Summary: A New York State Senate race characterizes the national debate over gay marriage.
For years now, the debate over gay marriage has been a defining issue of the modern civil rights push. For years liberals and moderates pushed back against a GOP agenda that sought to ban the unorthodox arrangement in the U.S. Constitution, as well as in several state constitutions.
Today, liberals are fighting back, and over 40% of Americans believe in total marriage equality. A majority of Americans now believe that, at the very least, gays and lesbians should have the right to form a civil union.
Yet to date, only one referendum banning gay marriage has failed to pass. It happened in Arizona in 2006, where a similar ballot measure was passed in 2008.
After seeing what happened in these states - though especially California and Maine - in recent years, gay rights activists have realized the importance of political campaigns.
Yet referendum campaigns should not be the only area of focus. Recently, full marriage equality was achieved in Vermont and New Hampshire when their State Legislatures passed bills allowing gay marriages.
In New York, however, the dream fell short.
Although the New York State Assembly passed two gay marriage bills with bipartisan approval, the legislation fell 7 votes short in the State Senate. Democrats controlled the chamber, but many of them voted with the anti-marriage Republicans in the upper house.
Now some of those Democrats are feeling the heat.
From the New York Times:
“…gay rights groups, which have become major financial players in state politics, wanted to know which senators they should back in the future and which ones to target for defeat.
Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, New York’s largest gay rights group, hinted that senators who voted against the bill on Wednesday could face repercussions. And Christine C. Quinn, the New York City Council Speaker echoed that sentiment, saying, ‘Anybody who thinks that by casting a no vote they’re putting this issue to bed, they’re making a massive miscalculation.’”
Enter State Senate District 10, a sprawling district in south Queens. Here the residents of the Jamaica, Springfield Gardens, and Brookville neighborhoods are represented by State Senator Shirley Huntley - one of the eight Democrats who opposed the marriage equality bill.
To be sure, Queens is not the place a politician should oppose gay marriage. The borough elected two openly gay City Council members last year and it’s a hot bed of gay rights advocacy in New York. Needless to say, gay rights activists are calling for Huntley’s defeat.
And she may have a formidable opponent. Lynn Nunes, a local politician, has been exploring a challenge to Huntley following her vote on gay marriage. Although he is not gay himself, Nunes is a strong supporter of marriage equality.
Additionally, Nunes is a strong candidate. Last year he was just barely edged out of a City Council race - by literally 4 votes - against a popular two-term incumbent. The race gave him the opportunity to build political contacts and a base of support for future campaigns - such as State Senate.
What Nunes needs now is support from the gay rights community.
The late U.S. House Speaker Tip O’Neil will be remembered for many things, but for campaign people like us he will be remembered most for some of the most important words in our profession…
“All politics is local.”
In order to achieve marriage equality across America, pro-marriage advocates need to build momentum on a state-by-state basis. In New York, gay marriage is only a few votes shy of reality in the State Senate. Gay rights activists need to focus on the handful of State Senate races that will change the state’s laws.
What better place to start the march towards full equality than on the streets of south Queens?
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.
Summary: Keeping voters engaged and predicting election outcomes – What we learned from Twitter in the New York City Elections.
Democratic strategist Joe Trippi picked up a surprising piece of news on his blog recently: it seems that the use of Twitter and Facebook by Democratic candidates in New York City could have helped one predict the outcome of Tuesday’s primaries there.
Nancy Scola of TechPresident.com wrote in a blog post yesterday that the winners of the races for Public Advocate, Manhattan District Attorney and City Comptroller might have done as well as they did thanks to the online support they built with social networking websites.
From the post:
In the New York City Public Advocate race, city councilmember Bill DiBlasio scored something of a surprise win, 33% to 31%, over former two-term Public Advocate Mark Green. (It's only a temporary "win." Since neither candidate broke the 40% mark, under city law the race goes into a run off.) While Green's name recognition is strong in the city, given his past service to the city in the same position he was gunning for, this time around his campaign never seemed to build up steam -- which is borne out by the social media numbers at play. DiBlasio collected 3,265 followers, combining his Twitter and Facebook numbers, to Green's far fewer 445…
…The Manhattan District Attorney race had been contentious, dramatic, and up for grabs. It looked for a time like Judge Leslie Crocker Snyder might emerge victorious over Cyrus Vance, despite the fact that Vance was the heir apparent to the influential sitting DA Robert Morgenthau. But Vance fairly trounced Snyder last night, 44% to 30%. A somewhat unforeseen story, but one nonetheless foretold by their respective Facebook and Twitter tallies. Vance had 1,582 admirers and followers to Snyder's 881. Attorney Richard Aborn came in third in both votes and online allies, with 26% of the vote and 720 followers and fans.
And in the Comptroller race, Queens councilmember John Liu pulled out 38% of the vote over Brooklyn councilmember David Yassky's 31%. (A result that, again, calls for a run-off at the to take place at the end of the month.) Surprising? Perhaps. But not if you're keeping tabs on how popular Liu and Yassky were doing online. Liu's Twitter-plus-Facebook tally amounted to 1,159 followers and fans, while Yassky pulled in with somewhat fewer, at 364 admirers and followers.
Of course, Scola was also right to point out that not all of the candidates had a vote total that corresponded with their social networking support.
In the Comptroller's race, David Weprin managed to amass almost as many followers as the top two candidates in the race (1,858 to Liu and Yassky's combined 2,073). But he won a much smaller share of the vote, with just 11%. And in the Public Advocate contest, Queens councilmember Eric Goia racked up more than five times the friends and followers as the second place finisher Green -- but he managed to only place a disappointing far third.
Having a lot of followers on Twitter or supporters on Facebook does not mean your campaign will automatically be successful, and relying on such websites for Election Day is a poor strategy that no well-run campaign would take.
However, utilizing these resources as a tool for fundraising or recruiting volunteers can make a campaign very strong - and it’s very possible that Tuesday’s winners had been doing just that.
As we wrote about New Media in our 21st Century Campaigning series last month:
Keeping supporters engaged is a highly important function of any campaign. Without engaged supporters, a campaign is unable to raise money or find volunteers to knock on doors and make phone calls.
That means campaigns have to keep supporters interested and active in the daily developments of the race.
…the effectiveness of such outreach comes down to what we call the “Twitter talent.” A major part of it is passing the “‘Who Cares?’ Test” - you have to post something relevant that your followers will be interested in.
In fact, some of the NYC candidates were doing just that with their Twitter and Facebook outreach. Scola mentions how Mark Green used his Twitter feed creatively, tweeting 100 “New Ideas for a Better City” to his followers.
Unfortunately for Green, creative tweeting is just one of the necessary parts of an effective New Media strategy. A campaign also needs to continually grow their list of supporters and followers in order to raise more money and get more volunteers. To that effect, it is very beneficial for a campaign to hire a New Media Coordinator who can devote their time to building a social networking base, among other things.
Luckily for candidates like Green, they have time to do these things before the run-off election.
For years now, the debate over gay marriage has been a defining issue of the modern civil rights push. For years liberals and moderates pushed back against a GOP agenda that sought to ban the unorthodox arrangement in the U.S. Constitution, as well as in several state constitutions.
