Poll Watch: Post Midterm Edition

Here's a smattering of what's happening out there, according to what we tell pollsters.

Most of it is political, given that we've just come from 'that election' last week, which 'shellacking' falls short of adequately describing.  Dems lost the Senate, several gubernatorial races which they thought they might have had a chance of grabbing, and a couple others, including Massachusetts.

On the other hand, it was not all a lost cause; progressive initiatives such as raising the minimum wage scored a few wins, and legalized marijuana scattered a few more seeds of change.

Now, before anyone gets too overwrought or overjoyed with the results, here's some food for thought from Rasmussen Reports:

• President Obama's overall approval rating has actually improved three points since the election, up to 48% from 45%.  The media and political consultants tried to make this election about the President and his negative rating, but here's the thing they don't tell you:  for 56 of his 70 months in office, his total approval rating has been between 45% and 49% --  including all of 2010, 2011, and so far in 2014, two-thirds (eight months) of 2013 and three quarters (nine months) of 2012. 
• Yes, Americans voted in a Republican majority in the Senate, and expanded the majority in the House but a majority of us (59%) think that the new Congress will be a disappointment.
• Not sure whether there's a correlation, but 35% of us have a drink at least once a week. Of the imbibers, 25% of them drink several times a week or every day.  The questions didn't include "have you had a drink today?" but one can only figure that, if political candidates were surveyed last Tuesday, the number raising a glass to that question would have been very high. 

Remember Ebola? You know, that "issue" facing America that surfaced in ads from the right-wing interest groups right before the elections?  That "issue" that right-wing anti-czaristas like John McCain felt needed an czar? Yeah, turns out not so much.  According to a Fox News poll from the end of October, most Americans were not on board with that. 

• When asked whether they thought appointing an Ebola czar was a PR stunt or a serious attempt to address the problem, only 23% thought it was a serious attempt.  That would be Republicans elected officials, apparently.  Two thirds of us know better.

The Pew Research Journalism Project took a look at media habits of folks, and have some interesting findings on which media sources are trusted, and by whom.  

• Not surprisingly, 47% of people who identify as consistent conservatives get their news from Fox. Consistent liberals are all over the map, with CNN (15%) NPR (13%), MSNBC (12%) and the New York Times (10%) sitting on top of the heap. 
• When it comes to trusting media sources,  the consistent conservatives trust more than distrust only these: The Wall Street Journal; The Blaze (Glenn Beck's outlet) and Glen Beck himself; Fox News; Sarah Palin-favorite Breitbart News Network; the Drudge Report; Sean Hannity; and Rush Limbaugh. Consistent liberals, on the other hand, trust most than distrust 28 of the 36 media sources, including both The Daily Show and the Colbert Report. Which at least reaffirms they have a sense of humor. 
• Everyone apparently trusts more than distrusts The Wall Street Journal. Of the news sources mentioned, it's the only one that received a 'trust' from all groups, which in addition to consistently liberal and consistently conservative also included mostly liberal, mostly conservative, and mixed. On the flip side, Buzzfeed is the only one distrusted by folks of all stripes. 
• Of the major networks, only ABC captured trust ratings from all but the consistent conservatives. (Note to NBC: perhaps paying hiring inexperienced children of former presidents is not helping your credibility as a news organization?)
• I wonder what the trust score would have been for Inforwars, home of the false flag?

Speaking of  mostly distrusted Buzzfeed, they're sharing access (with the afore-mentioned highly trusted ABC News) to Facebook's 'sentiment analysis' data, which aims to analyze user preferences based on what gets posted. Looking ahead to 2016, here's a sampling of who's hot:

• Pianist/golfer/former Bush Administration hawk Condi Rice (72%), Medicare-slashing budgetarian and former Veep candidate Paul Ryan (65%), union-busting governor Scott Walker (57%) and Rand Paul (56%) on the Republican side
• Literally Joe Biden (67%), Hillary "what difference at this point does it make" Clinton (57%), Elizabeth "a better Hillary than Hillary" Warren (56%) and our own Sonofa Governor, Andrew Cuomo (56%).  

As I said, liberals sure do have a good sense of humor. They're going to need one for a while.

Post Election Musings

Presidents usually lose ground in midterm elections, and this was no different, really, except Obama is such a polarizing figure and so that makes everything bigger: the Republican victory is bigger, the Dem loss is bigger, the whole mess is bigger. You'd think we were all in "Texas, Texas, Texas" as Rick Perry put it on his way out.

The well-paid pundits will be working hard to earn their salaries in the coming days; heck, the Sunday news shows are going to be worth a million bucks as the hosts fight to get the best interview and lure the most viewers.

Here's what it looks like from my spot in the cheap seats:

• Dems did not own their successes, and they allowed Republicans to have their way with Dem failures. It's been a signature of the Dems under Obama, and it is likely a big contributor to the outcome. 
• Republicans were able to take advantage of general malaise, but they cannot forget that they are a huge contributor to that malaise. Polls for months show that people are even less enamored of Congress than they are the President, something they can ignore at their peril.
• It was noted that Republicans worked very hard this time to get candidates who were well coached on how not to appear too extreme during the campaign so as to be 'electable.' Which means even the people who voted for them have no idea what they're actually going to do now that they've been put in the majority. I'm thinking their true colors will come out, and that it won't take long.
• If the Republicans lead on what they won with, we will spend the first few months of their majority dealing with Ebola, ISIS, saving Medicare from the Affordable Care Act, and spitting the word "Pelosi" over and over and over again.  I don't see that as a winning strategy, and hope there's more to it than that.
• Republicans will likely have a cast of dozens again for the 2016 presidential campaign; Dems cannot sit on the sidelines waiting for Hillary to make up her mind. You may ask "what difference, at this point, does it make?" and I'll tell you it makes a heck of a lot of difference, if no one dares challenge her or at least ramp up her decision making, so we can get on with the next step.
• I wonder who will be the leaders -- the real leaders, not the designated ones -- who will make the first move and try to get something done before the end of this Congress. Anything, really -- at this point it could be agreeing not to chew gum on Tuesdays while the House and Senate are in session. I'm so desperate for consensus on anything, I'd take that. 
• And of course, who will be the first one to actually reach across the aisle in January? Will we see another State of the Union data night, where they actually physically cross the aisle for a one night stand and pretend they'll still respect each other in the morning?
• We now have a 30-year old woman from Upstate New York going to Congress.  Wonder what it will fee like for her working with people who have been in office longer than she's been alive? And will some of the old-timers take the hint and make room for new blood?  
• Republicans made a lot of promises, but they don't have a veto-proof majority. If they cannot deliver on their promises, do we suffer from even more 'uncertainty' than they say we've had in the past six years? 
• And will their first official act be a repeal vote on the Affordable Care Act? 
• This election cost some $4 billion. That, my friends, is an embarrassment. Is there even a chance that we'll get our money's worth?

What's it look like from your vantage point?

Turn it Over on Tuesday

This year, New Yorkers, you have to remember to #TurnItOver and vote on the three ballot initiatives.

I think it's pretty clear that there's not a lot of rip-roaring support for them in the halls of Albany, given how dry and boring the language is for these three. I mean, they're nothing like the one for casino gambling we had the last time around, which practically came with it's own marching band and parade floats:

The proposed amendment to section 9 of article 1 of the constitution would allow the legislature to authorize up to seven casinos in New York State for the legislated purposes of promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools, and permitting local governments to lower property taxes through revenues generated. Shall the amendment be approved?

Here are the three initiatives; for detailed information on each, including positions for and against, I encourage you to check out Balletopedia - there's some really good information there.

(1) Revising State's Redistricting Procedure
The proposed amendment to sections 4 and 5 and addition of new section 5-b to Article 3 of the State Constitution revises the redistricting procedures for state legislative and congressional districts. The proposed amendment establishes a redistricting commission every 10 years beginning in 2020, with two members appointed by each of the four legislative leaders and two members selected by the eight legislative appointees; prohibits legislators and other elected officials from serving as commissioners; establishes principles to be used in creating districts; requires the commission to hold public hearings on proposed redistricting plans; subjects the commission's redistricting plan to legislative enactment; provides that the legislature may only amend the redistricting plan according to the established principles if the commission's plan is rejected twice by the legislature; provides for expedited court review of a challenged redistricting plan; and provides for funding and bipartisan staff to work for the commission. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?

(2) Permitting Electronic Distribution of State Legislative Bills
The proposed amendment to section 14 of Article 3 of the State Constitution would allow electronic distribution of a state legislative bill to satisfy the constitutional requirement that a bill be printed and on the desks of state legislators at least three days before the Legislature votes on it. It would establish the following requirements for electronic distribution: first, legislators must be able to review the electronically-sent bill at their desks; second, legislators must be able to print the bill if they choose; and third, the bill cannot be changed electronically without leaving a record of the changes.  Shall the proposed amendment be approved?

(3) The SMART SCHOOLS BOND ACT OF 2014 
The SMART SCHOOLS BOND ACT of 2014, as set forth in section one of part B of chapter 56 of the laws of 2014, authorizes the sale of state bonds of up to two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) to provide access to classroom technology and high-speed Internet connectivity to equalize opportunities for children to learn, to add classroom space to expand high-quality pre-kindergarten programs, to replace classroom trailers with permanent instructional space, and to install high-tech smart security features in schools.  Shall the SMART SCHOOLS BOND ACT of 2014 be approved?

The choice is ours. We can only make it if we remember to turn the ballot over.

I Pander to the Base

How the hit song of the summer becomes the surprise hit of the fall:

Because you know I pander to the base,
to the base, (no middle)
I pander to the base, to the base (no middle)
I pander to the base, to the base (no middle)
I pander to the base, to the base.

Yeah, it's pretty clear, I don't care 'bout you
unless you pay me, pay me like you're supposed to
'cause I need that cha-ching to stay in this race
Keep my attack ads on the right stations.

I see the media working that 'moderate' junk
we all know that shit ain't real
Come on now, make it stop!
If you've got extremist views just raise 'em up
'Cause every lie I tell is OK
As long as it gets me votes.

Yeah, the Party Boss told me don't worry about nothin'
He says, Voters? They like the lies, they're so afraid of the truth
So, sling mud if you have it
Then go ahead and tell more lies!

Because you know I pander to the base,
to the base, to the base (no middle)
I pander to the base, to the base (no middle)
I pander to the base, to the base (no middle)
I pander to the base, to the base.

I'm really not a hack
Honest, I'm a nice guy ask my fam'ly, hey!
Nah, I'm just playing, trying to win this race
'And every ad I run is OK as long as it gets me votes

Yeah, the Party Boss told me don't worry about nothin'
He says, Voters? They like the lies, they're so afraid of the truth
So, sling mud if you have it
Then go ahead and tell more lies!

Because you know I pander to the base,
to the base, (no middle)
I pander to the base, to the base (no middle)
I pander to the base, to the base (no middle)
I pander to the base, to the base.
I pander to the base, to the base.
I pander to the base, to the base.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v9)

I'm on of those old fogies who still watches the evening news, both a local version and a national version. And I live in the NY24 congressional district, which puts me smack dab in the Big Pharma demographic from January to the end of August and then in the thick of political campaign ad season, which runs from roughly Labor Day through the first Tuesday in November.

It feels like the local news broadcast has gotten about two or three minutes shorter in the past couple of weeks, as the political ads really ramp up. And then I read that, in one week there were around 4,500 ads tied to the US Senate races in Michigan and Iowa alone -- one ad every two minutes -- and I thank my lucky stars that we don't live where anything like that will ever happen.

We have our share of negative ads here, whether the candidates want to admit it or not, on both sides. And that got me wondering, on Wednesday, what if all of our ads were like that?  I mean, think about it: everywhere we shop, the restaurants where we eat, the cars we drive -- they're all just votes we make, the same as we vote for one politician over another.

What would it look like, if everyone did the same thing as the pols?  Here are a few examples, just for fun:

• Price Lower says the have the lowest prices, but that's a lie. They lower prices on crap no one even buys, and then the use those numbers to screw up the calculation and make you think all their prices are lower. Plus, their fish smells funny.  Price Lower? They're not good for you, or your wallet. This ad was paid for by the consortium for expensive grocery stores.

• Mama's Kitchen likes to say they have the best food, the best atmosphere, and they even pretend that Mama, who's now 87 years old and only has one leg, is there doing the cooking every day. Well, Mama's Kitchen is nothing like your mother's kitchen -- it failed their health inspection this year.  I wouldn't let Mama wash the dishes in my restaurant!  Come to Papa, and leave Mama behind. Papa's BarBeCue is responsible for the content of this advertisement. 

• I'm Mr Green Jeans, and I'm the owner of The Grass is Greener Sod and Turf.  My competitor, The Auld Sod, likes to say that his sod is the best in town.  But we know better. He uses dyes on his sod to make it look greener.  His sod dies if you don't water it for hours each day, but you won't know about that unless you read the really fine print in your contract. He used to be a lawyer in the big city, so he's really good at writing contracts. And he hires undocumented aliens to mow his sod. So remember, on our side of the fence, the grass is always greener.  Paid for by the Grass is Greener Sod and Turf, locally owned and operated since well, forever. No undocumented migrant workers were used in the filming of this ad.

• FastFill gas? That's not American gas, that's Muslim gas. The gas from their pumps comes straight from terrorist countries, countries that are just here to take our money and bomb our buildings and destroy the American Dream. If you're buying FastFill gas, you're just as bad as they are. Think about that before you put it in your tank and drive it. North American Tar Sands Petroleum Stations Franchising Company is responsible for the content of this advertising. 

So, how long would it take for you to stop doing business with the advertisers, to be completely turned off by them?  How long before you complained to the businesses or organizations behind the ads?  Or would you fall hook line and sinker for the content, without even trying to find out the truth? 

And would television stations even accept ads like that?  I seriously doubt it.

And one more thing I'm wondering tonight: would it be possible to quarantine the word Pelosi?

Education: A Blank Canvas

Have you seen the latest Andrew Cuomo campaign ad?

You know, the one where he and his daughter are sitting in the kitchen, doing homework together. If not, you can take a look below, and then we'll talk.

 If you were to describe the ad in  one word, what  would it be?

 For me, it was 'white'. White  pumpkins, white  kitchen, white  sweaters, white paint.

 White white white white.

 I think the message tries to be  black and white;  however, I think  it misses the mark, because in  reality 'education' is not that  simple and doesn't  translate well  to a 30-second campaign ad.

It's not all white and shiny like Cuomo's kitchen, and it's not black and white. It's more like someone loaded up a palette with paint, dragged a brush through all of the colors and then splashed that paint onto a canvas.

When I talk about the color of education being something other than white, or black and white, I'm talking about the whole picture that is 'education' in New York and other states. Think of that picture as an actual painting and you'll understand that it is painted with many brushes, all having different hues and perspectives:

• It includes the teachers, unions, administrators, and local Boards of Education, who should be effectively collaborating on education at the local level. 
• It includes money: property taxes, school aid and the school aid formula itself, and the relative wealth of a district, which directly influences the completeness of the educational experience kids get. 
• It includes grassroots community groups, local faith-based initiatives, and large philanthropic organizations which interject themselves (welcomed or not) from many viewpoints and with varying degrees of influence and success.
• It includes law enforcement agencies, which not really by design but out of necessity engage with students, families and districts, particularly urban ones.
• It includes local, state and national elected officials, armed with their own agendas and, frankly, arms full of threats and promises, and a host of unelected bureaucrats at state and federal Education Departments.
• It includes parents, and those acting as parents, such as aunts and uncles, older siblings, and mentors.

It also includes perfectly decorated 'classrooms' in perfectly appointed kitchens, and twin daughters who are attending Harvard and Brown, as Cuomo's are; and teacher and school evaluations, and Common Core, and high tech classrooms, all of which are referenced in Cuomo's ad.

And, it sadly includes 911 calls, horrible test scores, low graduation rates and high dropout rates, and 'watch lists' and abject frustration and anger, things the Cuomo girls probably never experienced, things which no children should have to experience.

The students are the canvas on which everyone else paints. They absorb or reflect the colors that are put on them, some positively and some negatively.  The goal of everyone involved should be ensuring that the students' right to a safe, appropriately funded, fully evolved educational experience is not impeded by anyone's actions, and that their responsibility to participate actively, productively and fully in the educational process is encouraged, supported, and reinforced.

We'll take a look at some of these issues in more detail in upcoming posts.

Look No Further, Media Outlets

In yesterday's post, I offered up five things that political candidates can do to help get some of the money, particularly outside money, out of campaigns.

They say they want to do this, but struggle with how to go about it, or can only offer up putting more money - our tax dollars - into the process. However, if the goals are to empower voters in the district up for grabs, and reduce the stranglehold that special interest and political parties have on our elective process, we need less money in the mix, not more.

While a courageous candidate should be able to do the five things, they have to want to be honest and ethical and accountable more than they want to be elected.  They have to be willing to buck the system, and I appreciate that's not easy, particularly if their opponent doesn't take the same path.

It also won't be easy without some significant cooperation from the media. Republican John Katko, who's in a close battle against incumbent Dan Maffei in my district, put it in perspective when he allowed that

I think it's very troubling to see the amount of money it takes to run for Congress. It puts a challenger at a distinct disadvantage.

Katko is absolutely right. It's particularly hard for challengers, whether they're newcomers to politics or veterans, to raise enough money from within the district to pay for ads, signs, billboards, and the rest. That's why it's so easy to take help from the special interests, party committees, unions, PACs and deep-pocketed individual donors.

I'm convinced that a level playing field that favors the voters but does not hinder either of the candidates is possible; here are four things that television and radio stations, newspapers and outdoor advertising companies, and online outlets can do:

(1) Set aside free time or space during the primary and the general election season for political advertising. TV and radio stations would determine the number of minutes that will be available for each candidate, and let the candidates determine how to use their minutes. It could be 15 second spots, 30 second spots, 30 minute spots - however they want to use the time, all of which  must be during prime time.  For print, it's equally prominent space on equally prominent pages, again with the candidates determining how to use their allotment.  Billboards could be allocated to each team, equally visible locations, up for equal time, with a drawing or coin toss to determine who ends up where.  Heck, they could even play Rock, Paper, Scissors to determine the placement. Online ads could be managed the same way, I would think; might take some doing but there are plenty of really good local ad agencies who can help figure it out.

(2) Make time available for individual and joint sessions with the candidates, using different formats (town hall style, formal debates, single issue sessions, online chats, and so on). Post videos and transcripts from the sessions quickly and prominently on your websites and through social media. On your news broadcasts, mention the information is available, show the links on the screen when you go to commercial, that kind of thing. Present these sessions with limited commercial interruption (none for 30-minute segments, one commercial block for hour-long segments). Establish these as collaborations with your partner stations, including cable news and public television, rotating them so that no one station bears the burden of the lost revenue. Radio stations can do the same, particularly the ones that have local shows already. Some of the local papers already offer the Q&A chats, and should continue to do so. They can also 'black box' notices on their web pages, and in print, letting people know the transcripts are available.

(3) Manage the sessions. Solicit questions from residents of the district for the sessions outlined above. The reasoning behind this is simple: the sessions are for the benefit of the voters, not for the promotion of the hosts, anchors and reporters, or stations or newspapers that participate.  And when the hosts, anchors and reporters do ask questions, keep them short and to the point. We are not interested in learning about how well you ask  questions, we're interested in getting answers from the candidates. When the candidates don't answer the question(s), respectfully point that out. And fact-check their statements, and post that information along with the transcripts and videos.

(4) Refuse all ads that are not expressly approved by candidates. Regardless of how much money is dangled in front of you. If we're asking the candidates to disavow the money, we can't have you taking it behind their backs.  Serve the public interest, and just say no.

With these options and guidelines in place, and with commitment to abide by the five suggestions from yesterday's post, challengers like Katko can be less reliant on outside money, outside endorsements, and 'support' from interest groups which frequently comes in the from of less-than-truthful advertising crammed down everyone's throats, and can instead focus on getting out, meeting voters, (from all parties, not just their base) and putting their positions front and center.

Incumbents like Maffei would have the opportunity to do their own talking, defend their own record, and show us why we should give them another chance, without all the noise, name-calling, and mud-slinging that seems to be a benefit of incumbency.

This is a challenge for our local media companies - I get that. And I hope it's the kind of challenge they'd be willing to tackle.  I like to think that they'd rather be doing this kind of reporting, this kind of broadcasting, and being associated with this kind of advertising, than what they're faced with today.

And if the candidates have these opportunities, and choose to waste them by slamming the other guy, going negative, slinging mud, refusing to talk about their own positions, their own plans, well, so be it. We'll know for sure then what they stand for.

And isn't that the point?

Look No Further, Candidates

Ladies and gentlemen, THIS is what's wrong with our system.

• Dan Maffei, Democrat running for re-election my district (the NY-24), has received over 83% of his campaign contributions from outside the district; 54% of his money comes from political action committees (PACS), those god-awful ATMs that candidates rely on so desperately.

• John Katko, Maffei's Republican challenger, has received significantly less money across the board than Maffei, but has also taken 30% from outside the district, all the while complaining about Maffei's outside-the-district money. (Should Katko win in November, he can rest assured the big money will swing his way come 2016 when we have to do this all over again.) 

While they both participate in the big-money process, they both think it's wrong, and think it should be fixed. Maffei, like most Democrats, wants some kind of public financing of campaigns. Katko, like many Republicans, doesn't have any answers, other than just saying no to public financing.

For example, here's what one Republican, Oneida County's Richard Hanna, said in 2013 (emphasis added):

I am loathe to see public financing because it's just one more big bill for the public. Clearly the system is broken, but I don't know how to fix it. I don't see an easy solution. But I do recognize there is too much money in campaigns. I have friends in Washington who spend way too much time raising money. 

And here's newcomer Katko, this past Friday:

I fully support campaign finance reform. Far too much money is spent on these races. But, I don't think that American taxpayers should be required to use their hard-earned dollars to fund negative attack ads like the ones Dan Maffei is running.  The big difference between me and my opponent is that Dan Maffei wants taxpayers to pay for his mudslinging and I don't.  

Back in July, this is what he said (again, emphasis added):

I think it's very troubling to see the amount of money it takes to run for Congress. It puts a challenger at a distinct disadvantage. Our Founding Fathers probably never envisioned anything like this. It's clear everyone is sick of it. But that being said, I think it will be difficult to limit this (campaign spending) going forward because the Supreme Court has spoken on this issue. 

I love that everyone's unhappy with the money and think it's wrong and all that, but I'm boggled by why they can't figure out what to do, can't even put anything forward to help. And it's not just here in my district, not just here in New York with our voracious 'anything that's legal' political fundraising rules.  It's everywhere, it's pervasive, and no one is leading.

Like the Republicans, I don't want public financing for campaigns - interjecting more money into the mix doesn't seem like the way to solve the problem, even if it's different money. And we've already seen how candidates will leave public dollars on the table and instead take the unlimited support that is available under our current big money system.

So, if public financing is not the answer, what is?  Well, I've done lots of posts on this subject, and (unlike the Republicans) I continue to try and come up with ways that things could be different.

Today, I'm suggesting five things the candidates can do, most of which require them to look no further than the mirror and ask themselves if they really want to get the money out of politics. If the answer is yes, the five suggestions below are easy:

1. Publicly state your intention, at the beginning of your campaign and frequently throughout your campaign, that you are refusing all outside money, regardless of the source, and that you are refusing any money that does not come from an actual living breathing person, and that you will disavow and return any of this support if it comes your way.
2. Do not accept more than three contributions from any one individual, and limit the total you accept from any one person, even if legally they can contribute more. Limits are different in different races and jurisdictions, but you should be able to come up with a percentage of the legal limit for the race you're in that you can stomach, that doesn't make you beholden to the donor, and then stick to it.
3. Specifically reach out to your party's traditional supporters within the district and advise them you will not be taking their money. Instead, seek their support as boots on the ground, knocking on doors, handing out literature that your campaign paid for, helping register voters, painting signs, running phone banks, and so on - anything they want to do that doesn't cost anything, or that can be paid for using campaign contributions you have accepted from living breathing people residing in the district. 
4. Make frequent open appearances in the district (not the pay-per-view kind) to educate voters on your positions. You see, we voters understand what the money wants you to do; it's harder for us to understand what you want to do. Your obligation is to tell us, for free, in person, early and often. If we like you, maybe we'll drop some money in a bucket on the way out, or hop on your website and donate when we get home. 
5. Publicly commit to joint appearances with your opponents, as painful as that may be. Don't fight over the rules, talk about the issues. Certainly once the rosters are set, we voters are entitled to at least one joint discussion a month, preferably more. During primaries, we also need at least one of these sessions.

There's more that can be done by folks once they're in office, by media companies, and by us, the voters. I'll talk more on that in upcoming posts. In the meantime, let me know what you think of these ideas.  Are they completely crazy?

Is it too much to ask that our candidates refuse to participate in a system they think is broken?

Is it too much to ask that our candidates stop short of doing whatever is legal, and instead do what they think is right?  

Wondering, on Wednesday (v7)

A few months ago I wondered about how out of touch politicians at all levels seem to be with their constituents on most issues. I had the opportunity a week later to do another post, the one where I was happy to report that a significant majority of us believe we'd be better off if we threw Congress out -- even our own elected representatives.

Six months later, almost to the day, where are we?  Well, pretty much right where we left off. Except that we're now only three weeks away from the mid-term elections, and we're being bombarded by political ads, most of them paid for by outside money, which regular readers know drives me to distraction. (Click here for a link to my campaign finance reform posts and here for my election reform posts.)

The ads for the race in my Congressional District, NY-24, are horrendous. Negative. Obnoxious. Untruthful. Fear-mongering. Name-calling. Pandering. Least-common-denominator stuff. Our race is so important that Crying John Boehner himself had to come to town to raise money for the Republican, and Joe Biden is literally coming to town to raise money for the incumbent Democrat. Those things alone will likely inspire more negative ads.

And yet, according to a poll  of regular television viewers conducted by Rasmussen Reports earlier this month, people don't like negative ads and don't believe they're necessary for a candidate to win.

Seriously. Check out these numbers:

• 63% think most political ads on television are attack ads
• 57% say negative ads make them less likely to vote for the candidate who produced the ad
• 56% think a candidate can win without negative ads
• 55% think the government should be able to review political advertising content first
• 35% think that political ads should be banned from television.

Obviously, there are some party-line differences in those numbers, but if you take party out of the picture, the picture is clear: we don't like what the candidates are doing to get elected. And they don't care.

Even before they get sworn in, they're already out of touch. 

So why do candidates continue to go negative?

I appreciate it's hard to run on your record when you're an incumbent in the 113th Congress, as of September tied with the 112th edition for the least productive Congress we've had. Not a lot you can say that's positive about how you've spent the past two years spinning your wheels, even if you've been spinning in a bipartisan manner, as some claim.  But if you're an incumbent and you want to stay in office, you should be able to outline a vision for your next term, why you want to continue serving, and how you'll act if you're re-elected.  

Similarly, if you're a newcomer to politics, or if you're 'upgrading' to a higher level of elected office, running on your record might be hard too.  But again, you should be able to articulate your vision, describe your principles and what matters to you. If you're all the things you think you are, and you have all the ideas you think we need, you should have no problem explaining your positions, rather than slamming the other guy.   

Why? Because I'm wondering, on Wednesday, if the candidates realize that these ads will always represent them, even long after they're done representing us.  

John Katko: Let's Talk Health Care Reform

Former prosecutor John Katko is the Republican running for New York's 24th district House seat, currently held by Dan Maffei, who took the seat back from Ann Marie Buerkle after she took it from him in their first battle.

Katko has a few of his own ads running; he's also got a boatload of outside-the-district money behind him, hammering away at Maffei on positions both real and imagined. (Maffei and his supporters are doing the same, by the way.)

I've made the case repeatedly about how the politicians we need are the ones who are more interested in talking about what they stand for and believe in, instead of those who simply badmouth their opponent. I know from Katko's ads that his wife loves him, that he's a great mentor, and that as a prosecutor he was strong on crime and helped get rid of several of the gangs that used to hang about a mile or so up the block from where I live.

For that last part, I offer my thanks, but I'm not sure how that equates to representing our district, unless his intention is to go to DC and break up the gangs that are holding Congress (and the country) hostage?

To find out what he believes, I checked out his website, where he posts issues videos called Katko Comments. I started with the one on health care, and after watching it I have some questions.

(1) Like most Republicans, you talk about people who lost their coverage after being told by President Obama they could keep it. Since most people with insurance have it through their jobs, and since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) did not force companies to drop coverage, reduce employee hours, change carriers (and provider networks), etc. have you talked with any business owners or company benefit reps to find out if they've changed their employee health insurance plans, and if yes, why? Will you share those details?

(2) You  note that you spoke recently with a person from Auburn who pays, between premiums and out of pocket, close to $25,000 per year for insurance. We don't know his specific situation, so all we can do is respond emotionally to that number. I wonder, what would you consider a reasonable annual cost for health insurance premiums and out of pocket expenses? $1,000? $5,000? $10,000? $15,000? And in general, do you support or oppose consumer-driven health care options, commonly referred to as high deductible health plans?

(3) You mentioned you don't want Washington bureaucrats coming between patients and their doctors. I've heard this several times from Republicans. Which specific provisions of the ACA put bureaucrats in the middle of the doctor-patient relationship?

(4) Like most Republicans, you support the wellness (preventive?) provisions of the ACA, keeping kids on the parents' policies until they're old enough to leave the basement and the elimination of preexisting conditions. I'm curious whether you support or oppose these other provisions:

• Coverage for essential benefits? 
• Elimination of annual and lifetime benefit limits? 
• Subscriber refunds, if administrative costs eat up too high a percentage of the premiums paid?

(5) You favor allowing insurers to sell across state lines.Why are you so willing to sacrifice me and my several hundred co-workers by inviting deep-pocketed national carriers into New York, carriers against which it would be nearly impossible for local/regional health insurers like my employer to compete? If you're successful in getting this 'nationalization' of health insurance approved, what steps would you take to assist us if we all lose our jobs?

(6) You speak about the ACA taking hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare. Disregard for a moment that this same argument was debunked back in 2012, and that the ACA did not actually take money from Medicare, but instead reduced the proposed increases in Medicare spending over the next decade, by the same $700 billion that the Republican budget plan would have. If elected, would you ever vote for a budget that reduces actual or proposed Medicare spending?

(7) Finally, please identify at least three things you would propose to change in the ACA  to reduce health care costs - not health insurance costs, which are different -  for Central New York individuals and families, and explain specifically how you would work across the aisle to gain bipartisan support for these measures.

Thanks for clarifying your positions on this critical issue.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v6)

If you're a New Yorker and you want to be registered to vote in the general election come November, you need to have your application postmarked no later than Friday October 10th. Two days from now. And then I had a couple of simple little conversations, and that got me wondering, on Wednesday, about our power as voters.

My Sweet Baboo and I were watching the national news tonight, and of course we were smacked upside the head by the Dan Maffei/John Katko ads. Maffei and Katko are the players in the race for NY's 24th District. Before that, it was Ann Marie Buerkle vs Dan Maffei, and before that it was Dan Maffei vs Ann Marie Buerkle. Over the past six years, we've gotten more than our share of negative ads on both sides, the majority of which in the past three elections are brought to us by the national party committees and other organizations, people who don't live here but who think that they have a right to mess with our local politics. I hate that, by the way.

So we're trying our best to ignore the commercials and My Sweet Baboo says to me, wouldn't it be great if just one of these guys would say screw that, I'm not going to have any of this junk in my campaign, I'm only going to talk about what I'm going to do instead of how the other guy's a loser and all that other nonsense?

An hour or so later, I was talking with my Mom, who was once an elected official herself (Town Board; she couldn't stand the political nonsense and so did not run for a second term). Her senior citizens group was having a luncheon and a few candidates showed up, including John Katko. She and a couple of her friends thought he was interesting, sounded intelligent, and liked him - until he started bad-mouthing Dan Maffei and his record, at which point they completely turned him off and tuned him out. My mom said to me "Don't they know how much we hate hearing them talk about the other guy? Don't they get it we want to know what they stand for rather than all this negative stuff?"

Two simple conversations, happening on the same day, don't make a groundswell.  But if we all had these conversations with our friends, family, co-workers, social media contacts, and all of the other people we talk to, could we get a groundswell?

And if we took that groundswell, and told the candidates that we will not vote for them if they don't knock off the mudslinging, and if they don't stop taking outside money, and if they didn't start paying attention to us?

Imagine the power of that, the force of that groundswell, and how cool it would be to be a part of it? And then, think of how foolish you'd feel if you really wanted to participate, but couldn't, because you didn't do the one thing that would make it possible.

Put it on your to-do list. Put it in your electronic calendar. Tape a sign on the mirror. Put a note on the steering wheel. Do whatever you have to do to remember, and then do what you have to do.

Register. And then vote. Be a part of something really cool.

Albany Pols Buying Votes? Say it Ain't So!

There have been times, I admit, when I've disagreed with Steve Kimatian, one of the frequent guest columnists for the Syracuse Post-Standard and syracuse.com. Not this week, though.

Kimatian beautifully and thoroughly chastised our Albany politicians for their blatant vote-buying effort via the two rounds of tax rebate checks that are being mailed across the state in the weeks leading up to November's general election.  Vote-buying, you ask?  Take a look at Kimatian's argument and decide for yourself:

That these payments are being made to encourage voters to re-elect those in office is virtually irrefutable. One, the checks just happen to be sent out right before the Nov. 4 elections, when they could have been sent most anytime during the year, and two, delivering checks through the Post Office and not by direct deposit is costing taxpayers over $1.6 million in postage just so the legislators can have you manually open an envelope and remove a check hoping you imagine their photo on the face -- much more effective than campaign literature.

He's so right on that, folks -- but he could have gone even further. Sure, the checks could have been sent out most anytime during 2014. But they could have been sent most anytime last year. Why?

Because these checks were approved last year, during the 2013 budget process, by our Sonofa Governor and his pals in the Legislature. So why on earth did they wait so long to send us back our money, if not to demonstrate the power of incumbency, and ensure that they all remain incumbents and benefit from the very power they are abusing?

Seriously -- politicians are so excited to give us back our own money that they had to wait about a year and a half to give it to us, right before an election?  And -- wait for it -- you'll have to report this on your taxes come spring -- several months after the election the rebates purchased.  Clearly they must think we're stupid.

One of the most interesting points that Kimatian made in his commentary on Sunday was to question the constitutionality of these rebates:

Further compounding the wrong making payments to influence voters is prohibited by the New York State Constitution.  Article III, Section 3, states: "No person...shall... offer... or pay... any money or other valuable thing as a compensation ...for the giving or withholding a vote at an election..." As the supreme law of the state, short of an amendment, no act of the Legislature can supersede the obligations of the Constitution.  That our New York state Legislature can so cavalierly enact a law where payments are made to voters just before Election Day is a thumb in the eye to the Constitution and the voters. 

Truly: a thumb in the eye. A kick in the the teeth. A punch to the gut. Pick your body part, and pick the blow that it takes.

If you have the opportunity - no, make the opportunity - to question your elected representatives on this. Ask them if they really think we're so dumb we don't see through this blatant abuse of power. Ask them, too, if they really want people as dumb as they think we are voting for them come November.

And one more thing -- tell them Steve Kimatian sent you.

National Voter Registration Day 09.23.14

Are you registered to vote?

If yes, good for you -- you're on your way to becoming a participant in a democracy! Your next step is to educate yourself on candidates in races you're eligible to vote in.  Don't rely on what you see on television ads, or in the junk mail you'll receive in the upcoming days and weeks.  Educate yourself  by researching the issues, and the candidates, and then you're ready for the last part: actually voting.

If you are not registered to vote, please take the opportunity today -- National Voter Registration Day -- to get yourself signed up.

If you need some inspiration, look no further than Scotland where well over 80% of all registered voters turned out to cast a ballot on independence.

Share this message on Facebook and Twitter, on all of your social media sites, and via email. Don't let anyone miss the opportunity simply because they failed to register.

Thank you!

Primary Post-mortem: #AskCuomo

In the end, the result was expected, even if the numbers were better than expected.

Andrew Cuomo, New York's Sonofa Gov, handily won the primary battle with Zephyr Teachout, with about 327,000 votes to her 185,000. Those who thought that Teachout, the law school professor, would barely make a dent were wrong, it turned out. She outright won 24 counties; who knows what would have happened if more people had voted.

Cuomo was barely visible during the primary season, other than going to the State Fair here in Syracuse and the Labor Day Parade in New York City. A thoroughly entrenched incumbent with dozens of millions of dollars at the ready, I'd be surprised if he spent as much of his own campaign funds during the entire primary season as I spend in one week feeding My Sweet Baboo and our cats.

All of the ads, all of the mail, everything I saw was paid for by the state Democratic Party -- a state party which apparently believes we here in Syracuse should be as enamored of the Buffalo Billion as are folks in Erie County, and should be thrilled with Cuomo for everything he's done for Western New York; I guess we can only wait to see whether the campaign mail is more reflective of us here in CNY between now and November, and to see what comes our direction once his second term gets into full swing, especially since he and Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner have made amends.

Zephyr Teachout had almost no money yet still managed to reinvigorate the left wing of the party, and actually made them feel like they belonged again. I think that was really the point of her campaign: the Democratic Party is big enough to welcome traditional Dems along side the 'new Cuomo' Dems, if you will, even the ones who sometimes come across looking more like Republicans to the libs.

Beyond fracking and wage equality and what not, Teachout and I had the same bone to pick with the governor. We want honest politicians who do not take advantage of every available trick of the trade to get elected or to stay in office. We want people who walk the talk of the reforms they pretend to support. We do not want politicians who publicly lament money in politics and then take it in hand over fist, as fast as they possibly can.  My views on election reform and campaign finance reform are out there for anyone who wants to pay attention. Andrew Cuomo doesn't.

His handling of the Moreland Commission was atrocious. His heavy handed approach to getting people to go along with the limited campaign reforms passed this past April is reminiscent of the actions that got Texas Governor Rick Perry arrested. They are not the actions of an ethical politician, one who sleeps easy at night because he's doing the right thing. But he doesn't pay attention to anyone on those subjects, either.

Cuomo's failure to debate Teachout - in sharp contrast to dad Mario's primary race against Ed Koch -- showed his disdain for the primary process very clearly. In response to a reporter's question on whether not debating was a disservice to democracy, he gave us this gem:

I've been in many debates that I think were a disservice to democracy, so anybody who says debates are always a service to democracy hasn't watched all the debates that I've been in.

I think most of us would have taken the risk on that; we would have liked to see the two square off on the issues, to truly see where they differed and where the heart of the party really lies. Instead, we're left with the #AskCuomo hashtag, which was used with both insight and humor during the last couple weeks of her campaign. And with this thank you message from Zephyr Teachout.

And Cuomo? Well, he can now waltz towards a November victory against Rob Astorino, the Westchester County Republican and sacrificial lamb the state Republicans chose when His Hairness, the blowhard Donald Trump bailed on them. That, too, went the way just about everyone expected, save a few county Republican chairmen who actually fell for his bluster.

Hopefully we'll see #AskCuomo throughout the inevitable second term. It's the least we can do, I think, to keep the pressure on, to help nudge the Governor in the direction he so wants us to believe he wants to go.

Questions for Zephyr Teachout

Fordham University law professor Zephyr Teachout seems to be having the time of her life in her primary campaign against our Sonofa Gov, Andrew Cuomo. There's been a lot of attention, much of which is pro-Zephyr, not just anti-Andy. I find that encouraging; it's easy to support someone new simply out of dislike of the other guy.

AP photo/Hans Pennink

I would love a debate between Cuomo and Teachout.

It's important that incumbents don't sit on their high horses (or, in Cuomo's case, in another country) during the primary season, ignoring their challengers, and the voters.

We deserve better.

The only sure thing is that I will be voting in the primary on September 9th - right now my vote's up for grabs.  And on the likely chance that we won't get a debate, here are some questions for Zephyr Teachout.

(1) Economic Development:
Your position on economic development touches four points: economic fairness, having a 21st century Internet, stopping consolidation, and infrastructure.

You note that you would push to increase the minimum wage, pointing out that Cuomo's increase (implemented incrementally over three years) did not go far enough. I admit to some discomfort with, say, doubling the minimum wage without making changes to all wages.  But let's agree that the minimum wage should be higher, and should get there faster than 2016.

Would you leave in place the minimum wage reimbursement credit that is paid to businesses to cover a sizable portion of the hourly increase, or should businesses pay the fair wage on their own?

As part of economic fairness, you reference Cuomo's focus on big business, specifically changes in the corporate income tax, the estate tax, and certain taxes paid by banks.  However, you did not mention one of Cuomo's economic development achievements, the Start-UP NY, or Tax Free NY program, which allows new companies to come to New York, plop down near a SUNY Campus or a designated private college or university and get a pass on sales, property or business taxes. And their employees don't have to pay state income taxes for 10 years.

Clearly, this program is not fair to existing companies and their employees, including those companies who can expand into these tax-free zones, as long as they maintain their existing workforce.  And of course we've been promised that the shirt-changing, game-playing of similar programs from the past will not happen this time.

Given your stated preference for economic fairness, would you continue this program as-is, continue it with changes that make the playing field more level and fair for existing companies, the ones that do pay sales, property and business taxes, and their employees who are required to pay income tax, or would you scrap this program all together and do something else to promote development, increase employment, and encourage growth? If the answer is scrap it, describe what you would do to engage businesses to come to - or stay in - New York? 

You also reference infrastructure and expanding competition, rather than consolidating it, as other key components of your economic development platform. I agree with you both on the critical need for all New Yorkers to have affordable, reliable access to high speed Internet and on disapproving of the Comcast - TimeWarner merger.

Here in my neck of the woods, the infrastructure issues that are of greatest concern are the deteriorating condition of roads, bridges, and our water delivery system. We have streets in desperate need of repair in our central business districts and our neighborhoods, and not enough time or money to fix all of them. Syracuse had the dubious distinction of making NY Times this past February, with our 100+ water main breaks just in the first six weeks of the year. Our water delivery infrastructure is decades-old  and acts it, in an ornery and cantankerous fashion. Whenever a main breaks, there are not only issues with a lack of water for the impacted area, but the ripple effect, pardon the pun, is extensive AND expensive for local businesses, employees, and customers.

In addition to having New York companies work on New York infrastructure, and restoring infrastructure funds 're-purposed' for the state's general fund, what assistance can local municipalities expect from the state to help correct these critical infrastructure issues?

Another 'up here' issue is the effort to get some sort of high speed passenger rail service along the Empire Corridor, a route that generally follows the path of the existing Interstate network from Buffalo and Niagara Falls to NYC.  How much use this high speed rail system might get depends on how fast the trains go, where they stop, how often they run, and of course how (and how much) work will be done to separate existing passenger and freight lines, which everyone seems to blame for Amtrak trains travelling more slowly than cars on the Thruway. 

Regular infrastructure problems -- roads and bridges, water delivery, broadband access - these are all people problems, they're fiscal problems, and they're future growth and development problems. And as you note they're public health and safety issues as well, in light of the problems experienced after Hurricane Sandy (and I'd add Super Storm Irene as well). Those storms opened our eyes to a whole other set of infrastructure and service delivery issues which have not effectively been addressed. 

How do you prioritize these issues?  Is attention going to be paid first to NYC, the MTA and the Sandy fallout, and let the upstate chips fall where they may?  Or can you fund critical priorities in both areas without breaking the bank or our collective financial back?

(2) Energy:
You support a full and fast ban on fracking, and an end to the dance around the issue, which I cynically believe is designed to prevent a decision from occurring during a Cuomo administration. Many residents in the Southern Tier, who see the economic boom happening across the border in Pennsylvania, not only want a decision now, but they want a 'full steam ahead' decision, now.

What industry or industries do you feel could provide similar economic impact as fracking, but without the risk to the environment? 

You also note that we need large-scale public works programs to help us retrofit existing structures, from public buildings to gas stations, to improve energy efficiency and reduce costs.

Do you envision a modern-day Works Progress Administration (WPA) for the unemployed and able-bodied people in the safety net?

(3) Clean, fair and open elections:
I agree with most of your positions on campaign finance reform, including limiting the amount that can be contributed, closing the LLC loophole, and the unfettered use of housekeeping accounts. I would go farther on this issue, however.

Do you support term limits for those who serve at the state level, including members of the Legislature, the Governor, Attorney General, Comptroller, and so on, with a maximum combined 12 years in state elected office?

Would you support campaign finance laws that require donations only from residents of the legislative district where applicable, meaning no out-of-state funds, and no out-of-district funds for legislative seats as well as seats at the county, town and village level?

Would you apply the same limits to unions (public employee groups as well as others) as you would on corporations? 

I also agree that we need to reboot the Moreland Commission, but I have a concern with the make-up of the committee, particularly the fact that eleven of the commissioners are elected District Attorney, including two of the three commission chairs. I'm not convinced that these folks are any more pure than the others, who as you point out, may not be doing anything "technically illegal" but are "epitomizing legal corruption."

Would you consider reinstating and fully funding a Moreland Commission that did not include any elected officials as members?

(4) Guns and gun control:
Governor Cuomo, with the help of liberal Dems and moderate Republicans, passed the NY SAFE Act, which includes a host of changes to New York's gun laws, including ammunition limitations, more background checks, increased penalties for gun crimes (including those impacting first responders), and tries to keep guns out of the hands of those with mental illnesses. It also touches on Internet sales, the permitting process and school safety.

The SAFE Act has been widely derided by legal experts, police departments, fraternal police organizations, gun clubs, politicians in office an out, just about all of the 62 county legislatures in the state, and many ordinary New Yorkers. At the same time, even strongly pro-gun folks can find agreement with much of what's included in the law, as we all can disagree with the heavy-handed method in which the law was passed.

In addition, many counties have a significant backlog in the processing of handgun permits, which some feel is one more violation of their 2nd Amendment rights (on top of the SAFE Act itself).

Explain your position on gun control, and what if anything would your administration would do with the SAFE Act -- leave it alone, scrap it and start over, or modify it?  Please provide details if you would make changes to or scrap the current program. 

I keep thinking of other questions, but I have to save some for whoever ends up facing Rob Astorino.

Overall, I see many areas where Teachout and I share positions, and some where we don't. I like that we have a choice, and I'm a firm believer in the primary process.  I just wish our current governor was more of a believer.

I'll keep you posted on any responses I receive.

Wondering, on Wednesday

If you're the loved ones of Lauren Bacall (or, similarly, Farrah Fawcett), do you welcome the opportunity to grieve out of the limelight, while everyone else is focused on the death of someone more fascinating?

What the heck is going in in Ferguson MO?

What do you think Andrew Cuomo, Sheldon Silver, Jeff Klein and  Dean Skelos talked about on their trip to Israel?  The next phase of Albany-style ethics reform, maybe?

Will we ever get to the point where the assumption is that there will be debates between candidates in primaries, rather than that there won't be? Or will incumbents continue to get away with not engaging their opponents?

After Sandy Hook, we were going to "do something" about mental illness. After Robin Williams, will we?

Did you get your Board of Elections mailing this week, telling you where to vote in the primary and general election?  And did your polling place change this year?

How does Rush Limbaugh stay on the air?

Legal marijuana or lottery games: which is the better (least objectionable?) way to fund education?

When was the last time you were required to show ID, for anything?

Five Lessons from The Cantor Defeat

Steve Helber photo/AP

Now that Virginia Republican and (lame duck) House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has gone down to defeat in his primary, everyone’s doing some head scratching, trying to figure out how they missed this one as being a seat at risk.

Most in the punditry and and the Wild World of Talking Heads are pointing to Cantor’s position on immigration including the impression that he supported amnesty for illegals. Although he denied this was his position, his opponent, Randolph-Macon College economics professor David Brat, did touch on this issue and it’s an easy one to hang a hat on. Some others are reporting that it was Cantor’s heavy hand in Virginia Republican politics, and his actions as someone who clearly thought he was not in danger in the primary, that did him in. According to a report on PBS, he spent part of election day in Washington, not in the district, which is a quite a slap in the face to the voters.

Regardless of who wins the ‘why did this happen’ sweepstakes, I think there are several things we can learn from this

(1) The power of the incumbency is not unlimited.   This is a good thing, I think, and a refreshing change in the right direction – that an entrenched, leadership incumbent is not untouchable is not a bad thing.  It may not be a good thing who won, but that's a different discussion.  For those of us who would love to see something other than the do-nothing Congress we have today, we have to face facts that, in the House since the lowest re-election rate for incumbents (since 1964)  has been 85%,  in 1970 and again in 2010. In the Senate there’s more fluctuation and the rates are lower, but it’s still over 80% for all but three election cycles since 1982.  We insist that we don’t like them but we keep re-electing them -- in part because of the next point.

(2) Voter turnout is the most critical aspect of any election.  I’m convinced this is partly why the incumbents stay in office – we hate them, sure, and we want to get rid of all of them, but we don’t care enough to vote them out. For those of you who don’t live in voter-restriction states, complaining that it’s too hard to get to the polls, or takes too much time, or any of the other myriad excuses we hear, this is proof positive that is does matter and that your vote can make a difference. Otherwise, the small percentage of the people who do care, or who do understand that voting is the single most important responsibility a citizen has in a democracy (particularly important in primaries), will make the decision for you.

Part b of the voter turnout issue: Open primaries can be dangerous to a candidate's future. In Virginia, anyone who registers on time can vote in the primary, even if it's not for your party.  In the Cantor vs. The Professor battle, there were some 17,000 to 20,000 more votes this time than in Cantor's last race, and there's at least some speculation that it could have been Dems showing up to vote Cantor out.

(3) Money talks but sometimes people actually don’t listen.  Cantor outspent The Professor by something like 20 -1: over $5 million (on some 1000 ads, and this fun attack website)  to around $200,000. And lost by 12 points or so.  His opponent apparently didn't have the benefit of a lot of outside money, because the Tea Party didn't think this was a good investment for them.  He did however, have the conservative shrills  – Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter – in his corner. Regular readers know I have long been a complainer about the influence of money in politics, particularly money that comes from outside the district that’s up for grabs, and money that comes from the kinds of people (and by that I mean unions and corporations and PACS) that don’t actually have a pulse.  Seems that wasn't the tipping point in this election, and I think that’s also actually a good thing.  

(4) Never underestimate the power of an angry candidate, or an angry voter.  Brat was angry, not

Steve Helber Photo/AP 

particularly at Eric Cantor, he’s said, but at things in general.

This isn't a personal race. I'm not running against Eric. I'm just running on the founding principles that Adam Smith and free markets - they made us the greatest nation on the Earth. All right? It's no mystery. Our rights, tradition, along with free markets and the Judeo-Christian tradition all together made us the greatest nation on the face of the Earth. I think we're veering off course a little bit and I want to get us back on that course that brought us to greatness. 

Others were more specific on why they were voting. Here are a couple of comments from Henrico County, the home of both candidates, as captured by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.  Said Jim Rhodes:

I'm out here for one reason, and one reason only: To vote against Eric Cantor. He looks out for himself, and doesn't look out for his constituents.

Another voter, Nancy Harper expressed her "outrage" at the open primary system, and also that Cantor had been around long enough.

They get in there, and they go the way of all flesh.

Other voices surely have made themselves heard in various media reports, or will, but none were so loud and clear as the vote itself.

(5) All bets are off. We will need to re-do the maps on our political future, I think.  People are already positioning themselves to replace Cantor as Majority Leader, as he's announced he'll step down by the end of July, and it remains to be seen whether the next Leader will be more mainstream or more extreme.

Moreover:

• Crying John Boehner, who has himself chastised the Tea Partiers in his caucus for being a little too extreme and a little too unwilling to go along in order to get along, may be in danger of losing the Speakership to the more extreme members of his party.
• Any chance of an 'agenda' that President Obama had is likely completely out of the picture, unless he plans on continuing to use the power of the pen instead of the power of the legislative process to get things done.  That in and of itself, is a problem. 
• Democrats who are sitting back rubbing their hands with glee, thinking that this will open the country's collective eyes and cause a shift away from extremism, are likely in for a sorry surprise. Yes, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, the Tea Party may have taken over the Republican party, but keep in mind the R's  - many of whom are proudly Tea Party affiliated - control the vast majority of the statehouses. Their numbers are already strong, and this shocking victory will likely do more to embolden them than it will to rally the notoriously lazy Dems.
• Elected officials, who already seem to think first of their next election and somewhat later of what they were elected to do, will sharpen even more their laser-like focus on not making waves, on not following the leadership, on making sure they stand out by standing right in the middle of the crowd that is the flavor of the day. Afraid of losing? Be anti-immigration. Deny climate change. Be anti-regulation. Be anti-compromise. Whatever you do, don't play to the middle, and don't reach across the aisle. 

It will be interesting to see the lasting effects, if any, of this race on the mid-term Congressional races, and also on the 2016 Presidential vote. Will extremist candidates win more races this fall? And will the Dems take a hard turn to the left in response? Who will still be in the game at the end of the year? Is this enough of a turn to the right to keep Hillary out?  And will this finally prove the value in voting?  

On that last question, one can only hope. 

Knock Knock. Who's There? Angry Voter

Angry voter who?

An angry voter who is already sick and tired, and getting even more sick and tired, of politicians wasting precious time (and oodles of taxpayer dollars) on things that simply do not matter, instead of focusing on the clearly obvious things that do matter.

I've spoken many times on these pages about being a middle-of-the-roader, one who believes, like these folks do, that we can be a bit more fiscally conservative and a bit more socially moderate - and be successful. My sense continues to be if we can't figure out how to do that, if we insist on living life on the fringes, we're in for a very rocky road ahead.

I've also asked Republicans in particular to stand for something, rather than standing against everything that is suggested by the other side, whether the ideas come from President Obama (someone they've committed to obstructing for the past few years) or someone they've known for far too long on the other side of the aisle.

Sadly, I'm no happier with them now than I was in January, when I scolded them for comments on rape, and begged them to get out of our bedrooms and clinics and doctor's offices, to get the church out of their legislation, and to stop treating women and gays so poorly.

We don't need a bigger safety net they've told us; we don't need to make the 47% even larger, they said. We need jobs. We need to fix the economy. And they're just the ones to do it. They're right -- we do need jobs, lots of jobs.

And now I'm back, imploring them to do what they swore they would do. Republicans, the party of jobs, I can assure you that

• denying people their right to vote, or infringing on it, does not create jobs
• insisting that women undergo unnecessary medical procedures does not create jobs
• establishing state-sponsored discrimination (or attempting to), does not create jobs
• refusing to vote on presidential appointees does not create jobs
• investigating Benghazi and the IRS does not create jobs
• shutting down the government does not create jobs
• reducing SNAP benefits, or carping about how the money is spent, does not create jobs
• insisting that climate change is fake because it's cold out does not create jobs
• denying marriage equality does not create jobs
• voting over four dozen times to repeal the Affordable Care Act does not create jobs
• closing health centers that provide services to women does not create jobs
• reducing taxes on the wealthy does not create jobs
• inserting religion into schools does not create jobs
• laughing along with Sarah Palin does not create jobs
• sucking up to Donald Trump does not create jobs

In fact, most of what you're spending your time on does not create jobs. It may perpetuate your own, but it doesn't help the rest of the country.

If you are a politician in Washington DC, remember that almost no one thinks you're doing your job well. A significant majority of Americans believes that we would be better off if all of you were no longer in office. We don't like you, even when you are our own representative. Think about that the next time you walk into your office.

Please -- I beg you -- start devoting your energy to creating jobs. Real jobs.

Because when people have jobs, they are substantially better equipped to buy their own groceries, pay for their own health insurance, pay their own rent, help pay for their own education, buy their own school lunches, pay for their own day care, and so on.

They are able to spend money on travel, tourism, arts and culture, sporting events, clothes, cars, toys, computers, houses.

They are able to save money for a rainy day, invest in their future, participate in their communities, support their favorite charity, send their kids to charter schools, tithe to their church, and pay taxes.

You know, all of the things that a smaller government aims to achieve. All of those things the 47% are not able to do today, much to your disdain.

Do these things, and maybe, just maybe, you'll give me a reason to vote for you. 

Trump the Chump Dumps the Stump

Well, maybe His Hairness is not the Chump, it's the New York Republicans who prostituted I mean prostrated themselves, chasing Donald "I Never Met an Office I Ever Intended Running For" Trump up and down the East coast, back and forth across New York, only to be left, as everyone knew they would be, empty-handed, lips chapped from all the ring kissing.

There was no way Trump was going to run. There was no way he was going to 'write a check for $50M' to pay for a campaign against our Sonofa Governor.  There was no way he was ever going to do anything other than get his name out there, and say "Soon" so many times you'd swear he was from Oklahoma.

How did we know this? His Hairness told us. 

He told us in December, in an appearance on Fox and Friends:

I'll make a decision at some time pretty soon. Let's see what happens. I had something else in mind, this was not actually something that I wanted to do. 

He told us in January, in an interview with Greta Van Susteren, again on Fox:

A group of people, a great group, a big group of people, over 50 just came in to my office and I was very honored by it. As you know, the state of New York is doing very, very poorly.  Tremendous unemployment. Tremendous. And the highest taxes in the United States.  So, they are talking to me.  And I have given them certain ideas and certain parameters. And we will see what happens.  But certainly it's something I'm considering and I will make a decision pretty much by the end of the month or early February... Let's say 50/50, a 50/50 number (when pressed by Van Susteren to give her the odds of him running). If we have to go with numbers. I want to see unity in the Republican - the state is three to one Democratic. It's not something that's easy to do. f you do it, you have to do it right. But when you have sound bites that you are the number-one taxes state in the nation, that's a bad sound bite if you happen to be the incumbent governor. 

 He told us in February, talking to reporters:

We'll see what happens. If we get a unified party - a unified, New York State party - No. 1, I would run. And No. 2, I think I would win. The Republican leadership has come to my office on numerous occasions They were there today. Virtually all of them want me to do it, other than Ed Cox, who doesn't know how to win. He's never won anything, so he doesn't know how to win, and I guess he hasn't made up his mind. But we'll see what happens.

And again, in February he told us:

You can't have people going in, knocking the hell out of each other in a primary, spending millions of dollars and then someone comes out wounded and limping.  If they can't unify, I have other things to do.

And then came March.  He told us again:

Republican leaders want me to run so badly... I think it can be won....the Republican Party in New York is a mess. 

And the topper was this one, spoken by Monroe County Republican Chairman Bill Reilich:

Donald Trump has spoken to me directly and told me that when he announces his candidacy, he's prepared to put $50 million in a bank account. It takes some effort to amass this. That's occurring, as I understand it, now. As soon as the filming is complete he's then going to focus towards the May convention. I don't think he's out of it in any shape: he's just got to get his house in order. And the bigger the house, the longer it takes to get in order. 

If Bill Reilich were on The Apprentice, he would absolutely hear the words "You're fired" -- I can't imagine that The Donald would want someone this gullible working for him, can you?

Here are the tweets bowing out, straight from the horse's mouth:

Note that, even as he walks away from running for something for the umpteenth time -- he threatened to run for President four times (1988, 2004, 2008, and 2012) and for Governor (2006) -- he's blaming the people who came to him, as if they could have ever done enough to win his approval, and his commitment, and his cash.

Onondaga County's Republican chair Tom Dadey, said this last December about Trump:

Who? Now, is that the guy who throws his name out there so he can sell shirts and ties and always throws his name out there as a political opportunist? 

Um, yeah, Tom. That's the guy.  That's the Donald Trump you just met.  Maybe he'll share with you what those "much bigger plans" are.  Maybe you can pick up one of those political opportunist shirts cheap.

And maybe, just maybe, Rob Astorino will take your call.