is a functional tie, within the margin of error on polls, but the GOP has to have something to hang their hat on. I think it's this one. Republicans now down just one seat.
Tennessee. Harold Ford has been running a phenomenal campaign and has this red state just about ready to vote Democratic. Just about, but not quite. Corker wins, no change.
Missouri. Having lived in Missouri, I know that the state can elect dead men. But Claire McCaskill is no Mel Carnahan. Michael J. Fox helps, but not enough. Talent holds his seat.
Montana. Conrad Burns, the white courtesy phone is ringing. Tester bests him, Democrats now back to two seats up.
Connecticut. Joe Liberman is going to retain his seat, but the big question is this: who is he going to caucus with. I think he's going to pull a Jeffords and caucus with the GOP, since they're going to retain the house.
Virginia. This has been the big race, so it should come last. Allen should have walked away with this one, and it's emblematic of a year when Republicans seemed to lose their way. Macaca aside, Allen should be up twelve on Webb. With party ID on his side, Allen pulls this one out, GOP retains one more seat and loses a total of two seats.

The 110th Congress looks like this:
House: D 217 (including Sanders), R 218.
Senate: D 47 (including Jeffords), R 53.

Here in Kansas, I'm just picking winners:
Governor: Sebelius retains (duh. Hey, Senator Barnett, try raising money next time)
Secretary of State: Thornburgh retains (another no-brainer. Haley, please)
Attorney General: Morrison over Kline. The abortion records controversy just allowed folks who thought Kline was shady in the first place evidence of their belief. Plus, the fundies seem to be having a bad year (see Cauble's School Board win over Morris in the 5th District GOP primary) so Kline suffers.
Treasurer: Jenkins retains, no sweat.
Insurance Commissioner: Who cares? Why in the world do we elect this position in the first place? Praeger retains.
KS Congressional delegation:
All seats retained. Ryun fights off a challenge from Boyda, Moore gets no real challenge from Ahner, Tiahrt and Moran cruise.

We Interrupt This Political Broadcast . . .

2006-10-19T22:51:00.000-05:00

For three very important and beautiful words:

BRING
ON
DETROIT

Congratulations on your seventeenth NL pennant, Saint Louis Cardinals. Now go win the World Series.

GO CARDS!

Talk About Cut and Run!

2006-10-19T11:37:00.000-05:00

OK, so the Times piece today (another Nagourney winner http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/us/politics/19campaign.html?hp&ex=1161316800&en=dd5585cc01a8e36c&ei=5094&partner=homepage) points to an interesting development that makes me think for the first time the GOP might lose both chambers.

The GOP has long been a 'stay the course' organization when campaigning: pick a message, stay on it. But now Republican candidates for Congress are changing their tactics and backing off of Iraq. It's almost all over now, Baby Blue (apologies to Dylan), because it's simply too late to get a new message into peoples' heads. And the Democrats are doing their best to remind people of the Bush-My Incumbent Republican Congressman connection (search campaign ads 2006 on YouTube and you'll get it) that reminds them of . . . Iraq!

I haven't seen the GOP in this much of a dithering state since 1992. And we all know what a winner that was for the Republicans. Oh, wait .. . it wasn't.

I think November 7th's going to be a long night for a lot of people on First Street.

Stay On Target . . . Stay On Target

2006-10-16T14:29:00.000-05:00

Today's Times has a very strong piece on GOP targeting (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/16/us/politics/16spend.html?hp&ex=1161057600&en=4ab375783b7dff54&ei=5094&partner=homepage). No surprise there, it's Adam Nagourney's writing, who seems to have a good handle on the process of campaigning.

The GOP is doing their traditional last-minute concentration of resources into selected races, and it will probably pay off. In the last three cycles, the GOP's candidates have had more success than their Democratic rivals and this partly has to do with the wise shifting of resources late in the campaign. Their success also has to do with a strong financial advantage that lets the GOP target from a position of strength.

But this year is different. With the Ney, DeLay, and Foley resignations, plus a few challenged Republican incumbents (Jack Ryun, Chris Chocola, John Sweeney for example) means that the GOP has enough exposure to worry about a Democratic takeover. And oh yeah, the Senate is ALWAYS in play. So the GOP is having to adapt to a new problem: targeting from a position of weakness. The GOP has the money, but they have more races where they are unsure than they have of late. So now the NRCC and NRSC appear to be dithering. The move of money from Ohio to Missouri is pretty smart, though I'd write Tennessee off and put more into Virginia, where George Allen is saveable despite Webb's Allen-empowered surge. It wouldn't surprise me to see the GOP's success rate of targeted races drop this year.

These elections, which looked to be a snoozer in March, are getting VERY interesting.

Repeat after me . . .the sky is NOT falling

2006-10-14T21:24:00.000-05:00

So today started out as a lovely fall day in Hays America. Cleaned up, had some scones from Augustine's, took the dog for a walk, mowed the grass for hopefully the last time this year. And then I had to sit down and watch my beloved alma mater play like one-legged men at an ass kicking contest. Texas A&M 25, Missouri 19. So much for our ranking and any hope of a BCS bid (which was probably a pipe dream anyway, but I'm feeling like it's time to wallow in my own crapulence right now) but I'm now worried that our 6-1 start will turn into 6-6.

Hopefully Carl Edwards will win at Lowe's tonight and the Cards will go up 2-1 to restore sporting equilibrium to my fractured soul.

Now I've Seen Everything!

2006-10-14T21:06:00.000-05:00

OK, I'll admit to being biased against polling done by local media. When I lived near Saint Louis, the Post-Dispatch earned its reputation as the Post-Disgrace primarily through an inept polling unit. So imagine my suprise when I get a phone survey tonight from an area TV station that was actually written by a human being who knows something about survey research. KBSH-TV in Wichita was the sponsoring entity, and rather than doing it in-house they obviously spent the money to contract with a professional polling entity. I'd rather see that than try to do it in-house and fail. Of course, they should've just contacted the Docking Institute at FHSU.

Donnybrooks and Shockwaves

2006-10-13T13:03:00.000-05:00

Today's Times has a piece on Bob Ney's guilty plea in connection with the Abramoff investigation and Ney's resignation from the House. Since I've been following the Abramoff donnybrook pretty closely, it gets me thinking:

1) I remember vividly some bloggers saying that the "Republican Spin Machine" would bury the Abramoff scandal and that their conspiratorial efforts would mean nobody would remember all of the misdeeds done by Abramoff's contacts in Congress. I wonder what they're thinking now. The Abramoff investigation has already brought down a couple of Republicans and two or three more may follow.

2) When I gave a Times Talk (http://vodreal.fhsu.edu/ramgen/ctelt/adp/timestalk27.rm) {Real Player needed} on the Abramoff affair, a colleague suggested that Abramoff, Delay, and their ilk were the first people to play this corrupt little game. Bull. This kind of thing has been going on since the beginning of the republic (see Sabato's Dirty Little Secrets for a nice rundown of scandals in American politics) and now the difference is with federal campaign finance disclosure we can track it down and punish the people who do it. I've never been a fan of campaign finance limits, but disclosure's one of the best things that's happened in a while.

3) The effect on the November elections. In April, the thought that Democrats might take over the House of Representatives was as likely as the Yankees getting drop-kicked in the ALDS. Now one's happened and the other one is at least in the realm of possibility. DeLay, Ney, Foley, and other retirements from the House mean that there are a number of Republican seats exposed to competition. If all the open seats go Democratic and just a few incumbent Republicans lose, the House could narrowly switch control. I still don't think it will happen, but it will be close and I wouldn't die of surprise if it did.

Why Am I Here?

2006-10-12T23:17:00.000-05:00

No, this isn't Admiral Stockdale from 1992, asking why he was present at the ping-pong match debate between Dan Quayle and Al Gore. Welcome to the blog of Political Science Professor Chapman Rackaway, Fort Hays State University.

Most of my blogging will relate to articles from the New York Times, as a template for my Political Communication and American Government classes. But I might just post other stuff, too. Or I might get kidnapped by aliens. Anything is possible, after all.