Summary: After spending nearly $100 million we can now ask how much is too much to spend on a campaign.
It was well noted in last year’s presidential election that the Obama campaign spent about $730 million to put the junior Illinois senator in the White House while earning about 69.5 million votes - in other words, they spent about $10.50 per vote.
It may not have come from Obama himself, but it was certainly seen as a lot of money per vote.
This year, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg put nearly $100 million of his own money into his re-election efforts - it came out to about $35,000 an hour for his campaign. On Tuesday he garnered 557,059 votes - enough to win with about 50.6% of the electorate.
In other words, Bloomberg personally spent about $175 per vote.
There’s a term economists use to explain the financial choices individuals make: “utility.” The idea is that every individual tries to maximize their utility given the limits of their income.
Obviously, the billionaire Mayor has virtually unlimited income compared to the rest of us - but many are still asking whether all that spending was worth it.
The great thing about “utility” is that it can mean anything. If an individual gets happiness out of buying a big-screen TV, they’ll buy one to increase their utility. If they feel better about themselves by giving some of their money to charity, they’ll do so to increase their utility. Or - in Bloomberg’s case - if they like running a city enough, they’ll put enough money into a campaign to keep doing so and increase their utility.
And because economists will look at what individuals do rather than what some figure they ought to do, the other great thing about “utility” is there’s no way of disproving that a person is not getting their money’s worth!
Bloomberg outspent his main opponent - Bill Thompson - at least 14 to 1, simply because he had the resources to do so.
No matter how you feel about Bloomberg’s ability to govern, it is concerning that one of the nation’s richest men - and perhaps the richest man in New York City - can hold on to the top office by putting so much money into a race. It’s especially troubling when you consider the fact that you’d probably vote for someone regardless of their policies if they actually just gave you the $175 they were already spending for your vote.
This race shattered records in American campaign finance history. And can you not imagine some more calls for campaign finance reform in New York City when there’s such a hint of plutocracy in their local government?
I can.
Summary: Dave at WAYLA reviews the November 2009 elections and their implications.
First I want to start by looking back on my predictions from Monday. In Virginia I said McDonnell would win handedly against Deeds, and he did. In fact, he won with 59% of the vote - 2% more than I expected.
In New Jersey, I wrongly suggested Corzine could squeak in a victory, and no matter who won it would be close (as in, by a point or so) - as it turned out, Christie defeated the incumbent governor by more than 4%.
In Maine, I suggested it would come down to whether the youth and progressive votes would turn out in proportionally higher numbers than the older voters and conservatives. Unfortunately, I don’t have the exit poll information to check that, but I’ll get back to this race later in the post.
In New York City I turned out to be dead-on in my prediction: incumbent Mayor Michael Bloomberg won, but with a much smaller margin than pundits were predicting. I was hearing he might win by as much as 10%-15% yesterday - he won by just 5% over City Comptroller Bill Thompson.
In New York’s 23rd Congressional District I was wrong yet again, assuming that Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman would defeat Democrat Bill Owens by a substantial margin. Owens won with a 3-point lead over Hoffman. In fairness, I was second-guessing that prediction yesterday hours before polls closed in New York, and I’ll explain why shortly.
Second of all, let me stress that I don’t believe this was a referendum on President Obama or the Democratic Party. In fact, Tom Schaller had a very interesting post the other day, suggesting it could be more of a referendum on the GOP.
However, most of this comes down to the local circumstances of each race. As we mentioned last week, the Deeds defeat - and the extent to which he lost - had more to do with poor campaigning on the part of him and his party than on anything to do with the “spending in Washington” we’ve heard so much about. Chuck Todd said it best when he pointed out “[the Virginia race is] a good reminder that campaigns matter.”
In New Jersey, Corzine was plagued by the difficulties of governing in a recession - something we’ve discussed time and time again. In order to balance the state budget he had to increase property taxes and reduce services - actions that would be unpopular no matter what. The property tax increase was particularly damaging to him - according to the exit polls, a whopping 26% of voters said it was their main issue in the race, and that meant a significant drop in support (by perhaps as many as 100,000 voters) in the suburbs of Philadelphia and New York City.
Now let me get back to the elections in Maine and NY-23.
Yesterday something crossed my mind while looking at the polls on Question 1 in Maine - what if we were looking at a Bradley Effect?
To explain, let’s look at the three most recent polls on the issue. Two found that the referendum would fail - a Daily Kos / Research 2000 poll said it would by 1% and a Pan Atlantic poll said it would by 11%. A third poll, conducted by Public Policy Polling, found the referendum would pass by 4% - which is roughly what happened.
It’s important to note that unlike the other two polls, the PPP survey was an automated response poll - allowing respondents to explain their position by punching in numbers on their keypads and not talking to a live person. This allowed them to be honest about their opposition to gay marriage without being embarrassed for what could be perceived as homophobia.
I was led on to that theory by a recent article in Politico on the gay marriage referendum. Just read some of the responses from those interviewed:
"[‘No on 1’] did a very good job of humanizing the issue," said state Sen. Peter Mills, a Republican who voted for the marriage equality law and opposes Question One. "They had gay couples inviting themselves into the Rotary Club and talking about what it's like to live in a world where it's possible to discriminate against somebody just because they're a same-sex couple."…
…"Even in the conservative areas, they don't like the government telling them what to do and making choices for them," said former Defense Secretary William Cohen, who served as a Republican senator from Maine and has not taken a position on Question 1. "Maine people in particular are very open to change, even though it's a moderate-to-conservative state overall."
Republican politicians not only kept mum about the issue, but some even went so far as to oppose Question 1, seemingly to save themselves from what they figured was a socially libertarian electorate. In fact, it seems quite possible that many anti-gay marriage Mainers were hiding their true opinions from their neighbors.
Moving a few hours south of the Pine Tree State we come to New York’s 23rd. Many - including myself - initially figured that Hoffman would solidify support from Scozzafava’s base despite her endorsement of Owens. After all, the polls said he would.
But yesterday two things occurred to me. First, Scozzafava would remain on the ballot, and a sizeable portion of her supporters would vote for her regardless of her decision to drop out - it turned out to be 6% of the electorate.
Second, many of Scozzafava’s supporters probably quickly decided that they would support Hoffman - Owens was a Democrat, after all - and then later changed their minds. The second part of that trend, however, wouldn’t have been reflected in the polls following Scozzafava’s decision - it took place just four days before the election. My guess is a number of these voters took a step back and said “well, I am a center-right conservative, but this Hoffman guy is really out there - he just called Glenn Beck his mentor.”
With a shake-up as dramatic as Scozzafava’s decision, it’s quite possible that her supporters were scrambling like that to make a decision before Tuesday.
Finally, everyone is going to want to point out broader implications about what these elections mean for 2010. Republicans are saying that voters - even blue state voters like those in New Jersey - are rejecting Obama/Democratic policies and that we’ll see this trend continue in 2010. Democrats are arguing that the shake-up in NY-23 indicates that conservative activists are moving the GOP so far to the right that they won’t be electable next year.
The implication I see, however, is along the lines of an idea we’ve discussed before. Next year might be a tough year for Democrats on the state level, but probably not too bad of a year on the federal level.
We saw such trends yesterday. Democrats won in special Congressional elections in New York and California, while losing statewide races in New Jersey and Virginia, not to mention State Legislative seats in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.
Whether those trends will carry on in 2010 will now depend on just how the parties and campaigns position themselves going into next year.
Tomorrow is Election Day for residents in New Jersey, Virginia, Maine, New York City, and New York’s 23rd Congressional District. Last week we analyzed the gubernatorial race in Virginia and found Republican Bob McDonnell to be the likely winner.
Today we take a look at the big races in the other four elections.
New Jersey
Big Race: Governor
Candidates: Jon Corzine (D), Chris Christie (R), Chris Daggett (I)
Analysis: While Corzine has not been a popular incumbent throughout the race, he has been gaining in the polls over the past month or two. Nate Silver suggests the race is largely up in the air at this point, with Christie being a 4:3 favorite. The race has been very negative, and no matter who the undecided voters choose, they’re going to have to select a politician that they’ve heard a lot of bad things about. Largely, this race could come down to which campaign has the best organization for tomorrow - and in New Jersey, it’s typically the Democrat.
Predictions: I would put my money on Corzine, but it is certainly possible that Christie will pull an upset victory. Either way, expect Daggett to do fairly well - perhaps even better than the polls up to this point suggest he will do.
Maine
Big Race: Question 1
Options: A “Yes” vote is to overturn the legalization of gay marriage in Maine, a “No” vote supports gay marriage.
Analysis: This question was thrown on the voters at the last minute, and for a referendum concerning an issue as progressive as gay marriage, it should theoretically be a bad sign for “No on 1” supporters. That being said, “No on 1” has raised significantly more money - including from in-state contributors - and past analysis suggests the electorate will vote this question down. Silver predicts there is an 80% chance that the “No” vote will win. However, a recent Public Policy Polling survey found that Maine voters supported Question 1 at a 51% - 47% margin.
Predictions: If any state can vote this down, it’s a New England state - however, the polls don’t look good. I think it will come down to the youth vote. Young voters were far more opposed to the referendum than older voters, and older voters typically make it to the polls more often. Yet gay marriage is one issue that young voters are extremely passionate about, and they might rally a “No” vote better than conservatives can rally a “Yes” vote tomorrow. We’ll have to wait and see.
New York City
Big Race: Mayor
Candidates: Michael Bloomberg (R,I), Bill Thompson (D)
Analysis: Unfortunately, this race has been a lot less exciting than we hoped. While NYC is an incredibly Democratic city, voters tend to approve of Bloomberg’s pragmatic style of governance. Silver sees Thompson as a 35:1 underdog, with only the Bronx as a winnable borough for him. However, voters in NYC are still upset over Bloomberg’s moves last year to extend term limits and still others are frustrated with his lack of attention towards low income residents. Additionally, Bloomberg’s campaign has been using robo-calls so frequently it’s getting on everyone’s nerves. Nonetheless, voters will probably look past these issues, and Bloomberg’s wealth has made him a very difficult candidate to beat in logistical terms.
Predictions: While I suspect Bloomberg will win, I have some feeling it will be closer than most pundits are saying it will.
NY-23
Big Race: Representative to Congress
Candidates: Bill Owens (D), Doug Hoffman (C)
Analysis: Until this weekend, I would have expected the conservative vote to split about evenly between Republican Dierdre Scozzafava and Hoffman - running on the Conservative Party ticket - allowing Owens to squeak by with a slim victory. On Saturday, however, Scozzafava dropped out - leaving a mass of conservatives to support Hoffman. Of course, she did endorse Owens upon exiting the race, and the district as a whole is far more moderate than Hoffman. Nonetheless, the conservative base is fired up and likely to bring in way more support for Hoffman on Election Day than Scozzafava can do for Owens. In fact, DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen appears to be conceding on that point already.
Predictions: Hoffman will win, and probably by a substantial margin.
Today WAYLA reports on local politics from New York City.
Many political junkies in the U.S. are at least somewhat familiar with the mayoral race in the nation’s largest city. Incumbent Michael Bloomberg directed the City Council to extend term limits so they could all serve an extra four years. Since then, Bloomberg’s campaign has actually been looking less hot despite spending millions of dollars for his re-election.
But there are even more heated and competitive races throughout the city at the moment that political geeks living outside the Big Apple are probably unaware of. This preview comes as Democratic Party candidates - whose party dominates the city’s political field - gear up for a primary election on Tuesday.
These are what we consider the three most interesting races…
City Comptroller
For what the New York Times calls "one of the most important jobs" in the city, the race to replace incumbent Bill Thompson (who is running for mayor) has been contentious and too close to call.
The four candidates are Queens Council members Melinda Katz, John Liu and David Weprin and Brooklyn Council member David Yassky. Katz, Liu, and Yassky have been about even in the polls and Weprin is not far behind. As Comptroller, they would oversee billions of dollars, but they’ve all been under scrutiny (in part from each other) for being bad with money.
From a New York Daily News article about a recent Comptroller debate:
The evening revealed some interesting tidbits about the field.
Weprin has been audited - and he, Liu and Yassky have bounced personal checks…
…Katz revealed she'd gotten in over her head with credit card debt in college.
But perhaps the most interesting attack from the night came from Weprin regarding Liu’s childhood.
Weprin went after Liu, who has made the story of his immigrant family's struggles - including what he said was his and his mother's work in a sweatshop - a cornerstone of his campaign.
His parents debunked that claim in an interview with the Daily News, saying he'd mostly helped his mother at home where she took in piecework.
As Liu stuck with his story Thursday night, Weprin demanded to know if Liu had taken any action to address child labor or report the sweatshop he worked in.
"So it's safe to say the answer was no, you didn't report it," Weprin asked after Liu said he had been just a child at the time.
Unless one of the four candidates can break 40% in Tuesday’s primary, the top two candidates will face each other in a run-off. At this point, it doesn’t seem unlikely.
Manhattan District Attorney
In another highly contentious open-seat race, three Democrats are vying to replace 34-year incumbent Robert Morgenthau.
Returning from her unsuccessful challenge to her boss in 2005, Leslie Crocker Snyder - who founded the Sex Crimes Protection Bureau in the district attorney's office - is facing former prosecutor Cy Vance and former Brady Campaign president Richard Aborn.
Vance - who many see as “the progressive” in the race - has earned the endorsement of the popular Morgenthau. He and Snyder have recently been racking up union endorsements, and Aborn touts his endorsement from former NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton.
The race has become pretty ugly between Snyder and Vance. Snyder recently released an ad that attacked Vance to this effect:
“When crime was high in Manhattan, what did the candidate for district attorney do? Cy Vance Jr. fled to Seattle for 17 years to make millions defending criminals, mobsters, murderers, helping doctors who defrauded Medicare.”
Her literature also hit Vance pretty hard - so it wasn’t surprising when she made the accusation that Vance’s campaign canvassers were actually stealing it following lit drops. The Vance campaign cannot say whether or not it’s true, but his campaign manager told the Daily News “It is ironic that the Snyder campaign, which has sent at least five negative mailers about Cy, is now accusing our campaign of using dirty tricks.”
At this point, it is simply too difficult to say who is in the lead.
City Council - District 10
While a great many City Council races this year have been interesting, few compare to the packed race for Council in District 10. The district - which encompasses a large area of northern Manhattan and is at least 75% Dominican - has become an open-seat since it was vacated by disgraced Council member Miguel Martinez.
While many members of the Council have been involved in a city-wide slush fund scandal - which may even include Council Speaker Christine Quinn - the brunt of the consequences came down on Martinez, who has since resigned and pled guilty to the charges against him. That left the seat crowded with eight Democratic candidates - six of whom have held no previous office.
So far the race has seen every campaign tactic conceivable: direct mail, phone banks, robo-calls, newspaper ads, signs in storefront windows, and lots and lots of creative campaign visibility.
The media-proclaimed frontrunner has been community activist Ydanis Rodriguez - and it seems like a reasonable label. With the networks he built from his two previous campaigns for this seat, he started with a war chest of over $150,000 and endorsements from key politicians (such as Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) and State Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat), several unions, and the Working Families Party.
But in the months since Martinez resigned, the presence of Rodriguez in the district has only matched that of some of his opponents, including Community Board Chair Manny Velazquez, attorney Richard Realmuto (an HSG client), teacher Cleofis Sarete, and architect Luis Facundo.
At this point, any of these candidates could walk away with the win on Tuesday.
Today WAYLA reports on local politics from New York City.
A new Quinnipiac poll finds that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg continues to be viewed favorably by his constituents. Some results in the polls are rather striking.
For example, 55% of residents said they would describe Bloomberg as "cold and businesslike" while only 30% said he was "warm and friendly". Yet 62% still approve of the job he’s doing.
Bloomberg, it seems, would agree that he doesn’t need to be "warm and friendly" to be a good mayor.
"These are very serious times," he said. "I don't find anything warm and fuzzy about the potential of people losing their jobs or losing their homes.
"I don't find anything warm and fuzzy about city government having to reduce expenses and find alternative revenue sources. That's the job, and that's what I'm going to do."
Despite a four-point drop in his approval rating - due to budget cuts and tax hikes that came with the poor economy - pollsters say Bloomberg doesn’t need to sweat. According to Maurice Carroll, who directed the poll, "his job approval has gone from astronomical to merely stratospheric…He's within the atmosphere [now]."
And to make matters worse for his 2009 competitors, his name recognition is difficult to beat. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) - who said he may drop his candidacy due to the economic work that needs to be done in Washington - has only 44% name recognition.
City Comptroller Bill Thompson is looking to the black community to be a major factor of his overall support. But the poll found only 44% of African Americans could identify the official.
And Bloomberg continues to beat them in hypothetical head-to-head races. If Thompson was to win the Democratic Primary and face Bloomberg today, the incumbent would win 49%-35%. If Weiner was to face Bloomberg today, Bloomberg would win 46%-36%.
Of course, Bloomberg will not be facing anyone until November, which gives all candidates time to wage the tough campaign.
"Bloomberg is so far ahead - he won't be that far in November - but what difference does it make?" Carroll said.
He predicted voters will peel off as the budget cuts start to affect communities and as the campaign heats up and he cautioned that Bloomberg's image as "cold and businesslike" could hurt him.
"People like to like the people they vote for," he said.
But polls from 2004 also showed New York City residents to view Bloomberg as cold and in 2005 he was re-elected by a landslide. And with him this far ahead already, will his challengers really be able to climb back?
Only time will tell.
It was well noted in last year’s presidential election that the Obama campaign spent about $730 million to put the junior Illinois senator in the White House while earning about 69.5 million votes - in other words, they spent about $10.50 per vote.
