Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is to be applauded for his diligence on healthcare reform. Nearly daily Sen. McConnell takes to the Senate floor to lead the Republican opposition to President Obama’s healthcare reform legislation, despite knowing the GOP is just spectating. His Augean tenacity is to be admired and some of the points he makes are valid.
While many of the healthcare reform proposals the GOP has offered are tired, recycled talking points, there remains a speck of potential in them because congressional Democrats are manhandling Pres. Obama’s healthcare reform objective. Herein is where the hope resides for the Republican Party. By handing off the legislative process to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the White House has allowed the Democrat’s progressives to veer hard left. Like Homer Simpson at an all you can eat buffet, these Democrats are loading the American taxpayer’s plate in a way that will choke them off. This could prove to be the GOP’s salvation if they can artfully apply a Heimlich-like maneuver to the garroted taxpayer.
The fact that Pres. Obama campaigned on the danger of special interests, lobbyists in particularly, can quickly become a chink in the President’s popularity armor that congressional Democrats are hoping carries the day. Unaddressed in the healthcare reform debate, particularly now that it is being referred to by the WH as healthcare insurance reform, is lawsuit abuse. The problem for the GOP is that by itself it presents as a drained, catchall GOP legislative solution designed to shrink the campaign contribution pockets of trial lawyers who give heavily to Democrats. Coupled with President Obama’s campaign theme, and the fact that it is unaddressed in the legislation being debated in Congress, the hypocrisy of it can become a potent campaign theme for Republicans in the 2010 elections.
Ask nearly any doctor and they will tell you the malpractice insurance policies they must buy to protect themselves from the probability of a lawsuit makes practicing medicine a financial burden. President Obama recognized this problem in his remarks to the American Medical Association in June, saying “I want to be honest with you. I'm not advocating caps on malpractice awards, which I personally believe can be unfair to people who have been wrongfully harmed. But I personally think we need to explore a range of ideas about how to put patients' safety first, how to let doctors focus on practicing medicine, how to encourage a broader use of evidence-based guidelines.” However, congressional Democrats seem to have ignored the President’s sentiments, potentially to their detriment.
The GOP can get good mileage on this narrow topic if they can repeat the message that there is one special interest group that is off-limits in the healthcare reform debate because of their investment in the Democratic Party. From 2008 to now lawyers and law firms have contributed $195 million to Democratic candidates across the country. Republicans have received $57 million in the same period time from this group. That’s 3 ½ times that the Democrats receive over Republicans.
In 2007 the total cost of medical malpractice torts in the U.S. was $30.4 billion. Granted, some of these awards were surely deserved. However, abuse of medical malpractice torts happens and is a cause for a significant increase in healthcare costs. For Democrats not to address this is suspect given the amount of political contributions they receive from lawyers generally – and contrary to Pres. Obama’s stated intention. Clearly, trial attorneys are intent on protecting their ability to earn a handsome living from medical malpractice torts. After all, beneficiaries don’t kill the golden goose, and so the trial attorney lobby is busy fending off any notion that tort reform should be part of the legislation.
With 81 percent of Americans believing that some form of medical malpractice tort reform is needed (24% somewhat agree, 54% strongly agree) the GOP should continue to mine this predisposition among voters to make the party relevant in the debate, and in turn perhaps relevant at the polls in 2010. But in doing so, the GOP should also formulate a counter proposal replete with costs, as Red Elephant has previously posited. GOP opposition that lacks a plan including a price tag will only result in voters dismissing Republicans as obstructionist whiners.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
GOP DOA on Healthcare Reform
Depending on the outcome of the healthcare insurance reform legislation being crafted on Capitol Hill the GOP may yet see a crack in the door on Election Day in 2010 that they will be all too willing to try and pry open. 58 percent of all voters are more likely to vote for a candidate who would be a check on President Obama and congressional Democrats. Notably, Ticket-splitters and Independents are very open to casting their vote this way, 62% and 61% respectively. Some in the GOP advocate letting President Obama and the Democrats get their reform on a party line vote so the GOP can later say they had nothing to do with it – perhaps a viable strategy if the guaranteed outcome is failure. The GOP cheerleading failure, particularly on such an important issue, is no way to become relevant.
In the healthcare insurance reform debate the Republican Party does not have the horses to keep up with President Obama. 61 percent of voters view Obama favorably, with Ticket-splitters and Independents being equally supportive – giving Obama a 2:1 favorable to unfavorable ratio. In this contest, Obama is cruising comfortably ahead in a Bugatti Veyron and the GOP is puttering well behind in a Deux Chevaux.
Absent voters believing Republicans are simply obstructionist on this issue, the issue could have been an ideal platform from which the GOP could have mounted a robust comeback at the polls in 2010. As it stands, 65 percent of voters think the GOP falls into one of three categories o the healthcare reform debate: 1) on the side of insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals; 2) would leave too many Americans without healthcare insurance; and 3) are simply in opposition to any plan offered by Pres. Obama and Democrats in Congress. Watching the GOP in this debate is reminiscent of Michael Keaton in Mr. Mom when his character responds to a question about the voltage used in his do-it-yourself electrician project, saying “220, 221, whatever it takes.” The GOP looks a whole lot like a home improvement hobbyist who has no clue and risks electrocuting themselves in the process.
Unfortunately, it is likely the GOP will act the obstructionist part, since voters already expect it from them. On the way to a party-line vote Republicans will criticize: the tax increases to fund the legislation; a government bureaucracy making healthcare decisions for patients (and invoking the IRS and DMV as examples of what a government run program will be like for patients); reckless spending to underwrite the legislation; and the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid to fully fund the Obama healthcare reform package. Red Elephant does not advocate such a GOP posture on this generational legislation because it defines the Republican Party as the party of No and does not help the important task of rebranding the GOP in a way that makes it salient.
Coupled with this obstructionist posture, the GOP will likely advocate their Leisure Suit proposals. There’s a reason why these proposals have been in the back of the closet; they’re dated and hard to take seriously. Policy proposals like the obvious needs to reduce and control individual costs; protect the doctor-patient relationship; preserve and improve quality of choice; and end lawsuit abuse to control healthcare insurance costs are all retreads of past GOP talking points that do not address how to fundamentally reform a broken system.
The GOP’s problem on scaring voters about the cost of the Obama healthcare reform package is that 59% of voters do not believe the legislation will increase the debt because President Obama has promised it will be budget neutral. With only 29% of voters trusting the GOP to fix healthcare, Republicans find themselves suffering from a credibility gap, a result of carrying too much water for the Bush White House way back when.
Taxes used to be the GOP’s wheelhouse and should be an issue where Republicans can contrast themselves with Democrats to begin to redefine the party as fiscally responsible. Again, the GOP's past evangelism of Bush budget policies, President Obama’s credibility with voters and facts will haunt the GOP’s efforts on this bread and butter issue. President Obama has vowed that taxes will be increased only on those earning more than $250,000 annually. That figure represents two percent of all U.S. households. And while 71% of voters oppose raising $600 billion in new taxes to fund the healthcare legislation, that number will change dramatically when 98% of voter households realize they are not in the taxable bracket and won’t see a tax hike.
Unable to contend head-to-head, the GOP has chosen a strategy of delay and fear mongering. As the GOP has not done the hard work of redefining itself, voters will not pay much attention to what Republicans have to say on healthcare insurance reform. Using scare tactics too often in the past has dulled voters’ senses; the GOP is the boy who cried wolf. Rather than finding a way to become relevant, the GOP is banking that this time the wolf really is at the door and that it might be better to let it in to terrorize the household so at least they’ll gain some “told you so” credibility.
The alternative plan offered by Republicans provided for a federal-state healthcare insurance exchange. This plan eliminates tax breaks for employers who provide workers health coverage and gives individuals and families tax cuts to pay for their healthcare insurance while providing for captive insurance entities. This exchange would be governed by a non-profit, independent board to police underwriters to make sure applicants are treated fairly and the rules obeyed (because that approach worked so well on Wall Street?). Such a proposal is dead on arrival since it is offered in the aftermath of the financial crisis that should have been prevented by similar oversight architecture. Further, the GOP plan did not include costs, which is like a parent scolding their child for scoring poorly in algebra when the parent doesn’t know the difference between a variable and a constant.
Rather, the GOP should step up and construct a viable alternative (with costs and funding mechanisms) that addresses how to fund healthcare insurance reform. Frankly, this is an opportunity to play some small ball and build credibility with voters. A reasonably constructed alternative plan would present the GOP as diligent and serious and do far more to position it for gains in the 2010 elections than will dusting off the Leisure Suit and trying to get the prettiest girl at the dance to notice them.
In the healthcare insurance reform debate the Republican Party does not have the horses to keep up with President Obama. 61 percent of voters view Obama favorably, with Ticket-splitters and Independents being equally supportive – giving Obama a 2:1 favorable to unfavorable ratio. In this contest, Obama is cruising comfortably ahead in a Bugatti Veyron and the GOP is puttering well behind in a Deux Chevaux.
Absent voters believing Republicans are simply obstructionist on this issue, the issue could have been an ideal platform from which the GOP could have mounted a robust comeback at the polls in 2010. As it stands, 65 percent of voters think the GOP falls into one of three categories o the healthcare reform debate: 1) on the side of insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals; 2) would leave too many Americans without healthcare insurance; and 3) are simply in opposition to any plan offered by Pres. Obama and Democrats in Congress. Watching the GOP in this debate is reminiscent of Michael Keaton in Mr. Mom when his character responds to a question about the voltage used in his do-it-yourself electrician project, saying “220, 221, whatever it takes.” The GOP looks a whole lot like a home improvement hobbyist who has no clue and risks electrocuting themselves in the process.
Unfortunately, it is likely the GOP will act the obstructionist part, since voters already expect it from them. On the way to a party-line vote Republicans will criticize: the tax increases to fund the legislation; a government bureaucracy making healthcare decisions for patients (and invoking the IRS and DMV as examples of what a government run program will be like for patients); reckless spending to underwrite the legislation; and the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid to fully fund the Obama healthcare reform package. Red Elephant does not advocate such a GOP posture on this generational legislation because it defines the Republican Party as the party of No and does not help the important task of rebranding the GOP in a way that makes it salient.
Coupled with this obstructionist posture, the GOP will likely advocate their Leisure Suit proposals. There’s a reason why these proposals have been in the back of the closet; they’re dated and hard to take seriously. Policy proposals like the obvious needs to reduce and control individual costs; protect the doctor-patient relationship; preserve and improve quality of choice; and end lawsuit abuse to control healthcare insurance costs are all retreads of past GOP talking points that do not address how to fundamentally reform a broken system.
The GOP’s problem on scaring voters about the cost of the Obama healthcare reform package is that 59% of voters do not believe the legislation will increase the debt because President Obama has promised it will be budget neutral. With only 29% of voters trusting the GOP to fix healthcare, Republicans find themselves suffering from a credibility gap, a result of carrying too much water for the Bush White House way back when.
Taxes used to be the GOP’s wheelhouse and should be an issue where Republicans can contrast themselves with Democrats to begin to redefine the party as fiscally responsible. Again, the GOP's past evangelism of Bush budget policies, President Obama’s credibility with voters and facts will haunt the GOP’s efforts on this bread and butter issue. President Obama has vowed that taxes will be increased only on those earning more than $250,000 annually. That figure represents two percent of all U.S. households. And while 71% of voters oppose raising $600 billion in new taxes to fund the healthcare legislation, that number will change dramatically when 98% of voter households realize they are not in the taxable bracket and won’t see a tax hike.
Unable to contend head-to-head, the GOP has chosen a strategy of delay and fear mongering. As the GOP has not done the hard work of redefining itself, voters will not pay much attention to what Republicans have to say on healthcare insurance reform. Using scare tactics too often in the past has dulled voters’ senses; the GOP is the boy who cried wolf. Rather than finding a way to become relevant, the GOP is banking that this time the wolf really is at the door and that it might be better to let it in to terrorize the household so at least they’ll gain some “told you so” credibility.
The alternative plan offered by Republicans provided for a federal-state healthcare insurance exchange. This plan eliminates tax breaks for employers who provide workers health coverage and gives individuals and families tax cuts to pay for their healthcare insurance while providing for captive insurance entities. This exchange would be governed by a non-profit, independent board to police underwriters to make sure applicants are treated fairly and the rules obeyed (because that approach worked so well on Wall Street?). Such a proposal is dead on arrival since it is offered in the aftermath of the financial crisis that should have been prevented by similar oversight architecture. Further, the GOP plan did not include costs, which is like a parent scolding their child for scoring poorly in algebra when the parent doesn’t know the difference between a variable and a constant.
Rather, the GOP should step up and construct a viable alternative (with costs and funding mechanisms) that addresses how to fund healthcare insurance reform. Frankly, this is an opportunity to play some small ball and build credibility with voters. A reasonably constructed alternative plan would present the GOP as diligent and serious and do far more to position it for gains in the 2010 elections than will dusting off the Leisure Suit and trying to get the prettiest girl at the dance to notice them.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Presidential Moneyline
Red Elephant believes that the Republican Party needs to play small ball and rebuild the party from the bottom up. However, presidential elections wait for nobody and the GOP will need to put forward a nominee in 2012. Red Elephant believes it should be a person who represents the platform issues that will make the GOP relevant again. That said, the Republican Party bench is bare, but here are some potential players to watch and Red Elephant’s odds on the primary contest. Red Elephant has added President Obama for measurement.*
Obama -300 or 1/3
A hint of flagging popularity starting in Ohio. All hands on deck to get healthcare reform makes passage critical for his POTUS future. An encompassing legislative agenda could give him the best outcome of all; a GOP majority in the House – doubtful given the disarray of the GOP.
NEW John Thune
+3000 or 30/1
The capable Senator from South Dakota exhibited the kind of crusade talk in a Christianity Today interview in 2005 that makes him seem a little kooky.
NEW Condoleeze Rice
+6000 or 60/1
Not sure even Republican primary voters will tolerate her tanks in their streets brand of foreign policy if she decides to make a go of it.
NEW Rick Perry
+3000 or 30/1
A solid record as Texas Governor – hmmm, heard that before – makes him viable. Succession nonsense did not help constructively define him to American voters.
NEW Mitch Daniels
+2500 or 25/1
Budget acumen in Bush’s OMB and as a governor gives him a robust reputation for fiscal responsibility.
NEW Linda Lingle
+5000 or 50/1
An interesting longshot given her locale and moderate GOP politics. Her record of turning budget deficits into surpluses and underdog victory at the polls in 2002 makes her appealing to Red Elephant.
NEW Alan Keyes
+7000 or 70/1
Why not, he tried to beat Obama in Illinois and probably needs the matching funds to keep him clothed, fed and sheltered.
Barbour
+600 or 6/1
A recent Rasmussen survey giving him a favorable to unfavorable rating of 34:37 drop his odds, for now. RE still convinced Iowans and Granite Staters will come to see him as the future.
Romney
+1200 or 12/1
With a favorable to unfavorable rating of 73:19 plus his bank account and his odds improve. Uncomfortable bigoted questions about underwear still loom.
Crist
+2000 or 20/1
A sunny, healthy, youthful disposition makes him appealing, but untested nationally and shares a fundraising base with the Bush family. What isn’t known about him…yet?
Pawlenty
+2500 or 25/1
Rasmussen survey reveals a weak 38:33 favorable to unfavorable rating among GOPers and hurt his moneyline.
Palin
+800 or 8/1
She may become the cult of personality she desperately desires, but odds dropping like a kisaut. How long until the SARAH! pilot?
Huckabee
+1400 or 14/1
Keeping up the Daily Show dialogue with Jon Stewart could make him chic outside of the base. Fox helps keep him in the conversation.
Gingrich
+1500 or 15/1
A brilliant but wandering mind. Lots of base appeal but smacks of GOP values hypocrisy and has the feel of an outdated calendar.
Jeb Bush
+160 or 8/5
No GOP bench gives him a huge advantage – despite the last name. As Eddie Murphy said in The Distinguished Gentleman, “Go with the name you know.”
NEW Jindal
+2200 or 30/1
Where is he on healthcare? He's got the credibiity to make a play for himself on this issue.
Hutchinson
+2500 or 25/1
The country has probably had enough of the TX cheerleader type to make her a serious candidate, but she stands out as the only woman being mentioned.
Bloomberg
+20,000 or 200/1
Too bad he’s “Jewish” and an “Independent” from New York City. Not sure which is more damning in a GOP primary.
Hagel
+2000 or 20/1
Sterling credentials and temperament if he’d sacrifice himself in service to his country one more time. The GOP would have to substantially change for him to run.
Kasich
+4000 or 40/1
2016 seems more likely if he wins the gubernatorial contest in OH in ’10.
*Calculated from electoral performance, survey data, media savvy and fundraising potential.
Obama -300 or 1/3
A hint of flagging popularity starting in Ohio. All hands on deck to get healthcare reform makes passage critical for his POTUS future. An encompassing legislative agenda could give him the best outcome of all; a GOP majority in the House – doubtful given the disarray of the GOP.
NEW John Thune
+3000 or 30/1
The capable Senator from South Dakota exhibited the kind of crusade talk in a Christianity Today interview in 2005 that makes him seem a little kooky.
NEW Condoleeze Rice
+6000 or 60/1
Not sure even Republican primary voters will tolerate her tanks in their streets brand of foreign policy if she decides to make a go of it.
NEW Rick Perry
+3000 or 30/1
A solid record as Texas Governor – hmmm, heard that before – makes him viable. Succession nonsense did not help constructively define him to American voters.
NEW Mitch Daniels
+2500 or 25/1
Budget acumen in Bush’s OMB and as a governor gives him a robust reputation for fiscal responsibility.
NEW Linda Lingle
+5000 or 50/1
An interesting longshot given her locale and moderate GOP politics. Her record of turning budget deficits into surpluses and underdog victory at the polls in 2002 makes her appealing to Red Elephant.
NEW Alan Keyes
+7000 or 70/1
Why not, he tried to beat Obama in Illinois and probably needs the matching funds to keep him clothed, fed and sheltered.
Barbour
+600 or 6/1
A recent Rasmussen survey giving him a favorable to unfavorable rating of 34:37 drop his odds, for now. RE still convinced Iowans and Granite Staters will come to see him as the future.
Romney
+1200 or 12/1
With a favorable to unfavorable rating of 73:19 plus his bank account and his odds improve. Uncomfortable bigoted questions about underwear still loom.
Crist
+2000 or 20/1
A sunny, healthy, youthful disposition makes him appealing, but untested nationally and shares a fundraising base with the Bush family. What isn’t known about him…yet?
Pawlenty
+2500 or 25/1
Rasmussen survey reveals a weak 38:33 favorable to unfavorable rating among GOPers and hurt his moneyline.
Palin
+800 or 8/1
She may become the cult of personality she desperately desires, but odds dropping like a kisaut. How long until the SARAH! pilot?
Huckabee
+1400 or 14/1
Keeping up the Daily Show dialogue with Jon Stewart could make him chic outside of the base. Fox helps keep him in the conversation.
Gingrich
+1500 or 15/1
A brilliant but wandering mind. Lots of base appeal but smacks of GOP values hypocrisy and has the feel of an outdated calendar.
Jeb Bush
+160 or 8/5
No GOP bench gives him a huge advantage – despite the last name. As Eddie Murphy said in The Distinguished Gentleman, “Go with the name you know.”
NEW Jindal
+2200 or 30/1
Where is he on healthcare? He's got the credibiity to make a play for himself on this issue.
Hutchinson
+2500 or 25/1
The country has probably had enough of the TX cheerleader type to make her a serious candidate, but she stands out as the only woman being mentioned.
Bloomberg
+20,000 or 200/1
Too bad he’s “Jewish” and an “Independent” from New York City. Not sure which is more damning in a GOP primary.
Hagel
+2000 or 20/1
Sterling credentials and temperament if he’d sacrifice himself in service to his country one more time. The GOP would have to substantially change for him to run.
Kasich
+4000 or 40/1
2016 seems more likely if he wins the gubernatorial contest in OH in ’10.
*Calculated from electoral performance, survey data, media savvy and fundraising potential.
Monday, July 20, 2009
New Jersey Could Go Red in '09
The Republican Party’s path to relevancy begins in New Jersey’s and Virginia’s gubernatorial and legislative elections this year. As noted in an earlier post, the best man for the job of helming the national GOP effort in these contests is Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) as chairman of the Republican Governors Association. Both states deserve a look, and this post will inspect Republican chances in New Jersey in the gubernatorial and Assembly elections in the fall.
Governor:
The Republican candidate for governor in New Jersey is Chris Christie. His opponent is Democratic incumbent Gov. John Corzine. Christie is in play because Corzine’s record as governor is dismal. However, Christie has some faults, thin-skin among them that Corzine must manipulate if he is to win. As it stands today, Christie is the likely winner on Election Day.
Corzine is not beloved by NJ voters by a long shot. His self-stated major achievement is death penalty reform, not ideal in times of economic anxiety. Further, Corzine’s Wall Street guru status is more harmful than helpful in these days of Wall Street demonization amid the financial crisis. Corzine’s favorable to unfavorable ratio is roughly 1:1.5 – meaning more likely voters dislike him than like him. More ominous for Corzine is that polling shows he is losing Unaffiliated (registered voters not affiliated with any political party) voters by 23 percent – devastating in a state where Unaffiliated voters make up 47 percent of the electorate (33% of voters are Democrats and 20% are Republicans in NJ).
With no sturdy record to rely upon, it appears Corzine has few viable options to craft a winning strategy. Among those options are tying himself closely to President Obama’s legislative successes and destroying Christie by defining him as the typical pay-to-play, corrupt politician. The idea that Pres. Obama’s personal popularity in the state can transfer to Corzine is misguided. Pres. Obama can make as many trips to NJ as Corzine requests, but without legislative success for the White House and a brightening of the economy in NJ, one man’s popularity will not revive Corzine’s sinking prospects. Corzine’s best option is to bludgeon Christie to incite an emotional response that reveals any character flaws.
Corzine is vulnerable on core issues such as budget, the economy, and taxes. These have been NJ Republican bread and butter issues in the past and Corzine’s record could return a Republican to Drumthwacket (the governor’s mansion).
Corzine’s biggest asset is his assets, with the assumption that he will spend $30 million of his own wealth to win this contest. Even in a media market as expensive as New York City and Pennsylvania, this is a lot of money that can be used to effectively define an opponent. Corzine’s campaign will have to be careful how it goes about defining Christie as his unfavorable rating is already very high and risks getting worse by attacking Christie without much to say about Corzine’s positive attributes as governor.
As to Christie, he has run an admirable campaign, but is not over the finish line yet. Christie is notoriously thin-skinned. On the other hand he has a very strong record of prosecuting pay-to-play, corrupt politicians; Republicans and Democrats alike (130 government officials with no acquittals). There are three areas where Christie is vulnerable to Corzine attacks. They are:
1) The deferred prosecution of his brother in a securities fraud case (Christie’s brother Todd is the Christie campaign’s finance chairman), meaning Corzine has to convince voters of the allegation Christie pulled strings to save his brother’s hide;
2) Awarding no bid contracts to consulting and law firms (his former boss, US Attorney John Ashcroft among them) to monitor companies settling fraud cases and then raising funds for his campaign from those same firms; and
3) Appearing to lie when asked if attorney John Inglesino raised money for Christie after Christie announced he would not raise gubernatorial campaign funds from any entity awarded no bid contracts while he was a U.S. Attorney (Inglesino worked at the law firm Stern & Kilcullen that was picked by then U.S. Attorney Christie to settle fraud claims at NJ’s medical school).
The last of these three is the most potent because Christie was caught on tape denying Inglesino raised funds for his campaign despite evidence to the contrary that Inglesino hosted a fundraiser and solicited donations. Corzine’s $30 million could put a dent in Christie’s hopes of victory by driving a message that defines Christie as a typical pay-to-play, corrupt politician. Christie will combat this with his unapproachable record as a corruption-busting U.S. Attorney and the fact that the monitoring contracts went to qualified firms to oversee corporate settlements, not taxpayer funds.
The message that is clearly not working for Corzine is trying to tie George W. Bush to Christie. Most noteworthy is that Christie was on the list of U.S. attorneys to be replaced by the Bush Department of Justice, making any reference to George W. Bush in this campaign wishful and stubborn thinking by Democrats that Bush is somehow a salient campaign theme moving forward.
There are enough Christie molehills for Corzine to construct a mountain. However, it will be up to Christie to make a mistake, which is possible given his thin-skin, to give Corzine the victory.
Christie is not exactly the brand of Republicanism that is required for the GOP to become relevant, but he is neither a right wing ideologue. Abiding by the tenet that the GOP needs to practice addition and not subtraction, Christie is acceptable. Christie’s emphasis on fiscal restraint, treating sustainable energy as an industry, urban revitalization and tax reform along with his choice of a moderate, pro-choice running mate (Kim Guadagno) and his support of Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court (demonstrating Christie’s common sense) are all steps toward defining the GOP brand as fiscally responsible and socially tolerant.
Assembly:
Also in play is the NJ State Assembly. In NJ there are two Assembly-people in each Legislative District. There was a scenario for the GOP to regain control of the chamber, needing eight seats for control, but no longer due to the Republican candidate recruitment stars not aligning. The Legislative Districts to watch if you are a Republicans are LD 1, 3, 14, and 36. LD 36 is an unlikely GOP pick-up as it features heavily minority (largely Hispanic) Passaic which will likely turn-out large numbers for the Democrats (this is where the Judge Sonia Sotomayor nomination/confirmation can help Democrats with turnout). LD 3 is a one seat strategy for the Republicans as the other GOP candidate there is referred to as the “KKK Guy,” NJ’s own David Duke without much chance of winning - thankfully.
If you are a Democrat, then LDs 2, 8, and 12 are on your list to watch. LD 2 is an unlikely pick-up for the Democrats because the western part of the district is more Alabama than NJ. The Democrats have zero chance of winning Burlington County’s LD 8. LD 12, which Obama won in ’08, features two moderate Republican freshmen and the best time to beat an incumbent is during the first term.
Now you know nearly as much as the personnel at the Republican Governors Association who will report the same to Gov. Barbour so he may make his own decisions about how to get Chris Christie elected as the 55th governor of New Jersey.
Governor:
The Republican candidate for governor in New Jersey is Chris Christie. His opponent is Democratic incumbent Gov. John Corzine. Christie is in play because Corzine’s record as governor is dismal. However, Christie has some faults, thin-skin among them that Corzine must manipulate if he is to win. As it stands today, Christie is the likely winner on Election Day.
Corzine is not beloved by NJ voters by a long shot. His self-stated major achievement is death penalty reform, not ideal in times of economic anxiety. Further, Corzine’s Wall Street guru status is more harmful than helpful in these days of Wall Street demonization amid the financial crisis. Corzine’s favorable to unfavorable ratio is roughly 1:1.5 – meaning more likely voters dislike him than like him. More ominous for Corzine is that polling shows he is losing Unaffiliated (registered voters not affiliated with any political party) voters by 23 percent – devastating in a state where Unaffiliated voters make up 47 percent of the electorate (33% of voters are Democrats and 20% are Republicans in NJ).
With no sturdy record to rely upon, it appears Corzine has few viable options to craft a winning strategy. Among those options are tying himself closely to President Obama’s legislative successes and destroying Christie by defining him as the typical pay-to-play, corrupt politician. The idea that Pres. Obama’s personal popularity in the state can transfer to Corzine is misguided. Pres. Obama can make as many trips to NJ as Corzine requests, but without legislative success for the White House and a brightening of the economy in NJ, one man’s popularity will not revive Corzine’s sinking prospects. Corzine’s best option is to bludgeon Christie to incite an emotional response that reveals any character flaws.
Corzine is vulnerable on core issues such as budget, the economy, and taxes. These have been NJ Republican bread and butter issues in the past and Corzine’s record could return a Republican to Drumthwacket (the governor’s mansion).
Corzine’s biggest asset is his assets, with the assumption that he will spend $30 million of his own wealth to win this contest. Even in a media market as expensive as New York City and Pennsylvania, this is a lot of money that can be used to effectively define an opponent. Corzine’s campaign will have to be careful how it goes about defining Christie as his unfavorable rating is already very high and risks getting worse by attacking Christie without much to say about Corzine’s positive attributes as governor.
As to Christie, he has run an admirable campaign, but is not over the finish line yet. Christie is notoriously thin-skinned. On the other hand he has a very strong record of prosecuting pay-to-play, corrupt politicians; Republicans and Democrats alike (130 government officials with no acquittals). There are three areas where Christie is vulnerable to Corzine attacks. They are:
1) The deferred prosecution of his brother in a securities fraud case (Christie’s brother Todd is the Christie campaign’s finance chairman), meaning Corzine has to convince voters of the allegation Christie pulled strings to save his brother’s hide;
2) Awarding no bid contracts to consulting and law firms (his former boss, US Attorney John Ashcroft among them) to monitor companies settling fraud cases and then raising funds for his campaign from those same firms; and
3) Appearing to lie when asked if attorney John Inglesino raised money for Christie after Christie announced he would not raise gubernatorial campaign funds from any entity awarded no bid contracts while he was a U.S. Attorney (Inglesino worked at the law firm Stern & Kilcullen that was picked by then U.S. Attorney Christie to settle fraud claims at NJ’s medical school).
The last of these three is the most potent because Christie was caught on tape denying Inglesino raised funds for his campaign despite evidence to the contrary that Inglesino hosted a fundraiser and solicited donations. Corzine’s $30 million could put a dent in Christie’s hopes of victory by driving a message that defines Christie as a typical pay-to-play, corrupt politician. Christie will combat this with his unapproachable record as a corruption-busting U.S. Attorney and the fact that the monitoring contracts went to qualified firms to oversee corporate settlements, not taxpayer funds.
The message that is clearly not working for Corzine is trying to tie George W. Bush to Christie. Most noteworthy is that Christie was on the list of U.S. attorneys to be replaced by the Bush Department of Justice, making any reference to George W. Bush in this campaign wishful and stubborn thinking by Democrats that Bush is somehow a salient campaign theme moving forward.
There are enough Christie molehills for Corzine to construct a mountain. However, it will be up to Christie to make a mistake, which is possible given his thin-skin, to give Corzine the victory.
Christie is not exactly the brand of Republicanism that is required for the GOP to become relevant, but he is neither a right wing ideologue. Abiding by the tenet that the GOP needs to practice addition and not subtraction, Christie is acceptable. Christie’s emphasis on fiscal restraint, treating sustainable energy as an industry, urban revitalization and tax reform along with his choice of a moderate, pro-choice running mate (Kim Guadagno) and his support of Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court (demonstrating Christie’s common sense) are all steps toward defining the GOP brand as fiscally responsible and socially tolerant.
Assembly:
Also in play is the NJ State Assembly. In NJ there are two Assembly-people in each Legislative District. There was a scenario for the GOP to regain control of the chamber, needing eight seats for control, but no longer due to the Republican candidate recruitment stars not aligning. The Legislative Districts to watch if you are a Republicans are LD 1, 3, 14, and 36. LD 36 is an unlikely GOP pick-up as it features heavily minority (largely Hispanic) Passaic which will likely turn-out large numbers for the Democrats (this is where the Judge Sonia Sotomayor nomination/confirmation can help Democrats with turnout). LD 3 is a one seat strategy for the Republicans as the other GOP candidate there is referred to as the “KKK Guy,” NJ’s own David Duke without much chance of winning - thankfully.
If you are a Democrat, then LDs 2, 8, and 12 are on your list to watch. LD 2 is an unlikely pick-up for the Democrats because the western part of the district is more Alabama than NJ. The Democrats have zero chance of winning Burlington County’s LD 8. LD 12, which Obama won in ’08, features two moderate Republican freshmen and the best time to beat an incumbent is during the first term.
Now you know nearly as much as the personnel at the Republican Governors Association who will report the same to Gov. Barbour so he may make his own decisions about how to get Chris Christie elected as the 55th governor of New Jersey.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Is Steele Out To Lunch?
RNC Chairman Michael Steele should take heed of Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-SC) remark today during Judge Sotomayor's Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Said Sen. Graham, "You don't want to offend people you are trying to represent."
Referencing fried chicken and potato salad as Mr. Steele did recently when talking about Republican Party inclusion is repulsing, not inviting.
Referencing fried chicken and potato salad as Mr. Steele did recently when talking about Republican Party inclusion is repulsing, not inviting.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Race, Guns & Abortion v. Sotomayor
The Senate Republicans will debilitate any prospect for a relevant Republican Party by pursuing a strategy of pandering to the GOP base in the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States. The irony of this pandering strategy is that it is based on the “Southern Strategy” of racially polarizing voters as the country becomes more racially diverse. As Hispanic populations are increasing dramatically in the south the irony becomes only more vivid.
Yet Senate Republicans plan to confront Judge Sotomayor in the worst way strategically for the relevancy of the GOP, despite the inevitability of her confirmation to the Supreme Court. Senate Republicans should check their tone and demeanor so as not come across as a child throwing a tantrum over taking a bath. Eventually the kid is going into the tub; and Judge Sotomayor is going to the SCOTUS.
Of the top ten states seeing a large increase in their Hispanic populations, seven are in the south. They are (state: current Hispanic population by percent; and percentage increase between 1990 and 2007):
North Carolina: 6.6%; 670%
Arkansas: 5.3%; 644%
Tennessee: 3.8%; 588%
Georgia: 7.7%; 565%
Alabama: 3.8%; 485%
South Carolina: 3.6%; 402%
Kentucky: 2.2%; 309%
The growth trend is unmistakable. With the 2010 census around the corner these numbers are sure to increase considerably. Growth trends like these should dispel any idea in GOP circles that the Southern Strategy remains viable. Yet, judging from the Sotomayor witness list offered by Republicans in the Senate it appears the GOP is not yet ready to give up the strategy. Like a teen hooked on glue, the GOP is not ready to stop huffing the right wing.
The witness list being called by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee is painfully revealing. It includes Mr. Frank Ricci of Ricci v. DeStefano; Sandy Froman of the National Rifle Association that has called Judge Sotomayor hostile to the Second Amendment; and Charmaine Yoest, chairman of Americans United for Life that has stated Judge Sotomayor has a pro-abortion agenda. That race, guns and fetuses is what Republican Senators have to offer in these important hearings says simply that the GOP does not have much to offer the country other than exhausted pabulum.
With the announcement that Mr. Ricci will testify against Judge Sonia Sotomayor in her confirmation hearings it is clear that the GOP is reaching into its tired bag of electoral polarization tricks. Mr. Ricci was the lead plaintiff in Ricco v. DeStafano upon which the Supreme Court recently ruled by reversing an appellate court decision endorsed by SCOTUS nominee Judge Sotomayor. The SCOTUS ruled that white firefighters were unfairly denied promotions by New Haven, CT because of their race. This ruling annuls white grievances over minority claims to victimhood. No longer can white males complain about the culture of victimhood as they’ve joined up.
Red Elephant has sat through enough campaign polling presentations to know the reverse discrimination question is going to yield hard to resist survey data for Republican challenger campaigns in 2010. More than likely the correctly worded question, “Would you be more or less likely to vote for Candidate A if you knew they supported reverse discrimination of white job applicants” is going to test a minimum of 60 percent less likely from survey respondents in white majority districts across the country. A 60% threshold in a survey makes an issue dominant. Having a 60 percent issue is like having 500 horsepower under the hood, you got to stomp the pedal.
As the GOP is desperate for wins in 2010, the probability is high that consultants will be cranking out paid messages that seek to inflame white voters’ economic anxiety. One need only refer to the Jesse Helms (R-NC) v. Harvey Gant (D) contest in 1990 when the Helms campaign aired the “Hands” spot that used affirmative action to polarize the electorate, accompanied by the image of a white male crumbling a job rejection letter. The 2010 version won’t be much different, “You needed that job and were the best qualified. But you didn’t get it because the employer feared a lawsuit from minorities who didn’t get hired.” Key the white guy ripping up a job rejection letter. This temptation should be resisted, particularly by the candidates presented with such a strategy by their consultants.
In their questions of Judge Sotomayor, Senate Republicans should hearken back to spirit of GOP advocacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlawed racial segregation when over 80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for passage, versus a little more than 60% of Democrats in either chamber. Senate Republicans should be for Judge Sotomayor because of what she personifies about America’s ideals (meritorious advancement and rule of law among them). Further, her opinions as a judge do not offer many opportunities to challenge her as there is nothing radical about her record. Senate Republicans should not oppose Sotomayor on those few issues that pluck the Republican base responsive chord. This approach is shortsighted and will only seal GOP irrelevancy in a demographically changing nation.
To this point, there are 36 Senate seats up for election in 2010. Of those, Republicans could pick up four seats if they successfully defend what they already have. Defense of those GOP seats could prove tougher with a hard-line against Sotomayor, particularly in Florida with Hispanics making up 22% of the population. The four reasonable opportunities the GOP has to increase in the Senate are Colorado, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Illinois. Those states have Hispanic populations of 20%, 4% (making the Hispanic vote less of a factor, but Sen. Specter will need every vote he can get), 12% and 14% respectively. Colorado and Connecticut have Democratic incumbents (Senators Dodd and Bennett) who can do much to ingratiate themselves with Hispanic voters in their states by vigorously supporting Judge Sotomayor even though they are not on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
It would be better for Republicans to treat Sotomayor warmly. Such treatment of Sotomayor will put pressure on President Obama to pick a very liberal nominee for the next SCOTUS opening. A far left pick next time around will give the GOP a real opportunity to strike a contrast between itself and Democrats.
Unfortunately this opportunity will be squandered for the immediate satisfaction of Republican pandering to the core voters of the Republican Party. After all, endless direct mail fundraising solicitations can be mailed and millions in contributions deposited off the headlines that guns, race and fetuses will generate from the Sotomayor confirmation hearings. So it seems that the Angry White Firefighter is too appealing to Republicans not to manipulate. Hispanics will be watching Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings and making a judgment about whether the Republican Party is a place they can ever call home as its population in the U.S. grows. Judging from the Republican’s Sotomayor witness list it doesn’t look good that Hispanics will be dropping by the GOP homestead on Election Day.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Gathering Steam
It is refreshing to read Mike Murphy's column in Time about the relevancy of the GOP. First Jeb Bush, now Republican consultant Mike Murphy. Red Elephant is glad to know there are other serious people voicing reason to a Republican Party not only in the wilderness, but seemingly intent and happy to stay there. Thanks for a great piece, Mr. Murphy!
The Dr. Rev. Sen. Tom Coburn & Mr. Ensign.
Philandering Republican politicians are like the last drunken guest to realize the party is over. Now come their enablers, who rather than showing them the door offer up a handle of Smirnoff's and tell them the party doesn't have to end.
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) accused the media of doing harm to the families involved in Senator John Ensign’s (R-NV) adulterous affair. That’s right, adultery doesn’t tear families apart, the media does. This is the kind of nonsense that speaks for itself. It also is the kind of nonsense that makes the GOP appear hypocritical.
John Ensign cheated on his wife and then allegedly arranged payments to his girlfriend’s family, suggesting he wanted to keep the affair from being disclosed publicly. This is what is tearing up these two families, not the media doing its job of reporting on the conduct of a public official.
Republicans are quick to say they believe in personal responsibility, this is usually the argument given in opposition to entitlements. Where is the act of taking responsibility by Mr. Ensign? Owning up to his bad deed is not taking responsibility, that’s a consequence. Taking responsibility is making full disclosure to his constituents, which he never did by not being the first to reveal the payments and then accepting some form of punishment (which at minimum should be a Senate Ethics investigation into the alleged payments). The only reason Ensign's constituents know about the payments now is because of the media. What else hasn’t he revealed that the media is going to have to discover so Ensign's constituents know what kind of public official he really is?
As to Mr. Coburn, hiding behind his doctor of medicine and ordination as a deacon to claim his conversations with Ensign about the affair are privileged is inappropriate and plain wrong. Coburn and Ensign know each other as Senators; they didn’t meet by appointment at a medical office or parish. Coburn is enabling not only Ensign’s bad conduct, but any other Senator who strays from their committments and then seeks guidance from Dr. Rev. Sen. Tom Coburn.
John Ensign is nowhere close to taking responsibility for his bad acts. What he did and what Coburn is doing makes the GOP look like a gang of hypocrites and the Republican Senators staying quiet on this matter should know better and demand better from their cloakroom colleagues.
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) accused the media of doing harm to the families involved in Senator John Ensign’s (R-NV) adulterous affair. That’s right, adultery doesn’t tear families apart, the media does. This is the kind of nonsense that speaks for itself. It also is the kind of nonsense that makes the GOP appear hypocritical.
John Ensign cheated on his wife and then allegedly arranged payments to his girlfriend’s family, suggesting he wanted to keep the affair from being disclosed publicly. This is what is tearing up these two families, not the media doing its job of reporting on the conduct of a public official.
Republicans are quick to say they believe in personal responsibility, this is usually the argument given in opposition to entitlements. Where is the act of taking responsibility by Mr. Ensign? Owning up to his bad deed is not taking responsibility, that’s a consequence. Taking responsibility is making full disclosure to his constituents, which he never did by not being the first to reveal the payments and then accepting some form of punishment (which at minimum should be a Senate Ethics investigation into the alleged payments). The only reason Ensign's constituents know about the payments now is because of the media. What else hasn’t he revealed that the media is going to have to discover so Ensign's constituents know what kind of public official he really is?
As to Mr. Coburn, hiding behind his doctor of medicine and ordination as a deacon to claim his conversations with Ensign about the affair are privileged is inappropriate and plain wrong. Coburn and Ensign know each other as Senators; they didn’t meet by appointment at a medical office or parish. Coburn is enabling not only Ensign’s bad conduct, but any other Senator who strays from their committments and then seeks guidance from Dr. Rev. Sen. Tom Coburn.
John Ensign is nowhere close to taking responsibility for his bad acts. What he did and what Coburn is doing makes the GOP look like a gang of hypocrites and the Republican Senators staying quiet on this matter should know better and demand better from their cloakroom colleagues.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Jeb Bush Is Also Thinking About the GOP's Relevance
It appears from the recent Esquire Magazine interview by Tucker Carlson of Jeb Bush that Red Elephant and Mr. Bush are of like mind when it comes to the relevancy of the Republican Party.
Says Jeb Bush in the interview, “There hasn’t been any kind of restatement of the organizing principles of our (the Republican Party) philosophy. We haven’t upgraded our message. If you close your eyes and listen to most Republicans, most conservatives, the same speech could have been given in 1990. And you can’t discount that. It’s a pretty important point. If people think our message is outdated, our message is not relevant to the world we live in, and I think a growing number of people may feel that, you lose your relevance.”
It is unfortunate that Jeb Bush will be branded with the faults of his brother, George W. Bush. This interview almost makes Red Elephant want to cheer for Jeb and put him on the list of the kind of presidential candidate the party needs in the future.
The article suggests Jeb Bush is a man of faith, but not an evangelical. His faith seems more in line with his family's colonial heritage and roots in the Northeast, moderate wing of the GOP. Unlike his brother, Jeb Bush does not present as a snake handler. It appears that to him, speaking in tongues refers to what one does with the concierge at the George V. The absence of an evangelical strain is a welcome change from his brother's expressions of faith. The absence of a long discussion on faith on Mr. Bush's part in the interview signals that he understands that moralizing will not make the GOP relevant to voters who can get what they need on Sundays.
In the interview Jeb Bush touches on the thinking that the GOP needs to put into its positions on issues beyond taxes, foreign policy and knee-jerk reactions to President Obama's legislative agenda. Says Bush, "I'm not saying abandon our principles. To the contrary: Find creative ways of expressing the principles. This should be a renaissance time. Whether it's education or healthcare or energy or the environment, or whether it's the scale and scope and the size of government all around us." Clearly Jeb Bush gets the joke.
It is significant that Jeb Bush is now doing interviews talking about how to make the GOP relevant. More clarity on his ideas is needed, but the mere fact he has broached the subject is welcome by Red Elephant.
Says Jeb Bush in the interview, “There hasn’t been any kind of restatement of the organizing principles of our (the Republican Party) philosophy. We haven’t upgraded our message. If you close your eyes and listen to most Republicans, most conservatives, the same speech could have been given in 1990. And you can’t discount that. It’s a pretty important point. If people think our message is outdated, our message is not relevant to the world we live in, and I think a growing number of people may feel that, you lose your relevance.”
It is unfortunate that Jeb Bush will be branded with the faults of his brother, George W. Bush. This interview almost makes Red Elephant want to cheer for Jeb and put him on the list of the kind of presidential candidate the party needs in the future.
The article suggests Jeb Bush is a man of faith, but not an evangelical. His faith seems more in line with his family's colonial heritage and roots in the Northeast, moderate wing of the GOP. Unlike his brother, Jeb Bush does not present as a snake handler. It appears that to him, speaking in tongues refers to what one does with the concierge at the George V. The absence of an evangelical strain is a welcome change from his brother's expressions of faith. The absence of a long discussion on faith on Mr. Bush's part in the interview signals that he understands that moralizing will not make the GOP relevant to voters who can get what they need on Sundays.
In the interview Jeb Bush touches on the thinking that the GOP needs to put into its positions on issues beyond taxes, foreign policy and knee-jerk reactions to President Obama's legislative agenda. Says Bush, "I'm not saying abandon our principles. To the contrary: Find creative ways of expressing the principles. This should be a renaissance time. Whether it's education or healthcare or energy or the environment, or whether it's the scale and scope and the size of government all around us." Clearly Jeb Bush gets the joke.
It is significant that Jeb Bush is now doing interviews talking about how to make the GOP relevant. More clarity on his ideas is needed, but the mere fact he has broached the subject is welcome by Red Elephant.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Presidential Moneyline
Red Elephant believes that the Republican Party needs to play small ball and rebuild the party from the bottom up. However, presidential elections wait for nobody and the GOP will need to put forward a nominee in 2012. Red Elephant believes it should be a person who represents the platform issues that will make the GOP relevant again. That said, the Republican Party bench is bare, but here are some potential players to watch and Red Elephant’s odds on the primary contest. Red Elephant has added President Obama for measurement.*
NEW Obama
-300 or 1/3
Still strong after all these months, although a hint of flagging popularity. An encompassing legislative agenda could give him the best outcome of all; a GOP majority in the House – doubtful given the disarray of the GOP.
NEW Barbour
+600 or 6/1
A recent Rasmussen survey of likely GOP voters giving him a favorable to unfavorable rating of 34:37 drop his odds, for now. RE still convinced Iowans and Granite Staters will come to see him as the future.
NEW Romney
+1000 or 1o/1
With a favorable to unfavorable rating of 73:19 plus his bank account and his odds improve. Uncomfortable bigoted questions about underwear still loom.
Crist
+2000 or 20/1
A sunny, healthy, youthful disposition makes him appealing, but untested nationally and shares a fundraising base with the Bush family. What isn’t known about him…yet?
NEW Pawlenty
+2500 or 25/1
Rasmussen survey reveals a weak 38:33 favorable to unfavorable rating among GOPers and hurt his moneyline.
NEW Sanford
+10,000 or 100/1
Censura means cya; last time on the Moneyline.
NEW Ensign
+10,000 or 100/1
Handwritten note to his girlfriend is handwriting on the wall for his political ambitions. No more for the Moneyline.
NEW Palin
+5000 or 50/1
She may become the cult of personality she desperately desires, but odds dropping like a uyabak. How long until SARAH! the pilot?
Huckabee
+1400 or 14/1
Keeping up the Daily Show dialogue with Jon Stewart could make him chic outside of the base. Fox helps keep him in the conversation.
Gingrich
+1500 or 15/1
A brilliant but wandering mind. Lots of base appeal but smacks of GOP values hypocrisy and has the feel of an outdated calendar.
Jeb Bush
+160 or 8/5
No GOP bench gives him a huge advantage – despite the last name. As Eddie Murphy said in The Distinguished Gentleman, “Go with the name you know.”
Jindal+2200 or 22/1
Highly intelligent but no media presence coming from a state that does not give him much fundraising prowess. Does himself no favors by appearing on tv.
Hutchinson
+2500 or 25/1
The country has probably had enough of the TX cheerleader type to make her a serious candidate, but with Palin gone she gets more interesting.
Bloomberg
+20,000 or 200/1
Too bad he’s “Jewish” and an “Independent” from New York City. Not sure which is more damning in a GOP primary.
Hagel
+2000 or 20/1
Sterling credentials and temperament if he’d sacrifice himself in service to his country one more time. The GOP would have to substantially change for him to run.
Kasich
+4000 or 40/1
2016 seems more likely if he wins the gubernatorial contest in OH in ’10.
*Calculated from electoral performance, survey data, media savvy and fundraising potential.
NEW Obama
-300 or 1/3
Still strong after all these months, although a hint of flagging popularity. An encompassing legislative agenda could give him the best outcome of all; a GOP majority in the House – doubtful given the disarray of the GOP.
NEW Barbour
+600 or 6/1
A recent Rasmussen survey of likely GOP voters giving him a favorable to unfavorable rating of 34:37 drop his odds, for now. RE still convinced Iowans and Granite Staters will come to see him as the future.
NEW Romney
+1000 or 1o/1
With a favorable to unfavorable rating of 73:19 plus his bank account and his odds improve. Uncomfortable bigoted questions about underwear still loom.
Crist
+2000 or 20/1
A sunny, healthy, youthful disposition makes him appealing, but untested nationally and shares a fundraising base with the Bush family. What isn’t known about him…yet?
NEW Pawlenty
+2500 or 25/1
Rasmussen survey reveals a weak 38:33 favorable to unfavorable rating among GOPers and hurt his moneyline.
NEW Sanford
+10,000 or 100/1
Censura means cya; last time on the Moneyline.
NEW Ensign
+10,000 or 100/1
Handwritten note to his girlfriend is handwriting on the wall for his political ambitions. No more for the Moneyline.
NEW Palin
+5000 or 50/1
She may become the cult of personality she desperately desires, but odds dropping like a uyabak. How long until SARAH! the pilot?
Huckabee
+1400 or 14/1
Keeping up the Daily Show dialogue with Jon Stewart could make him chic outside of the base. Fox helps keep him in the conversation.
Gingrich
+1500 or 15/1
A brilliant but wandering mind. Lots of base appeal but smacks of GOP values hypocrisy and has the feel of an outdated calendar.
Jeb Bush
+160 or 8/5
No GOP bench gives him a huge advantage – despite the last name. As Eddie Murphy said in The Distinguished Gentleman, “Go with the name you know.”
Jindal+2200 or 22/1
Highly intelligent but no media presence coming from a state that does not give him much fundraising prowess. Does himself no favors by appearing on tv.
Hutchinson
+2500 or 25/1
The country has probably had enough of the TX cheerleader type to make her a serious candidate, but with Palin gone she gets more interesting.
Bloomberg
+20,000 or 200/1
Too bad he’s “Jewish” and an “Independent” from New York City. Not sure which is more damning in a GOP primary.
Hagel
+2000 or 20/1
Sterling credentials and temperament if he’d sacrifice himself in service to his country one more time. The GOP would have to substantially change for him to run.
Kasich
+4000 or 40/1
2016 seems more likely if he wins the gubernatorial contest in OH in ’10.
*Calculated from electoral performance, survey data, media savvy and fundraising potential.
Monday, July 06, 2009
The Value of Humility
The Republican National Committee refers to the 2008 Platform on its web site as guidance on issues important to the future of the GOP. A platform, a list of principles offered to define a political party, should be taken seriously by party members, officials and voters deciding on how they fit within the construct. So Red Elephant will periodically take a close look at the current Republican Party platform and what it means to the long-term viability of the GOP.
Most striking about the 2008 platform is the prioritization of issues. Within the platform are 72 planks, or individual topics that define the platform specifically. Of those 72 planks, six (or nine percent) of the platform address Energy, Environment and Education, all complex and important priorities for the prosperity and security of the nation. Yet these issues were apportioned a mere nine percent of the platform. So it is instructive to look closely at what makes up the remaining 91 percent of the platform:
§ National Security 16 planks, or 22 percent
§ Government Reform 13 planks, or 18 percent
§ Crime 11 planks, or 15 percent
§ Economy 9 planks or 13 percent
§ Values 9 planks, or 13 percent
§ Healthcare 8 planks, or 11 percent
§ Education 2 planks, or 3 percent
§ Energy 2 planks or 3 percent
§ Environment 2 planks, or 3 percent
So it is that the Republican Party in 2008 decided it intrinsically placed more importance on Values, or defining its morality to the public for the public, than it did on Education, Energy and Environment combined (as well as giving more prioritization to Values than Healthcare). Ironic, as one would rightly assume that the issue positions themsevles reveal the underpinning values.
The RNC Chairman’s Platform Preamble is illuminating as to why the GOP’s problems are largely derived from the prioritization and contradictory nature of its principles. The preamble itself is a Bush-era worldview with all the bravado of a wanted dead or alive poster and the righteousness of a papal bull. It says, “Yet we stand united today because we are the one party that speaks to all Americans, conservative, moderates, libertarians, independents and evens liberals.” Really? The election results of November 4, 2008 say differently.
89% of Liberals, who made up 22% of the electorate in that election, voted for Barack Obama. 60% of Moderates, 44% of the electorate, voted for Obama. Even Conservatives, 34% of the electorate, had doubts about the Republican ticket as 22% punched the ballot for somebody other than John McCain. Self identified Independents, 29% of all voters, voted for Obama over McCain 52 to 44 percent. These results speak for themselves and should reveal to the GOP that it does not come close to speaking for all Americans. However, the statement that the GOP stands united is accurate, as 90% of Republicans, accounting for 32% of the electorate was united in voting for John McCain. The election results speak for themselves; the GOP is too busy speaking to - or perhaps lecturing - Americans to know how to speak for them. These same results also mean the GOP would do better for now to listen rather than lecture if winning elections is important to the RNC.
As values are a mainstay of the Republican Party’s self-definition, the planks deserve some attention. The nine planks are 1) Upholding the Constitutional to Keep and Bear Arms, 2) Ensuring Equal Treatment for All, 3) Protecting our National Symbols, 4) Freedom of Speech and the Press, 5) Maintaining the Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life, 6) Preserving Traditional Marriage, 7) Safeguarding Religious Liberties, 8) Preserving American’s Property Rights, and 9) Supporting Native American Communities (especially those with casinos).
As it is too much to address them all in one post, the focus will be on Nos. 2 and 5. As to equal treatment for all; the GOP has clearly decided some voter segments are not as equal as the others, having polarized itself against the homosexual population of the country. This is largely due to the evangelical voter base within the GOP that views homosexuality as sin, often citing the Old Testament’s Leviticus. Since sin is the core objection that evangelicals have to homosexuals then they have a conundrum, since sin is not particular to any demographic. Pick any lifestyle and sin is present. For the sake of example, let’s choose…Republican politicians. Given the conduct of Senators John Ensign (R-NV) and David Vitter (R-LA), and Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC), perhaps the GOP should add this sinful demographic to the list of those who don’t warrant equal treatment as they too violate God’s law as recorded in Leviticus. Better yet, shelving moral judgment would free the GOP to leverage its heritage as a proponent of civil rights.
Maintaining the sanctity and dignity of human life is a noble conviction. However, this plank refers almost strictly to the unborn. Unfortunately, the principle to maintain the sanctity and dignity of human life in the GOP platform does not take the logical next step and extend the same principle to every issue: crime, healthcare, national security, government reform, education, environment, energy and the economy. Within each of these are Americans and American ideals suffering indignities daily: the released inmate without the resources to re-integrate into society, the homeless who are unable to feed or clothe themselves, the patient who could not afford health insurance, the low-income student unable to pursue an education, the administration of the death penalty (specific to judicial appointments), the treatment of non-combatants in U.S. custody, the senior citizen unable to afford prescription medicine, the jobless unable to provide for themselves or family at no fault of their own. These people are unaddressed by this particular plank, thus receiving no codified compassion in the Republican Party’s Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life plank.
The RNC Chairman’s preamble presents the 2008 platform with “genuine humility – before God and a nation of free and independent thinkers.” So the platform is offered in the spirit of deference and submission, but not in deference and submission to every American. More aptly, the preamble should state it is offered in modesty as it attempts to strike propriety of speech and presentation. This is apt because modesty is easy to discard when times get tough, as they are now for the Republican Party. However, humility is exactly what the GOP now needs. Humility will re-invigorate the compassion that is ingrained in the history of the GOP. A humble GOP will be recognized and appreciated by every voter demographic in the county, giving the Republican Party the opportunity to earn a second look from the conservatives, moderates, libertarians, independents and even liberals who abandoned it at the polls on Nov. 4, 2008.
Most striking about the 2008 platform is the prioritization of issues. Within the platform are 72 planks, or individual topics that define the platform specifically. Of those 72 planks, six (or nine percent) of the platform address Energy, Environment and Education, all complex and important priorities for the prosperity and security of the nation. Yet these issues were apportioned a mere nine percent of the platform. So it is instructive to look closely at what makes up the remaining 91 percent of the platform:
§ National Security 16 planks, or 22 percent
§ Government Reform 13 planks, or 18 percent
§ Crime 11 planks, or 15 percent
§ Economy 9 planks or 13 percent
§ Values 9 planks, or 13 percent
§ Healthcare 8 planks, or 11 percent
§ Education 2 planks, or 3 percent
§ Energy 2 planks or 3 percent
§ Environment 2 planks, or 3 percent
So it is that the Republican Party in 2008 decided it intrinsically placed more importance on Values, or defining its morality to the public for the public, than it did on Education, Energy and Environment combined (as well as giving more prioritization to Values than Healthcare). Ironic, as one would rightly assume that the issue positions themsevles reveal the underpinning values.
The RNC Chairman’s Platform Preamble is illuminating as to why the GOP’s problems are largely derived from the prioritization and contradictory nature of its principles. The preamble itself is a Bush-era worldview with all the bravado of a wanted dead or alive poster and the righteousness of a papal bull. It says, “Yet we stand united today because we are the one party that speaks to all Americans, conservative, moderates, libertarians, independents and evens liberals.” Really? The election results of November 4, 2008 say differently.
89% of Liberals, who made up 22% of the electorate in that election, voted for Barack Obama. 60% of Moderates, 44% of the electorate, voted for Obama. Even Conservatives, 34% of the electorate, had doubts about the Republican ticket as 22% punched the ballot for somebody other than John McCain. Self identified Independents, 29% of all voters, voted for Obama over McCain 52 to 44 percent. These results speak for themselves and should reveal to the GOP that it does not come close to speaking for all Americans. However, the statement that the GOP stands united is accurate, as 90% of Republicans, accounting for 32% of the electorate was united in voting for John McCain. The election results speak for themselves; the GOP is too busy speaking to - or perhaps lecturing - Americans to know how to speak for them. These same results also mean the GOP would do better for now to listen rather than lecture if winning elections is important to the RNC.
As values are a mainstay of the Republican Party’s self-definition, the planks deserve some attention. The nine planks are 1) Upholding the Constitutional to Keep and Bear Arms, 2) Ensuring Equal Treatment for All, 3) Protecting our National Symbols, 4) Freedom of Speech and the Press, 5) Maintaining the Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life, 6) Preserving Traditional Marriage, 7) Safeguarding Religious Liberties, 8) Preserving American’s Property Rights, and 9) Supporting Native American Communities (especially those with casinos).
As it is too much to address them all in one post, the focus will be on Nos. 2 and 5. As to equal treatment for all; the GOP has clearly decided some voter segments are not as equal as the others, having polarized itself against the homosexual population of the country. This is largely due to the evangelical voter base within the GOP that views homosexuality as sin, often citing the Old Testament’s Leviticus. Since sin is the core objection that evangelicals have to homosexuals then they have a conundrum, since sin is not particular to any demographic. Pick any lifestyle and sin is present. For the sake of example, let’s choose…Republican politicians. Given the conduct of Senators John Ensign (R-NV) and David Vitter (R-LA), and Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC), perhaps the GOP should add this sinful demographic to the list of those who don’t warrant equal treatment as they too violate God’s law as recorded in Leviticus. Better yet, shelving moral judgment would free the GOP to leverage its heritage as a proponent of civil rights.
Maintaining the sanctity and dignity of human life is a noble conviction. However, this plank refers almost strictly to the unborn. Unfortunately, the principle to maintain the sanctity and dignity of human life in the GOP platform does not take the logical next step and extend the same principle to every issue: crime, healthcare, national security, government reform, education, environment, energy and the economy. Within each of these are Americans and American ideals suffering indignities daily: the released inmate without the resources to re-integrate into society, the homeless who are unable to feed or clothe themselves, the patient who could not afford health insurance, the low-income student unable to pursue an education, the administration of the death penalty (specific to judicial appointments), the treatment of non-combatants in U.S. custody, the senior citizen unable to afford prescription medicine, the jobless unable to provide for themselves or family at no fault of their own. These people are unaddressed by this particular plank, thus receiving no codified compassion in the Republican Party’s Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life plank.
The RNC Chairman’s preamble presents the 2008 platform with “genuine humility – before God and a nation of free and independent thinkers.” So the platform is offered in the spirit of deference and submission, but not in deference and submission to every American. More aptly, the preamble should state it is offered in modesty as it attempts to strike propriety of speech and presentation. This is apt because modesty is easy to discard when times get tough, as they are now for the Republican Party. However, humility is exactly what the GOP now needs. Humility will re-invigorate the compassion that is ingrained in the history of the GOP. A humble GOP will be recognized and appreciated by every voter demographic in the county, giving the Republican Party the opportunity to earn a second look from the conservatives, moderates, libertarians, independents and even liberals who abandoned it at the polls on Nov. 4, 2008.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Palin's Resignation Speech Signals New Anti-Federalism
Gov. Sarah Palin closed her resignation announcement quoting Gen. Douglas MacArthur, saying “We are not retreating, we are advancing in another direction.” These were much like the words of Maj. Gen. Oliver Smith while directing the 1st Marine Division to fight through surrounding Chinese troops at the Chosin Reservoir in 1950 who said then, “Retreat? Hell, we’re attacking in another direction!” This is a better reference for Palin at this juncture of her political career.
Palin is certainly surrounded; largely by her own incompetence, intellectual laziness and problems of her own manufacture. Her remarks are troubling, but for the moment it is a good thing for the Republican Party that she is retreating from the national political scene. Palin is the variety of Republican that relies on subtraction and division, rather than addition and multiplication.
As to her speech; what is troubling about it is that she has adopted Ronald Reagan’s perspective that government is the problem and not the solution and is crafting a new and more potent Anti-Federalism. Palin’s remarks endorse the confusion and contradiction arising from a lack of uniformity among the states that Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist Paper No. 80. This indicates the political philosophy that can be expected from Palin in the years ahead; that government (state or federal) is incapable of delivering worthwhile solutions to domestic problems or conflicts. Palin is positioning herself as the politician who so dislikes government that she disdains her own office, preferring resignation to service.
Palin remarked in her resignation announcement that “some Alaskans don’t mind wasting pubic dollars and state time, but I do. And I cannot stand here as your governor and allow the millions of dollars and all that time to go to waste just so that I can hold the title of governor.” This reveals a narcissism that should make us all sleep much better knowing she is not now a heartbeat away from the presidency. Being governor of any state is about the power of the office to do the will of the people, not the ambition and ego of the officer holder.
As Palin is a national political figure this announcement today raised many questions about her future. Removing herself means she must have assessed the liability of fulfilling her term in office and decided the reward paled in contrast to the risk. Her reason for forfeiting the last 18 months of her term ranged from the familial, to the waste of time and treasure devoured by the blood sport of politics, to the stalking national media. Blaming the media is a tired tactic and will find no resonance. The bloodiness of political sport will follow her as long as she harbors political aspiration. Family – well that is a personal decision and if we never hear from Sarah Palin again then she should be left alone, but it is doubtful she is gone for good.
Palin has clearly decided on the course of the political cult of personality. It is assured her book will sell in the millions; in her speech she alluded to revelations to come later that guarantees sales success. The course she has chosen is to forgo traditional methods of building a political base: using her office to articulate and enact a vision; raising political action committee funds from special interest groups; and interjecting herself into the national dialogue on issues from the gubernatorial perch. No, she is going for something large, something mimicking Oprah, somethng about her and not the ideals she is not willing to fight for in a legislative chamber. This is a risky path that demands robust intelligence and mental stamina, traits Palin has yet to display.
The better MacArthur quote for this moment is “I shall return.” Palin is sure do so and it is the responsibility of the tolerant and inclusive men and women of the Republican Party who believe in the Federalism of Madison, Hamilton and Jay that when Palin does return she is soundly rebuffed.
Palin is certainly surrounded; largely by her own incompetence, intellectual laziness and problems of her own manufacture. Her remarks are troubling, but for the moment it is a good thing for the Republican Party that she is retreating from the national political scene. Palin is the variety of Republican that relies on subtraction and division, rather than addition and multiplication.
As to her speech; what is troubling about it is that she has adopted Ronald Reagan’s perspective that government is the problem and not the solution and is crafting a new and more potent Anti-Federalism. Palin’s remarks endorse the confusion and contradiction arising from a lack of uniformity among the states that Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist Paper No. 80. This indicates the political philosophy that can be expected from Palin in the years ahead; that government (state or federal) is incapable of delivering worthwhile solutions to domestic problems or conflicts. Palin is positioning herself as the politician who so dislikes government that she disdains her own office, preferring resignation to service.
Palin remarked in her resignation announcement that “some Alaskans don’t mind wasting pubic dollars and state time, but I do. And I cannot stand here as your governor and allow the millions of dollars and all that time to go to waste just so that I can hold the title of governor.” This reveals a narcissism that should make us all sleep much better knowing she is not now a heartbeat away from the presidency. Being governor of any state is about the power of the office to do the will of the people, not the ambition and ego of the officer holder.
As Palin is a national political figure this announcement today raised many questions about her future. Removing herself means she must have assessed the liability of fulfilling her term in office and decided the reward paled in contrast to the risk. Her reason for forfeiting the last 18 months of her term ranged from the familial, to the waste of time and treasure devoured by the blood sport of politics, to the stalking national media. Blaming the media is a tired tactic and will find no resonance. The bloodiness of political sport will follow her as long as she harbors political aspiration. Family – well that is a personal decision and if we never hear from Sarah Palin again then she should be left alone, but it is doubtful she is gone for good.
Palin has clearly decided on the course of the political cult of personality. It is assured her book will sell in the millions; in her speech she alluded to revelations to come later that guarantees sales success. The course she has chosen is to forgo traditional methods of building a political base: using her office to articulate and enact a vision; raising political action committee funds from special interest groups; and interjecting herself into the national dialogue on issues from the gubernatorial perch. No, she is going for something large, something mimicking Oprah, somethng about her and not the ideals she is not willing to fight for in a legislative chamber. This is a risky path that demands robust intelligence and mental stamina, traits Palin has yet to display.
The better MacArthur quote for this moment is “I shall return.” Palin is sure do so and it is the responsibility of the tolerant and inclusive men and women of the Republican Party who believe in the Federalism of Madison, Hamilton and Jay that when Palin does return she is soundly rebuffed.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
What Barbour Helming RGA Means
Visit the Republican Governors Association web site and you will be greeted with a short but significant message from The Hon. Haley Barbour (R-MS). Gov. Barbour recently took over as chairman of the RGA following Gov. Mark Sanford’s (R-SC) resignation from the RGA post following his disclosure of adultery. The slogan of Haley’s message is “The GOP Comeback Begins Now.” Any Democrat laughing at that now could well be crying later.
“When I was chairman of the Republican Party back in the ‘90’s it was the Republican governors who led the comeback of our party, of our getting back into the majority. And I believe it will be the same way this time,” says Gov. Barbour in the clip. From anybody else this is talk. From Haley it is the walk.
When Haley took over as chairman of the Republican National Committee in January 1993 the GOP was in disarray. Bill Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States, having just defeated President George H.W. Bush in an upset. Democrats were the majority in the House by 258 to 176, in the Senate by 56 to 44 and they controlled 31 of the 50 governorships. Two years later Haley presided over Republican majorities in Congress and among the nation’s governors.
From 1993 to 1994 Haley’s RNC raised and spent close to $105 million. Haley Barbour was the driving force in achieving that remarkable accomplishment. It is certain he will bring the same expertise and performance to the RGA.
A review of the RNC’s performance under Haley discloses the impact Haley has on political party fundraising. In 1993 the RNC, during Haley’s first year as chairman there, raised $42 million. In 1994 the RNC raised $72 million, followed by $61 million in 1995. Off years, or odd years, tend to be tougher years to raise funds for political committees because the only elections are in a few states where there are state legislative and gubernatorial contests. The significant comparison is 1993 and 1995, both off year election cycles (since even years include a presidential election which has more fundraising variables than a non-presidential even year). Haley’s RNC raised 45 percent more in 1995 than 1993.
In 2008 the RGA raised $27 million. Assuming Haley will match the RGA’s '08 performance in ’09 and reproduce the results he had at the RNC in his second year as chairman, the RGA could have $36 million for the 2010 election cycle when 36 governorships are up, although a smaller number of those (less than twenty) will be competitive.
Haley arrives at the RGA with the committee on solid financial footing with more than $10 million raised to date. This is thanks to Gov. Sanford, who should have paid as much attention to his wife as he did on RGA fundraising. There will be significant RGA expenditures in New Jersey and Virginia this year. In many ways this scenario is a reprise of 1993.
In New Jersey there is an unpopular Democratic governor, Jon Corzine, who faces a strong Republican challenger in former Bush U.S. Attorney Chris Christie. Similarly, in 1993 the Republican challenger was Christie Todd Whitman who defeated Gov. Jim Florio mainly over taxes increases. While Corzine is not nearly as unpopular as Florio was, he is currently trailing Christie and has a favorable to unfavorable rating of 31:54.
Likewise, Virginia’s gubernatorial contest is for an open seat, as it was in 1993. Recent polling has the Democrat, Creigh Deeds, leading the Republican, Robert McDonnell in the contest by 47 to 41 percent. In 1993, the Republican George Allen trailed the Democrat Mary Sue Terry early in the contest. Allen prevailed on the Election Day with a great deal of assistance from Haley’s RNC.
The NJ and VA contests at this time are a toss-up featuring strong Republican candidates that make two pick-ups for GOP possible – again like 1993. When Haley says “it was the Republican governors who led the comeback of our party, of our getting back into the majority,” this is what he is talking about.
It is more likely than not that RGA funding will go to competitive races, rather than ideologically pure candidates. This is a good thing for the future relevance of the GOP and a much different approach than signaled by current RNC Chairman Michael Steele. Steel’s comments over the passage of President Obama’s stimulus package signaled that Republicans who supported that measure would jeopardize RNC support in their re-election campaigns.
Haley’s ascension to the RGA helm signals that the adults are back in charge. This is bad news for Steele, as his role will diminish by the mere fact of Haley’s proximity within RNC headquarters in Washington DC. Ironically, the litmus test coalition within the GOP will not feel intimidated by Haley’s presence at the RGA because he is a pro-life, Southern Republican with whom they feel comfortable. But to the point of this blog, Haley is more campaign pragmatist than ideologue and will seek ballot box wins rather than moral victories. Haley recently demonstrated this pragmatism while in Des Moines, IA, saying, “Party building is about addition and multiplication, not subtraction and division.”
Democrats should not be shaking in their boots at the return of Haley Barbour to a GOP leadership position. However, they would do well to take notice and not underestimate the best politician in the GOP ranks. Haley doesn’t play ideological favorites when mounting a comeback for a Republican Party in disarray.
“When I was chairman of the Republican Party back in the ‘90’s it was the Republican governors who led the comeback of our party, of our getting back into the majority. And I believe it will be the same way this time,” says Gov. Barbour in the clip. From anybody else this is talk. From Haley it is the walk.
When Haley took over as chairman of the Republican National Committee in January 1993 the GOP was in disarray. Bill Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States, having just defeated President George H.W. Bush in an upset. Democrats were the majority in the House by 258 to 176, in the Senate by 56 to 44 and they controlled 31 of the 50 governorships. Two years later Haley presided over Republican majorities in Congress and among the nation’s governors.
From 1993 to 1994 Haley’s RNC raised and spent close to $105 million. Haley Barbour was the driving force in achieving that remarkable accomplishment. It is certain he will bring the same expertise and performance to the RGA.
A review of the RNC’s performance under Haley discloses the impact Haley has on political party fundraising. In 1993 the RNC, during Haley’s first year as chairman there, raised $42 million. In 1994 the RNC raised $72 million, followed by $61 million in 1995. Off years, or odd years, tend to be tougher years to raise funds for political committees because the only elections are in a few states where there are state legislative and gubernatorial contests. The significant comparison is 1993 and 1995, both off year election cycles (since even years include a presidential election which has more fundraising variables than a non-presidential even year). Haley’s RNC raised 45 percent more in 1995 than 1993.
In 2008 the RGA raised $27 million. Assuming Haley will match the RGA’s '08 performance in ’09 and reproduce the results he had at the RNC in his second year as chairman, the RGA could have $36 million for the 2010 election cycle when 36 governorships are up, although a smaller number of those (less than twenty) will be competitive.
Haley arrives at the RGA with the committee on solid financial footing with more than $10 million raised to date. This is thanks to Gov. Sanford, who should have paid as much attention to his wife as he did on RGA fundraising. There will be significant RGA expenditures in New Jersey and Virginia this year. In many ways this scenario is a reprise of 1993.
In New Jersey there is an unpopular Democratic governor, Jon Corzine, who faces a strong Republican challenger in former Bush U.S. Attorney Chris Christie. Similarly, in 1993 the Republican challenger was Christie Todd Whitman who defeated Gov. Jim Florio mainly over taxes increases. While Corzine is not nearly as unpopular as Florio was, he is currently trailing Christie and has a favorable to unfavorable rating of 31:54.
Likewise, Virginia’s gubernatorial contest is for an open seat, as it was in 1993. Recent polling has the Democrat, Creigh Deeds, leading the Republican, Robert McDonnell in the contest by 47 to 41 percent. In 1993, the Republican George Allen trailed the Democrat Mary Sue Terry early in the contest. Allen prevailed on the Election Day with a great deal of assistance from Haley’s RNC.
The NJ and VA contests at this time are a toss-up featuring strong Republican candidates that make two pick-ups for GOP possible – again like 1993. When Haley says “it was the Republican governors who led the comeback of our party, of our getting back into the majority,” this is what he is talking about.
It is more likely than not that RGA funding will go to competitive races, rather than ideologically pure candidates. This is a good thing for the future relevance of the GOP and a much different approach than signaled by current RNC Chairman Michael Steele. Steel’s comments over the passage of President Obama’s stimulus package signaled that Republicans who supported that measure would jeopardize RNC support in their re-election campaigns.
Haley’s ascension to the RGA helm signals that the adults are back in charge. This is bad news for Steele, as his role will diminish by the mere fact of Haley’s proximity within RNC headquarters in Washington DC. Ironically, the litmus test coalition within the GOP will not feel intimidated by Haley’s presence at the RGA because he is a pro-life, Southern Republican with whom they feel comfortable. But to the point of this blog, Haley is more campaign pragmatist than ideologue and will seek ballot box wins rather than moral victories. Haley recently demonstrated this pragmatism while in Des Moines, IA, saying, “Party building is about addition and multiplication, not subtraction and division.”
Democrats should not be shaking in their boots at the return of Haley Barbour to a GOP leadership position. However, they would do well to take notice and not underestimate the best politician in the GOP ranks. Haley doesn’t play ideological favorites when mounting a comeback for a Republican Party in disarray.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Presidential Moneyline
Red Elephant believes that the Republican Party needs to play small ball and rebuild the party from the bottom up. However, presidential elections wait for nobody and the GOP will need to put forward a nominee in 2012. Red Elephant believes it should be a person who represents the platform issues that will make the GOP relevant again. That said, the Republican Party bench is bare, but here are some potential players to watch and Red Elephant’s odds on the primary contest. Red Elephant has added President Obama for measurement.*
Obama (re-elect)
-300 or 1/3
Strong favorable rating and master of candid rhetoric. An encompassing legislative agenda could give him the best outcome of all; a GOP majority in the House – doubtful given the disarray of the GOP.
Barbour
+500 or 5/1
Don’t let the accent fool you – the best pol on the GOP bench. He is a real contender who just took over the Republican Governors Assoc. and is already traveling IA and NH.
Romney
+1200 or 12/1
Mormonism and a strange debate style will continue to be a drag on his performance, but his bank account won’t.
Crist
+2000 or 20/1
A sunny, healthy, youthful disposition makes him appealing, but untested nationally and shares a fundraising base with the Bush family. What isn’t known about him…yet?
Pawlenty
+2000 or 20/1
Sanford affair gives him more space to define himself as the future of the GOP. Lousy hair, needs a stylist.
NEW Sanford
+10,000 or 100/1
Proclaiming oneself a man of faith while cheating on the wife is a recipe for electoral implosion, he’ll tell you as much. Not much longer for the Moneyline with an SC AG investigation looming and confirmation he's a serial marital line crosser.
Ensign
+10,000 or 100/1
See Sanford and add a pinch of strange allegation of blackmail that doesn’t make his adultery story go away.
NEW Palin
+5000 or 50/1
Her resignation speech, setting, planning and timing speak for themselves: c.r.a.z.y!
Huckabee
+1400 or 14/1
Keeping up the Daily Show dialogue with Jon Stewart could make him chic outside of the base. Fox helps keep him in the conversation.
Gingrich
+1500 or 15/1
A brilliant but wandering mind. Lots of base appeal but smacks of GOP values hypocrisy and has the feel of an outdated calendar.
Jeb Bush
+160 or 8/5
No GOP bench gives him a huge advantage – despite the last name. As Eddie Murphy said in The Distinguished Gentleman, “Go with the name you know.”
Jindal
+2200 or 22/1
Highly intelligent but no media presence coming from a state that does not give him much fundraising prowess. Does himself no favors by appearing on tv.
Hutchinson
+2500 or 25/1
The country has probably had enough of the TX cheerleader type to make her a serious candidate, but she stands out as the only woman being mentioned.
Bloomberg
+20,000 or 200/1
Too bad he’s “Jewish” and an “Independent” from New York City. Not sure which is more damning in a GOP primary.
Hagel
+5000 or 50/1
Sterling credentials and temperament if he’d sacrifice himself in service to his country one more time. The GOP would have to substantially change for him to run.
Kasich
+5000 or 50/1
2016 seems more likely if he wins the gubernatorial contest in OH in ’10.
*Calculated from electoral performance, survey data, media savvy and fundraising potential.
Obama (re-elect)
-300 or 1/3
Strong favorable rating and master of candid rhetoric. An encompassing legislative agenda could give him the best outcome of all; a GOP majority in the House – doubtful given the disarray of the GOP.
Barbour
+500 or 5/1
Don’t let the accent fool you – the best pol on the GOP bench. He is a real contender who just took over the Republican Governors Assoc. and is already traveling IA and NH.
Romney
+1200 or 12/1
Mormonism and a strange debate style will continue to be a drag on his performance, but his bank account won’t.
Crist
+2000 or 20/1
A sunny, healthy, youthful disposition makes him appealing, but untested nationally and shares a fundraising base with the Bush family. What isn’t known about him…yet?
Pawlenty
+2000 or 20/1
Sanford affair gives him more space to define himself as the future of the GOP. Lousy hair, needs a stylist.
NEW Sanford
+10,000 or 100/1
Proclaiming oneself a man of faith while cheating on the wife is a recipe for electoral implosion, he’ll tell you as much. Not much longer for the Moneyline with an SC AG investigation looming and confirmation he's a serial marital line crosser.
Ensign
+10,000 or 100/1
See Sanford and add a pinch of strange allegation of blackmail that doesn’t make his adultery story go away.
NEW Palin
+5000 or 50/1
Her resignation speech, setting, planning and timing speak for themselves: c.r.a.z.y!
Huckabee
+1400 or 14/1
Keeping up the Daily Show dialogue with Jon Stewart could make him chic outside of the base. Fox helps keep him in the conversation.
Gingrich
+1500 or 15/1
A brilliant but wandering mind. Lots of base appeal but smacks of GOP values hypocrisy and has the feel of an outdated calendar.
Jeb Bush
+160 or 8/5
No GOP bench gives him a huge advantage – despite the last name. As Eddie Murphy said in The Distinguished Gentleman, “Go with the name you know.”
Jindal
+2200 or 22/1
Highly intelligent but no media presence coming from a state that does not give him much fundraising prowess. Does himself no favors by appearing on tv.
Hutchinson
+2500 or 25/1
The country has probably had enough of the TX cheerleader type to make her a serious candidate, but she stands out as the only woman being mentioned.
Bloomberg
+20,000 or 200/1
Too bad he’s “Jewish” and an “Independent” from New York City. Not sure which is more damning in a GOP primary.
Hagel
+5000 or 50/1
Sterling credentials and temperament if he’d sacrifice himself in service to his country one more time. The GOP would have to substantially change for him to run.
Kasich
+5000 or 50/1
2016 seems more likely if he wins the gubernatorial contest in OH in ’10.
*Calculated from electoral performance, survey data, media savvy and fundraising potential.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
