Happy Election Day 2009

Summary: Happy Election Day - will political predictions come true?

It’s the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November - and although it’s not an even-numbered year this year, today is still Election Day.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

With polls closing in Maine, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia in less than 12 hours we thought we’d bring you some Election Day analysis from pundits across the news media and blogosphere.

From NBC Political Director Chuck Todd:

“We know that whether Jon Corzine wins or loses, he won't get 50 percent, meaning more than half of the state voted to oust him in a very blue state.

We know that the Republican Party has to deal with two rifts, one that is ideological, the other a battle between the establishment and grassroots. The two rifts are not interchangeable.

We know that not being associated with either political party is a net plus with many voters — from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s expected victory, to Chris Daggett's influence in New Jersey, to Doug Hoffman's rise in New York's 23rd Congressional District.

And we know that the president's coattails have gotten shorter…

…Let's start with what should be the biggest lesson: The return of the angry independent.

The one thing Daggett and Hoffman have in common is that they both have anti-establishment, anti-political party credentials. And both used those attributes to gain credibility.

While lots of folks want to paint 2010 as either a midterm election like 1994 (Democratic over-reach backlash), or 1982 (economic angst), let me suggest that things are looking more like 1992, when a billionaire gadfly galvanized the radical middle…

…there are a few other things about [the Virginia] race that shouldn't be overlooked.

First, McDonnell avoided a divisive primary and didn't have to "run right" before running to the middle in the general. In fact, McDonnell got to run to the middle the entire year — his ads project a pragmatic problem solver who can work with both parties. It should be a model for Republican gubernatorial candidates in 2010, and perhaps for any Republican pondering a presidential run in 2012…

…Second, McDonnell was of course helped by the inept campaign run by Democrat Creigh Deeds. But the irony is this: Deeds is the most centrist/moderate Democrat the party has nominated this century. He is to the right of Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, and Jim Webb, but he was painted as someone more liberal than any of those three. These mistakes are on Deeds and his campaign. It's a good reminder that campaigns matter.”

From Newsweek’s Howard Fineman:

“President Barack Obama believes in the saving grace of the federal government.

But do the American people?

In a time of economic uncertainty and fear, that is the core question implicit — and sometimes explicit — on Election Day 2009…

…It's always dangerous to extrapolate national trends from scattered local elections such as these.

And of course, as I write, we don't know the results — only which way the polls were heading in the final days. But I think in this case the message is already clear: Voters, who launched the Obama Era with so much hope a year ago, are still hopeful but they're also skeptical.

And they are once again impatient with Washington, and with big shots of any stripe — on Wall Street or the nation's capital — who seem more interested in increasing their own power than truly solving problems.”

From MSNBC host and former Rep. Joe Scarborough:

“A big Republican win in Virginia will not be an earth mover, but instead confirm that the home of Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee is a toss up state that still swings Republican. A Bob McDonnell victory will be seen by most in the media as reflecting a rising discomfort with the explosive growth of Washington, but also, perhaps more importantly, the weakness of the Democratic candidate…

…Every Democratic consultant I've talked to over the past few days has let loose involuntary groans every time they talked about [the New Jersey] race. Many Democrats began quietly predicting the collapse of the independent candidate at the end of last week and assumed that factor would help Christie.

Last minute polls suggest they may be right.

Still, I believe the Democrats' turnout operation should keep this race tight all night. If the race is instead a blowout, that can only be bad news for the Democrats.

And for those second guessing the president's active involvement in Corzine's race, the fact is that Barack Obama had no choice but to jump head first into the Jersey fight. All the president's men know that a Republican sweep in New Jersey and Virginia will strike fear in the hearts of those swing state Democrats who now hold the future of health care in their sweaty moderate hands…

…Hoffman's ascendancy in NY-23 is less about Barack Obama than it is about a decade of bloated and corrupt Republican leadership in Washington, D.C. This race gave the same conservatives who helped drive Ronald Reagan's victory and the 1994 Republican Revolution something to cheer about for the first time in a long time. It also gave them an opportunity to stick it to an incompetent GOP Establishment…

Here are my predictions a little more than 24 hours before the polls close:

Virginia-- Bob McDonnell by 10+
New Jersey-- Chris Christie by 1
New York 23-- Doug Hoffman by 7

…(Despite my prediction, I still have a hard time seeing Jon Corzine losing this race.)”

Also, be sure to check out Politico’s “5 Things to Watch for” in Virginia, New Jersey, and NY-23, as well as a good article on the gay-marriage referendum in Maine.

Predictions for Tomorrow’s Elections

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.

Why Do Fewer Americans Believe in Global Warming?

Summary: Just more than one third of Americans believe climate change is caused by humans these days, but what - or who - is to blame?

According to a Pew Center report released last week, only 57% of Americans believe that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming - down a staggering 14% since April 2008 - and just 36% believe global warming is both real and caused by humans.

Every demographic and ideological group has become more skeptical about climate change, and - with the exception of Americans under 30 and self-described “liberal” Democrats - every one of these groups has become more likely to say it is not a serious problem.


Pollster Jon Krosnick of Stanford University - who has been studying public opinion on global warming since 1993 - told the AP that these recent trends are simply “implausible” because he can’t think of anything that could have caused them.

So we decided to explore why Americans are becoming less likely to believe in global warming.

As the Pew Center authors wrote in the overview of their study - which also examined public opinion on possible cap-and-trade legislation - “As the health care debate has dominated the public’s attention, awareness about cap and trade legislation is quite low.”

That brings us to the first reason why belief in climate change is declining: Americans have less faith that it’s real because they’ve been hearing about it less.

In 2006 - the year Al Gore released “An Inconvenient Truth” and global warming awareness was at an all time high - belief in climate change was 20% higher than it is today.

However, that theory doesn’t seem too likely, as “going green” is something we’re still reminded about on a near daily basis. It’s been impossible to escape all the Prius ads, BP spots, and all the other commercials having to do with eco-friendly consumer choices in the past few years.



In fact, much of the eco-advertising started around 2006 - the same time as “An Inconvenient Truth” - even though it’s strange to see big companies touting green products.

For many of the climate change deniers, one of the reasons they believe global warming is a hoax is because of the “special interests” behind it (i.e. the companies that can profit from it). So are such ads doing more harm than good - are they actually creating a doubt as to global warming’s legitimacy?

While it’s possible, it’s not exactly likely.

That being said, the special interest groups that lobby against legislation such as cap-and-trade may bear a lot of responsibility.

From the AP:

Andrew Weaver, a professor of climate analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, said politics could be drowning out scientific awareness.

"It's a combination of poor communication by scientists, a lousy summer in the Eastern United States, people mixing up weather and climate and a full-court press by public relations firms and lobby groups trying to instill a sense of uncertainty and confusion in the public," he said.

And there is some evidence behind this theory.

About a year or two ago, my mother actually forwarded this video attacking “An Inconvenient Truth” in a chain email.



According to a Wall Street Journal article in 2006, the video was covertly created and virally spread by DCI Group, a Republican lobbying firm working for ExxonMobile. DCI Group also helped create video news releases - some of which ended up being used in news reports - and paying the few skeptical scientists out there to appear on talk-radio and write editorials.

The point is this: anyone who believes lobbyists only influence Washington politicians is being naïve.

The truth is that lobbyists communicate with regular Americans on a regular basis - through news, media, and even the more viral - and untraceable - New Media operations such as chain emails and YouTube clips that distort truth and confuse Americans (don’t forget, 12% of Americans still believe President Obama practices Islam).

PRWatch.org made a good point when they brought up an infamous tobacco lobbying memo which said “doubt is our product” - lobbyists for the oil industry and other special interests threatened by global warming legislation need to sell that same product to the American people. It’s the best way to thwart public opinion against such legislation.

And so far their marketing strategy appears to be working.

A Preview of Next Week’s Elections in Virginia

Summary: Today we look at Democratic backlash and Deeds' uphill battle against McDonnell going into next week's election.


On Tuesday, Virginians will head to the polls to decide their next governor between Democratic State Senator Creigh Deeds and former GOP State Attorney General Bob McDonnell. Earlier this morning, Nate Silver predicted that Deeds was a “60-1 underdog at this stage.”

From his post:

If you had a 2008-type electorate turning out, this race would be reasonably competitive; McDonnell might be leading by a point or three, but it would be worth watching. With this type of electorate, the Democrat is pretty much helpless against a reasoanbly well-organized Republican opponent.

Of course, the composition of the electorate isn't a completely exogenous factor; the quality of the candidates and their campaigns can have some effect. Democrats seemed quite pleased when Deeds became their nominee in June, figuring he'd do well with working-class and rural voters. But the working-class, rural vote isn't where the swing vote is in Virginia, one of the wealthiest states in the country. Instead, it's the more well-off folks in the suburbs. And it tends to be those well-off folks, by the way, who are most likely to have changed their opinion on Barack Obama, as the perception has set in (to an extent) that he's a tax-and-spend liberal.

Meanwhile, Deeds hasn't done much to motivate African-American turnout, which projects to make up only about 15 percent of the electorate as compared with 20 percent in 2008 -- although the number is not so atypical for a non-Presidential contest in the state…

… Deeds can probably be blamed for his failure to find a good affirmative message, as voters perceive him 2:1 as having run a negative campaign. And -- let's face it -- he's not the most commanding presence on the stump.

This analysis - and conclusion - are all pretty believable. Deeds has been lagging in the polls for the past few months (recent polls show he’s down 15%-17%) and the Democratic Party in Virginia hasn’t exactly been helping.

Back in March, we noted how the Virginia GOP appeared to be in particularly bad shape internally - the State Chair was facing a coup, Republican delegates were retiring, and Democrats seemed poised to continue their Blue Sweep in the Commonwealth.

Just one month later we saw the signs of something entirely different - a disorganized network of groups and leaders that was poorly executing the priorities of the Democratic Party there.

From that post:

"…it seems that Virginia Democrats are either lacking the organizational skills or resources to mount an effective campaign against Bob McDonnell. Luckily there is a good five-month period between the Primary and General Elections for the nominee to do the grunt work. And McDonnell has planted the seeds of his defeat himself by opposing the stimulus package.

But if the current lackluster campaigning continues, Virginia’s Blue Sweep cannot continue in Virginia. GOP backlash to Democratic priorities has already been seen this week in Tea Party protests across the country. The Republican base is mobile and active, even in less exciting times on the political calendar."

Unfortunately for the Democrats, that lackluster campaigning most certainly continued.

And it’s not just Deeds who is in trouble. From an article in Politico:

Virginia Republican Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling is launching a new ad Monday for his reelection campaign that ties his Democratic rival, Jody Wagner, to her ticket mate, Creigh Deeds.

By linking Wagner to her party’s gubernatorial nominee, Bolling hopes to tag his opponent with the same perception that is currently hurting Deeds — that she is running a negative campaign and wants to raise taxes. It’s a strategy Republicans across Virginia are gravitating to as poll numbers increasingly point to GOP gains in the Commonwealth next month…

… “Higher taxes, fewer jobs, dishonest attacks — that’s Wagner’s record and that’s their plan,” the narrator intones as a side-by-side image of Deeds and Wagner is flashed on the screen…

… The GOP’s guilt by association strategy is also being used further down the ticket as Republicans, who have suffered a string of statewide losses in Virginia, are increasingly buoyed by poll numbers showing independents swinging their way and all three Republican candidates for statewide office enjoying solid leads.

In a Lynchburg-area House of Delegates race, the Republican candidate is calling his rival, incumbent Democrat Shannon Valentine, a “Creigh Deeds Democrat” in a TV commercial.

“What could Creigh Deeds and Shannon Valentine be thinking?” the ad produced for Republican Scott Garrett begins. “Deeds and Valentine want $1 billion in new taxes."

The State Legislature, however, does appear to be somewhat safe for both parties to maintain control at current levels.

According to the Swing State Project, the House of Delegates looks particularly unlikely to see a significant net gain or loss of seats one way or another.


But most of the statewide offices are about to go Republican, and the growing influence of Democrats in the Commonwealth over the past several years is about to face a major hiccup.

Republicans Drafting a New Contract with America

Summary: Will history repeat itself? With the GOP drafting the Ten for '10, we look to 2006 and 1994 for signs of what the midterm 2010 elections will bring.

In an ideas piece today, former Congressman Martin Frost (D-TX) took issue with the growing intrigue over whether the midterm elections in 2010 will resemble the Republican Revolution of 1994.

From the piece:

On the surface, a comparison might seem to make sense. After all, in 1994, newly elected Democratic President Bill Clinton was serving his first two years, and there were Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate. And we all know what happened: Republicans won control of both chambers in a historic rout.

However, that is all that these two very different political years have in common.

First and foremost among the differences was that House Democrats in 1994 were a tired, old majority that had run out of steam after being in control for 40 years. The most recent Republican majority in the House had occurred during the opening two years, 1953 and 1954, of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s first term. Democrats in 1994 were complacent, assuming they were a permanent House majority. Also, they were short on new ideas and did not have strong leadership. Democrats today have policy ideas and clearly have energetic leadership.

Also, there were a number of factors at play in 1994 that are not present in 2010. Leading the list was the fact that Democrats had to defend a large number of open seats because of retirements and members running for other offices. A total of 18 such open seats were lost by the Democrats. So far, Democratic retirements have been held to a minimum…

…Some other seats were lost in the South as a delayed result of the 1991 redistricting, in which Republicans made gains but vulnerable incumbents were able to hold on for one more term in 1992. Redistricting also may have played a role in the decision by some of the 18 Democrats mentioned above who retired.

Also, because the Republican tide broke late in the 1994 election cycle, some Democrats never saw it coming. Classic examples were Reps. Dan Glickman in Kansas and David Price in North Carolina. Price won his seat back after a two-year absence, but Glickman never returned to Congress. And some Democrats were swept from power because of a specific scandal (Rep. Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois) and the gun control issue (biggest example being Rep. Jack Brooks of Texas)…

…Also, Democrats fell victim to an easily understood scandal: the continuing controversy over bounced checks at the House bank. The current flap over New York Rep. Charles Rangel’s alleged ethical issues has nowhere near the impact of the House bank scandal.

So why do the media continue to make comparisons between 1994 and 2010? The main reason is that the party of the president almost always loses some congressional seats in the first election following a presidential victory, and the problems that Congress faces right now are monumental in scope. The only recent exceptions to this were 1934 (President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first term) and 2002 (President George W. Bush’s first term).

None of this adds up to a landslide for Republicans. The only thing that could result in a major realignment would be high unemployment in fall 2010. Democrats know that and will do everything in their power to stabilize the economic situation.

There was, however, one paragraph where he might have been wrong:

Another difference between the two election years is that Republicans in 1994 actually stood for something. They weren’t just the “party of no.” Then-Minority Whip Newt Gingrich of Georgia and Texas Rep. Dick Armey put together their Contract With America, which gave Republican House candidates across the country a unified platform.

But the GOP knows they have a “party of no” image, and they are trying to shed it from their candidates.

Before the Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006, they carried their own “party of no” image (although those weren’t exactly the words used). Conservatives often pointed towards the minority leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid along with their party as the “whiney liberals” in Congress.

In 2006, of course, Pelosi, Reid, and other Democratic leaders put together the “Six for ‘06” plan - not too unlike the Contract with America - and came back to power.

Among the platform proposals of that plan: implementing all recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, raising the minimum wage and negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare recipients.

Now, according to CQ Politics, Republicans are putting together another such platform which is informally being called “Ten for ‘10”

From the article:

[Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)], chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, said members of the conference are coming up with recommended policy planks that would provide voters “a commitment to accomplish certain ends.”

Among proposals floated so far by members: a ban on spending unused funds from this year’s economic stimulus law (PL 111-5), tougher earmark disclosure requirements and an “all of the above” climate change plan that would expand offshore oil drilling.

Whether proposals like these resonate with Americans on a values level - like many of the “Six for ‘06” ones did - is a little difficult to imagine. It’s hard to boast a plan for earmark disclosure when Americans are worried about losing their jobs.

As we said in a post after the general election last year:

On the issues, the Republican Party is having difficulty framing winning arguments on trickle-down economics, climate change, and health care reform. The key issues that Lee Atwater used to bolt the Republicans for over twenty years were welfare and crime, but today they have little resonance.

Being the “party of no” is not all the GOP has to worry about - Republican leaders must not let it become the “party of ‘who cares’” too.

Is the Political Landscape Simply Unfavorable for Incumbents?

Summary: Local politicians and the dangers of incumbency - close proximity to voters can lead to victories for challengers.

Typically incumbents are the politicians with the least to worry about. The incumbency effect can often keep you in office for as long as you want because you have the name recognition, resources, and record to make you more credible than a challenger.

However, Politico reports in a new article that the current landscape - troubled by the impacts of the national recession - may simply be unfavorable for incumbents at the moment. Rather than starting in Virginia and New Jersey - which pundits are watching closely for their 2010 implications - the article points to the races that are not getting the same national attention: mayoral elections.

From the article:

Some incumbent mayors have already lost their races. Others have held on to win—or are likely to win next week—with greatly diminished margins from their previous re-election bids. Either way, local incumbents are bleeding badly after being buffeted by the pressures of high unemployment, low tax revenues and a volatile, impatient electorate…

…"People are lashing out, have less patience with the elected officials closest to them," said Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson, the longest-serving mayor in city history and a former president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. "That kind of angst materializes either in walking away from the system or in deciding that whoever is up for election must have played some role, somehow, in some way, in the international financial crisis."…

…Tom Cochran, the executive director of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, recently attended a mayors' conference in Seattle where he met with an alarmed group of city leaders.

"Many mayors have talked to me about—those that are not running and those that are running—sometimes how difficult it is to deal with people in ordinary places like coffee places, bars, churches," Cochran said. "They had great hopes for the stimulus, providing jobs, that's been late coming."

It's not just mayors who should be spooked, Cochran warned: "If I were a congressman I'd be looking at this baby right now, because they are going to hit reality when they go back home for Christmas."

Where are these anti-incumbent tendencies coming from?

The article continues:

[Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels’] defeat had little to do with partisan politics—both his rivals were Democrats. Seattle consultant Randy Bannecker suggested it emerged from the city's restive mood.

"It is sort of this combination of an interest in progressiveness, in progressive issues, coupled with a yearn for an anti-government or an outsider figure," Bannecker said. "You’d talk to people in various parts of the city, various constituencies; they couldn’t really articulate why they opposed [Nickels]."…

…Some veterans of mayoral politics caution against reading too much into the outcomes of local races. Instead of reflecting national trends, they argue, mayoral elections often have more to do with the mechanics of local government and the delivery of city services.

"There's a little bit of variety in these local races that makes generalization a bit problematic," said former Indianapolis Mayor Steve Goldsmith.

But while the national mood isn’t the sole factor driving mayor's races, Goldsmith acknowledged that those forces can help set the terms of the local debate.

Indeed, the city Goldsmith once governed was home to the most surprising mayoral upset of 2007, when Democratic Mayor Bart Peterson lost to an unknown and underfinanced Republican after a debate over property taxes spun out of control.

So will anger towards local incumbents mean a bad political landscape for Congressional or even state incumbents? We’ll have to wait until next November to really know for sure.

Some New Ideas on Social Networking in Politics (Part 2)

Summary: Pondering the implications for campaigns if social networking replaces email.

Vertical Response, a blast-email company used by many political campaigns, sent an email to clients recently about a new debate in the communications world: will social networking replace email altogether?

It all started when Jessica Vascellaro wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal about why email will soon be a less significant form of communication than Facebook, Twitter, and upcoming Google products.

The argument was simple: social networking services are faster, constantly streaming, and more fun than email.

From the article:

Little wonder that while email continues to grow, other types of communication services are growing far faster. In August 2009, 276.9 million people used email across the U.S., several European countries, Australia and Brazil, according to Nielsen Co., up 21% from 229.2 million in August 2008. But the number of users on social-networking and other community sites jumped 31% to 301.5 million people.

"The whole idea of this email service isn't really quite as significant anymore when you can have many, many different types of messages and files and when you have this all on the same type of networks," says Alex Bochannek, curator at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, Calif.

Nielsen Co., however, took issue with this argument, and put it to the test.

From a post on their company blog:

We decided to churn some quick data to test our hypothesis that “Consumption of social media decreases email use.” First, we broke the online population into four groups. The first three are terciles of social media consumption in minutes. The fourth is a group that doesn’t use social media at all. We then looked at each segment’s time of web based email consumption over the course of a year. Finally, we subtracted the email consumption of those that do not use social media from those that do, basically to show a lift over possible external forces. Clearly, there are more robust approaches that could be taken (controlling for factors other than consumption for example) but for the sake of this simple experiment, we tried to keep it straightforward.

Then they graphed the results:


So if social media is supposed to be replacing email as the dominant form of communication, then why are the individuals who use social networking services the most also increasing their email consumption at a faster rate than non-social networkers?

Then Chris Crum at WebProNews.com gave his Ten Reasons Social Media isn’t Replacing Email. Vertical Response CEO Janine Popick read those arguments and added ten more. Some of the twenty reasons were good, some were not so convincing.

Among the good ones:

2. Nearly all sites on the web that require registration require an email address.

9. More social media use means more email use.

13. You can't easily segment your friends and followers to do targeted marketing in Twitter & Facebook for the optimal response.

19. You are limited to 140 characters in Twitter leaving it impossible to put multiple messages in one Tweet.

20. You almost have to have separate social media accounts for your business and your personal life. Some customers might not care about that vacation you took where you...let's just say what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

One problem with several of Popick’s ten reasons was that she was focusing on the company that is trying to send emails to clients or potential clients - not the clients themselves. For example, she notes that with social media the sender cannot track the message as easily, seeing who all clicked on what, etc.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that people actually will gradually move from email to Facebook or Twitter. Will they have second thoughts about doing it because then they won’t be able to help companies sending emails to them as easily anymore? Will they take into account the implications of tracking and response optimization on the part of those sending messages to them?

Of course not, those companies would have to adapt.


The same is true in politics. If social networking does end up replacing email as the primary form of communication, campaigns will simply have to start using these tools more aggressively and innovatively.

For example, let’s say your campaign has added a cool new page to its website and you want to let your supporters know. Additionally, you want to know just how many of them actually go to that page. Traditionally you would send out an email hyping it and including a link. With services from firms like Vertical Response, you can see how many supporters open the email and how many click the link.

You can still see how many hits that page is getting from your message on a social networking site so long as you use bit.ly.

But Popnick’s point about how much you can say when using social media is true - you cannot build the same message. This is troubling for prospects of campaign fundraising: currently Facebook and Twitter are not good tools for fundraising because you cannot explain to supporters just how critical it is that they make a contribution.

Luckily everyone recognizes the relevance of emails to this effect - no matter who you are you will keep an email account because occasionally you have a lot to tell someone.

It seems that - to this extent - social networking is not threatening to email. In fact, the Nielsen Co. study suggests that they are actually complimentary.

Sure, some campaigning and business will start being done more with social networking. At HSG, we typically become Facebook friends and Twitter followers with our clients and business associates. It’s quite possible that in the future we’ll be communicating with them about their races more and more using these services.

Some politicians are already beginning to communicate messages to supporters that would traditionally be done with email via social networking. For example, status updates are a great way to let constituents know what recent action just took place on Capitol Hill. But for more in-depth messages, emails will likely always be king.

It is critical that campaigns, politicians, and businesses utilize all forms of New Media appropriately.

Some New Ideas on Social Networking in Politics (Part 1)

Summary: Twitter on the trail again - how to best use Tweets while campaigning.

Lately we’ve been receiving quite a few emails about the growing relevance of New Media in politics - specifically social networking. Some of these ideas, and the debates they create, are quite interesting.

First there is the ever-continuing discussion on the use of Twitter, which we have been covering rigorously over the past several months. In a recent Winning Campaigns article , Christopher Massicotte of NGP Software (an online political finance tool) analyzes the increasing importance of a Twitter presence.

For the most part, Massicotte’s analysis falls along the lines of what we’ve been saying for a while (see our post “How is New Media Changing Politics?” from the 21st Century Campaigning series).

These were his “Do’s and Don’ts” of political Tweeting:

Do’s:

1) Follow as many people as you can on Twitter that are relevant to your campaign and use Twitter Search often;

2) Be interesting and original in what you are tweeting;

3) Talk to people about THEIR interests – by doing that, you are showing that you are human;

4) Make sure that it is the candidate who is tweeting. The campaign can have a Twitter account as well – but people are turned off when they realize that the tweeting has been “staffed out;”

5) Put a link to your Twitter site on your campaign website as you would with all of the other social networking tools that you are using.

Don’ts:

1) Don’t Tweet about anything that you wouldn’t want published on the front page of the New York Times. There are a number of news reports of “Tweets gone bad,” please don’t let this happen to you;

2) Don’t lock your tweets. Twitter allows you to lock your tweets so that people have to request to follow you and no one outside your group of followers can see what you are saying. You are not going to bring in new people this way;

3) Don’t tweet just for the sake of tweeting – I stop following people who fill up my Twitter feed with irrelevant and uninteresting things that have no appeal to me;

4) Don’t follow too many people – your feed will get too congested and you might miss something important – you don’t have to read every tweet. Most politicians do not follow anybody, but read their @replies;

5) Don’t fool yourself into thinking Twitter is the next greatest way to raise money. Twitter is a great tool for attracting new supporters and gets your message out virally, but putting links to your contribution page right in a tweet is the fastest way for people to stop following you.

For those of you have been following our input about Twitter, we agree with all but one of those ten points: the Fourth “Do”: “Make sure that it is the candidate who is tweeting.”

As many campaign workers will readily agree, many politicians have some trouble staying on message - especially new politicians. If a campaign follows the Fourth “Do” then there seems to be an increasing chance that the campaign won’t follow the First “Don’t”.

That being said, he has a point. Followers don’t like it when they can tell a Twitter account has been “staffed out.” But there may be a compromise position on this issue: if a campaign manager, consultant, etc. decides the candidate is responsible enough with message to use Twitter themselves (or not responsible enough, for that matter) they can make an individual decision for that specific campaign accordingly. After all, every campaign is unique.

Tomorrow we will analyze another interesting idea that has come up lately: will social networking kill email? And if so, what will be the implications for political campaigns? Come back to find out!

Top 3 Things to Watch for in the Afghanistan Run-Off

Summary: Afghanistan returns to the polls - how will the second round of voting be different?

This morning it was announced that Afghanistan will have a run-off election, following yesterday’s news that a UN-backed election monitor threw out nearly a third of the ballots for President Hamid Karzai.


It is likely to be a fierce battle between Karzai and his run-off opponent, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, over the next two and a half weeks. Here are the top three things to watch for going into Election Day:


1) More Corruption

The fact that Karzai’s overwhelming win - initially - turned out to be fraudulent was no surprise to those of us who watched reports coming out of Afghanistan leading up to the first vote in August. The opium lords of Karzai’s inner-circle - including both his Vice President and his brother - were accused of buying votes prior to the election.

Following the election, several videos (including the one below) of poll workers illegally marking ballots for Karzai surfaced on YouTube.



Luckily, Democracy International - the UN-backed election monitor - was able to thoroughly route out many fraudulent votes from the election. The results of the run-off may very well depend on how involved they are this time around and how much access they will have to the polling stations.


2) An Anti-Karzai Vote?

When we previewed the election back in August, we found that Karzai would probably win regardless of a run-off in part because most non-Karzai voters were unlikely to support a different candidate than their own in a hypothetical run-off. In other words, if you supported one of the dozens of candidates who did not qualify for a run-off, you were not necessarily going to support Dr. Abdullah for the second round of voting.

According to a poll taken in July, over 20% of voters supporting a candidate other than Karzai and Abdullah said they would simply not vote in a run-off election. In order for Abdullah to win - however - he needs to get their support.

After two months of controversy surrounding the August election - and the reports of widespread fraud on behalf of Karzai - perhaps Abdullah is in better position than ever for solidifying a strong anti-Karzai vote from Afghans who were originally non-Karzai/Abdullah supporters. If he can pull off the right campaign strategy to do so in the next two weeks it would go a long way towards winning him the presidency.


3) A Winter Election

The first round of votes happened in August for a reason. During the winter in Afghanistan, movement around the country becomes extremely limited. For the tribal peoples outside of the big cities - namely Kabul - the rapidly approaching winter is more than likely to keep them from going to the polls.

At this point it is unclear exactly who that will help. The amount of fraud by province is not yet accessible and so it is not certain exactly how much Abdullah can depend on Kabul.

According to preliminary results (prior to the fraud reports) Karzai beat Abdullah in Kabul by a 55% - 24.6% margin. Not only does that compare to the preliminary results nationally (about 55% - 28%) but it is far more balanced than results in the northern and southern provinces.

In some of the northern provinces, Abdullah won with as much as 55% of the vote while in some of the southern provinces, Karzai won with as much as 91% of the vote. Many of those provinces are expected to see a sharp decline in turnout for the November 7th run-off.


The results of this run-off election will largely depend on what kind of turnout there is in Kabul compared to turnout in the rural provinces, how much anti-Karzai support Abdullah can drum up, and the extent to how fraud will play a part yet again. We’ll have to wait and see how these things affect the outcome in just a few weeks.

Editorial: Have We All Flip-Flopped on the Healthcare Debate?

Last week, I wrote the following op-ed piece for my newspaper:

In one of last year's presidential debates, then-Senator Barack Obama was asked if health care was a privilege, a right, or a responsibility. He promptly answered "a right." As a liberal, I was glad to see him take that position. My conservative father sitting next to me was disgusted.

One year later, the nation is in the midst of a contentious health-care debate. It hasn't just been an intellectual discussion on how to manage the country's health-care resources, but rather the typical back-and-forth of political rhetoric. I should know, I frequently work on the sort of message development that we've seen in the current health-care debate. Yet, once we scratch the surface of this debate, it appears that both liberals and conservatives have flip-flopped in their principles.

There's no better place to start than with the classic Republican message: "A Washington bureaucrat should not get between you and your doctor." That message implies two things.

First, it suggests that patients would not have a choice of their doctors if a public option were introduced. That's nonsense. I have never heard of a health-care system in which public bureaucrats decide which doctors you can see - including the single-payer system in Canada and the National Health Service - true socialized medicine - in the United Kingdom.

The other implication of the message - which I intend to focus on - is that a bureaucrat can deny a certain health-care procedure or medicine that you and your doctor have decided is right for you. This is especially important because "deny" and "denial" are huge buzzwords in the GOP's rhetoric. The reason is simple enough: Those words scare people.

The idea that you can be denied certain procedures now has the right screaming "rationing!" The left has quickly argued back, saying, "health insurance companies already ration care" so why would a public option be any different?

In fact, rationing only makes economic sense. All resources are limited - including those in health care - and whether you have private or public insurance, it simply cannot cover everything. This may be a hyperbolic example, but even if you're terminally ill, you cannot expect America to spend its entire GDP in order to save your life.

But wait - then aren't we liberals justifying the actions of the dreaded health insurance industry? Are we actually saying we will model a public option the same way? Aren't we putting a price on human life? The answer appears to be "yes." Meanwhile, conservatives - who evidently oppose rationing in general - appear to be arguing that, regardless of costs, health care is a right! Both sides have swapped principles.

All this being said, I believe it is possible for progressive principles to be reconciled with pragmatism. Principles are impossible to implement without pragmatism, but they are still critical when it comes to improving public policy.

In order to achieve health-care reform, we Democrats need to get our principles back on track by reaffirming our basic beliefs and then by adding conditional reasoning.

The principle can be, "You have a right to coverage for basic health services" including doctor visits, pharmaceuticals and certain procedures. The cost-benefit analysis used in all economic decision-making will still be done by patients, doctors and bureaucrats - now both private and public.

How can Republicans reconcile with pragmatism and get their principles back on track? That I don't know - you'll have to ask my father.

Top Stories 10/19/09

Politico reports on the White House's efforts to divide and neutralize the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The Huffington Post reports that Sarah Palin has created a LinkedIn page and lists "job inquiries" among her interests.

Nate Silver runs a model to find that Maine will more likely vote down a gay marriage ban than pass one.

E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post writes on the growing concern about young voters staying home in 2010.

And here are the best late night political jokes from the weekend:

The Top 3 Blogs for Gay Rights Advocacy

Summary: As the gay rights movement builds momentum, we ask "how are LGBT activists using New Media to advance their cause?"

As many of you are probably well aware, a swarm of LGBT rights advocates marched through Washington DC on Sunday in protest of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and in support of gay marriage.

When asked about the White House’s views towards the demonstrations, NBC Washington correspondent John Harwood said they view it as “the internet left fringe…[and that] those bloggers need to take off the pajamas and realize governing a closely divided country is complicated.”

Watch it here:



In fact, the blogosphere has been a widely used tool by the LGBT-supportive community - and they appear to be using that tool effectively. So we thought we would point out what we believe are the “Top 3 Blogs for Gay Rights Advocacy” - which we chose based on three determinants: 1) Building Sympathy for the Cause, 2) Supplying Ample Information on the Progress of Gay Rights, and 3) Organizing Support for LGBT Advocacy.


Asterisk

Written by a self-described gay Christian, he explains his blog as such:

"All my life, I’d placed an Asterisk next to my name. Nobody else saw my Asterisk, but I did. It was a constant reminder that both of the most important parts of me were mutually exclusive. That my difference made me a bad person…

…Nowadays, I don’t worry about my Asterisk. As far as I’m concerned it’s gone…

…And that’s what this blog is about; exposing the Asterisk, and with that exposure, removing it."

We chose this blog because of how it effectively and appropriately builds sympathy for the LGBT community - the blog is filled with heart-wrenching stories about discrimination against LGBT individuals. For example, his most popular post at the moment is about a lesbian who was denied her right to see her partner as she was dying in a southern hospital.

From the post:

We arrived shortly after 3:30 in the afternoon, around 4pm, a social worker came out and introduced himself as Garnett Frederick and said, “you are in an anti-gay city and state. And without a health care proxy you will not see Lisa nor know of her condition”. He then turned to leave; I stopped him and asked for his fax number because I said “we had legal Durable Powers of Attorney” and would get him the documents. Within a short time of meeting this social worker, I contacted friends in Lacey, WA, our hometown, who went to our house and faxed the legal documents required for me to make medical decisions for Lisa…

…A Hospital Chaplain appeared and asked if I wanted to pray and I looked at her dumbfounded as if I hadn’t already been doing that for over four hours. I immediately asked for a Catholic Priest to perform Lisa’s Last rites. A short time later, a Catholic priest escorted me back to recite the Last Rites and it was my first time in nearly 5hrs of seeing Lisa. After seeing her I knew the children needed to see her immediately and be able to say their goodbyes and begin the grieving process. Yet the priest escorted me back out to the waiting room. Where I was faced with the young faces of our beautiful children to explain “other mommy” was going to heaven.

You can access “Asterisk” at blog.mattalgren.com


Gay Rights Watch

You can consider this the Huffington Post of the gay rights movement. It is complete with opinions, news, commentary, and even the more light-hearted issues of LGBT advocacy. Based out of Portland, it is one of the most well-maintained blogs we’ve seen in a while

From the “About Us” page:

"Since March 2005 we’ve been bringing news regarding the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. At times we’ve been known as being a bit controversial and sometimes it even gets us in hot water namely with anti-gay lobbyists and legislators, but mainly we’re known as a great source of news for the GLBT community."

We chose this website because of the massive extent of information it provides on the progress of gay rights.


To try to give you a taste would be futile, you’ll just have to check it out for yourself.

You can visit Gay Rights Watch at blog.gayrightswatch.com.


The Bilerico Project

Like Gay Rights Watch, The Bilerico Project provides well-rounded news, analysis, and light-hearted coverage of the gay rights movement. The only difference is that this website is more politically active.

From the “About Us” page:

"The Bilerico Project is the web's largest LGBTQ group blog with over 75 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and genderqueer contributors. The Project features LGBTQ activists, politicos, journalists, novelists, advice columnists, and video bloggers who are high-energy, inquisitive, eloquent experts in their professions.

Some are among the top LGBTQ pundits and leaders in the country; others have made their mark in their state or local communities. Each brings a unique perspective and background to their work, offering analysis and opinion on almost every aspect of LGBTQ politics and culture. They spark creative and productive conversations among our growing readership. Our goal is to foster those conversations in order to strengthen us as individuals and as a community.

At Bilerico Project, we don't break the news. We shape the news."

We chose this blog because it does a great job at advancing the gay rights movement via organizing support for LGBT advocacy. For example, they have an Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) Targeted Legislator of the Day, who they put pressure on to support the yet-to-be-passed bill.

And one recent post looked like a fundraising email:

Once again, a generous donor and Bilerico reader has offered to match donations to our ActBlue Maine Page up to $1000 to help protect marriage equality for all families! The deadline is in six hours!

We need your help, though! Our donor will only match if at least 12 people contribute. After all the excitement of the National Equality March, let's come out in strong support of Maine and help us meet our goal!

Donate to No On 1/Maine marriage equality via Bilerico's ActBlue page and your donation will be doubled! You have to act fast though - state law cuts off contributions for this reporting period at 11:59pm tonight! Donate now to get twice the benefit!!

If 1/4 of our RSS subscribers alone gave $5, we'd be able to give Maine an extra $6000 at the last moment when they need it most. If you can't do much, can you give $5?

To access The Bilerico Project, visit www.bilerico.com.


Other good pro-gay rights blogs include Queers United, The Mad Professah Lectures, and From the Left.

To try to undermine the impact these blogs have on public opinion - and even the future of public policy - would be unwise. Just as the online network of Tea Party activists and other conservatives seems to have shifted public opinion on economic concerns lately, the online network of gay or pro-gay bloggers appears to be affecting the social debate.

Support for gay rights - including gay marriage - is at an all time high. If these bloggers can upkeep its relevancy and continue building sympathy for the cause, providing extensive coverage of gay rights progress, and organize activism, the goals of the gay rights movement are sure to be met in time.

Will Young Voters Continue to Help Democrats?

Summary: The progressive Millennial generation appears to be less engaged since 2008 - is there any way for the Democrats to turn that around?

Politico today has a potentially troubling article for Democrats looking forward to next year’s midterm elections.

From the article:

In New Jersey, about 377,000 of the 560,000 young voters who showed up at the polls supported Obama. In Virginia, about 373,000 out of 621,000 young voters backed Obama.

But some young Democrats say that energy surge has begun to dissipate and student political involvement for the 2009 races has returned to normal — before the Obama phenomenon seemed to transfix young voters.

At the University of Virginia last October, political signs plastered dorm room walls, and campaign volunteers saturated the campus.

Now, volunteers canvassing first-year dorms report that many students have no idea who [Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh] Deeds is.

The article points out, however, that this is not exactly a phenomenon.

Historically, gubernatorial races suffer from low voter turnout across all age groups. Experts already expect less than half of last year’s electorate will cast a vote in either state. And young voters are often one of the first age groups politicians lose in an off-year election, making it vital for Democrats to round up a solid showing, according to Peter Levine, director of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement…

…New voters haven’t entirely dropped from the political process. A number of college Democrats say their membership numbers are steadily climbing and that more students are likely to become interested in the races during the final weeks. Those who are tuned in to the campaigns say they’ve been impressed by the extensive outreach both campaigns are making on social media forums including Facebook and Twitter, and by the campaigns’ grass-roots efforts on campuses…

…The [Deeds] campaign is also relying for additional outreach on a television ad aimed at college students.

In the ad Priority, Deeds tries to relate to the financial struggles of college students.
“Growing up, we didn’t have much. But education was always a priority,” Deeds says in the ad. “My mom sent me off to college with just four twenty-dollar bills, so I know good schools are the best investment we can make in our children’s future.”

In New Jersey, Corzine recently tailgated with hundreds of Rutgers University alumni and students before the school’s homecoming game. Despite last-minute advertising, only 30 of the campus Democrats’ nearly 300 members showed up, according to Rutgers University Democrats President Alex Holodak.

“To be honest, it’s been a rough year. Even though the race is getting more interesting minute by minute, it’s more difficult to get people engaged this year,” said Holodak. “I feel like the overall morale of people is like, ‘We already elected the president,’ and that’s it.”

We’ve mentioned before how young voters are dramatically shifting overall public opinion, but without a strong effort to turnout the youth vote, they probably won’t help shift public policy.

One reason that young voters are less likely to be engaged during midterm elections - which the article only briefly mentions - is that college students often do not attend a school in their home state. As a result, they feel less invested in the outcome of a statewide election than they do in a national one.

In a presidential race, most everyone on campus knows the outcome of the election could likely affect them personally. Even foreign exchange students understand it is important who the president of the United State is. That cannot really be said of a gubernatorial race.

The Deeds and Corzine campaigns are right to invest in targeting young voters through new media and grassroots outreach. As Lauren Gilbert - President of the James Madison University Young Democrats - said, “there’s still a lot of potential here.”

Depending on the outcomes of those efforts, they could serve as an important lesson for Democrats in 2010.

Historical Revisionism and the GOP

Summary: Has the GOP revised history on their new website for their own political gain with minorities and women? Did they go too far or are we going to see a new GOP?

The Republican National Committee launched their new website last night - www.GOP.com. Politico today reports that the launching was riddled with problems, in part due to unexpected traffic.


But beyond the flashy new tools available to Republican activists - including a variety of New-Media devices - there was one curious page on the new website titled “Republican Accomplishments.”

The page lists 37 accomplishments by the GOP since 1860. Of these, an incredible 23 have to due with the rights and acceptance of women and minorities in the political realm.


Among their claims to fame:

• The first Hispanic Governor was a Republican
• Republicans Freed the Slaves
• The First African-American Senator was a Republican
• Republicans Outlawed the Ku Klux Klan
• A Republican Wrote the 19th Amendment
• First Women Mayors in the United States
• A Republican President Appointed the First Jewish Cabinet Secretary
• Republicans Passed the Indian Citizenship Act
• The First Asian-American Senator was a Republican
• A Republican Wrote the Brown v. Board of Education Decision

In fact, following the Brown decision, President Eisenhower (a Republican) was to have said that his nomination of Chief Justice Earl Warren was the greatest mistake of his presidency. That fact - for obvious reasons - was ignored.

And the “accomplishments” in the Civil Rights Era seem to get even more convoluted. Okay, it might not be outright Revisionism (a term often used to explain Holocaust denial) but the claims are certainly misleading.

For example, they brag about Republican involvement in the 1957 Civil Rights Act as such:

“During the five terms of the FDR and Truman presidencies, the Democrats did not propose any civil rights legislation. President Eisenhower, in contrast, asked his Attorney General to write the first federal civil rights legislation since the Republican Party’s 1875 Civil Rights Act.

Many Democrats in the Senate filibustered the bill, but strong Republican support ensured passage. The new law established a Civil Rights Division within the Justice Department and authorized the Attorney General to request injunctions against any attempt to deny someone’s right to vote. The GOP improved upon this landmark legislation with the 1960 Civil Rights Act.”

Of course, many of the Democrats who opposed the legislation were southerners (or “Dixiecrats”) who were often at odds with their fellow party members in the north and would later leave the Democratic Party for the GOP. The most notable example is Sen. Strom Thurmond, who spoke an astounding 24 hours alone in an effort to filibuster the 1957 bill and became a Republican in 1964.

This picking-and-choosing of facts is not exactly atypical of politics, but the extent to which it is used here seems almost unprecedented.

But the way the GOP is trying to focus on their accomplishments of integration and acceptance of women and minorities is not without reason. This is part of the vision of RNC Chairman Michael Steele (a minority himself) for a “new GOP.”

Ultimately, however, the Republican Party cannot hope for more women and minority support by touting their historical achievements, they must make some today. After all, parties do not get elected, individual candidates do. And can Chris Christie or Bob McDonnell really take credit for freeing the slaves?

Meanwhile, the Republican caucuses in Congress opposed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - which would help limit gender discrimination in pay - and almost opposed the extension of the Voting Rights Act just a few years ago.

Despite what they think a new website will do to bring in support from the demographics they are not strong with, actions still speak louder than words.

Top Stories: 10/14/09

Politico takes a look into the 5-member "President's Club" and its activities.

One Florida political blog says that the recent resignation of Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) could start a "Democratic free-for-all" in his district.

The Huffington Post picks up a story (video included) on how even Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is not safe from Tea Party protesting at town hall meetings.

Maureen Dowd contemplates a Cheney consulting firm in her New York Times Column.

Nate Silver discusses what he calls the "price of party unity" in an interesting post.

And these were last night's political jokes:

Do You Need to be Thin to be a Politician?

Summary: Tensions are high in the New Jersey gubernatorial race as Corzine hints that Christie is too fat!

The gubernatorial race in New Jersey has been about as dirty as we expected it to be, but it appears to be hitting a new low.

Governor Jon Corzine (D-NJ) recently released this seemingly harmless attack ad (as far as attack ads go) about his Republican opponent, former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie:



But then a post on RealClearPolitics.com reviewed the ad and said that by using the line “threw his weight around” Corzine was pulling the “weight card” on Christie, who is notably overweight.

Even if it was intentional, meant to invoke a subconscious response from the voters, it would be impossible to prove. But then Corzine was asked about the ad.

From an interview with the Press of Atlantic City:

"People who flash their credentials or use their offices to accomplish something, people say 'people threw their weight around,'" Corzine said.

Asked directly if he thought Christie was fat, Corzine touched his bare head, smiled and said, "Am I bald?"

There is a lot to say about this new development - particularly what it says about our culture and (more importantly for this blog) America’s voting habits. Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com - however - stole our thunder.

From his recent post:

This, insofar is it goes, is true: Chris Christie is a large man. And one thing that's certainly true of Americans is that they don't elect very many fat governors. Running through pictures of the 50 sitting governors, I come up with only about 10 (20%) who are distinctly overweight, and only 3 (6%) -- Haley Barbour, Bill Richardson, and Sonny Perdue -- who are clearly obese. This compares with percentages on the order of 65 percent and 30 percent for the U.S. adult population. The skinny on the numbers after the jump.

At this point, Silver lists each governor in the country and humorously comments on their physical stature.

He continues…

Now, some of the cases are debatable -- my classifications are probably a bit conservative given that overweight is the new normal in America. Perhaps someone like Brad Henry or Oklahoma or Tim Kaine of Virgina would meet the clinical definition of overweight, along with a few others. Still, it's clear that overweight governors are considerably underrepresented as a percentage of the U.S. population. As an electoral handicap, it probably doesn't rival being atheist or (avowedly!) gay, but I'd probably bet on the skinny woman before the fat man, all else being equal.

It would take a lot of work to figure this out, but I'd guess that this is a relatively recent phenomenon. We've elected quite a few fat Presidents ... William Howard Taft, Grover Cleveland, Teddy Roosevelt -- and Bill Clinton really, though he wore it well. And those men (with the partial exception of Clinton) were elected at a time where being obese was far less typical than it is today.

Certainly, you can see where the Corzine campaign is hoping to go with this one. Let your mind run wild with the not-so-subtle implications: Christie is a fat slob who is underprepared for the pressures of office, a fat cat who will sell out to the special interests, etc. Undoubtedly, their crack research staff uncovered some evidence that Christie's weight is a vulnerability, or at least could be associated with other negatives about him.

But it's one thing for your opponent's weight to be a vulnerability, and another thing to point that out to the voters without looking like an a-hole.

There have been many, many campaigns waged over the years that deftly (or not-so-deftly) implied that the opponent was a closet homosexual, Muslim, communist, or atheist. But being fat isn't like those other things: it's something that everyone can see for themselves. There is no plus-sized closet for fat people, so to speak. And our nation's relationship with obesity and obese people is complicated. Although fat people are perhaps by default objects of disdain, it doesn't take very much to turn them into everyman-ish Bubbas -- objects of sympathy.

Corzine remains in a much better position than he was a month ago. But if this is his campaign's idea of an endgame, he's liable to send Christie's big, fat ass to Trenton.

Well said.

The only thing Silver seemed to miss was along the lines of one point he made: our politicians are mostly skinnier than they used to be.

One likely correlation is this: as food has become easier to produce over the past 100 years, overeating (and eating the wrong things) has become more common for the average American than it has for the rich American. In fact, wealthier Americans are more likely to be thin today because they can afford healthier meals, to get exercise equipment, and go the gym.

Malnutrition is just as serious for working-class Americans as it has ever been - the only difference is that malnutrition is no longer synonymous with hunger for them.

What this suggests is not that it’s necessarily easier for a skinny person to be elected because of their low weight (although it may), it could simply be that the skinny person is more likely to be elected because they can afford to self-fund their campaigns (like Corzine) or at least significantly help their campaign with their own resources.

It would be interesting for political scientists to study exactly what the effect of weight is on a candidate’s chances.

What Will Be the Political Impact of Obama’s Nobel?

Summary: Obama's Nobel - will it hurt or help Democrats in the long term?

As you all know by now, President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday. Since then, there has been a conservative firestorm of criticism for awarding it to the man within the first year of his presidency and with no especially major accomplishments.


On his Sunday talk show, former Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee told his audience “I think we ought to universally celebrate the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize for potential deeds, because this gives me hope. Since I’m a musician, I’d like to go ahead and get my Grammy now.” (See the video in this morning’s top stories).

Meanwhile, Liz Cheney - the former Vice President’s daughter - called the Obama win “a farce” in her Fox News debut yesterday.

Even M.I.A. - the musician who produced the catchy song from the Slum Dog Millionaire trailer - said Obama should have turned down his Nobel, tweeting “Obama winning the nobel peace PRIZE? he should give it back like john Lennon sent back his MBE.”

The Nobel victory seems to have caused the president more embarrassment than praise here at home. But there are several reasons why neither Obama nor the Democrats have any reason to worry about the award.

1) Few will actually blame Obama. Everyone who believes he didn’t deserve it (including the president, himself, according to his speech on Friday) will blame the Nobel committee. Furthermore, it’s difficult to expect him to actually turn down the award, as it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to say you’ve won the world’s most prestigious award.

2) No one will care come election time. In 2012, who is honestly going to criticize the Nobel win let alone remember it? The issues of the day change quickly, and while this is what everyone is talking about right now, it’s not going to be what we’re talking about three years from now. In fact, hardly anyone will be talking about it three weeks from now.

3) It will not disrupt what Obama is trying to accomplish. The legislative priorities the president is taking will not be hindered because no one will associate a Nobel Peace Prize with, say, healthcare reform. Furthermore, no Congressional Democrats will feel at risk because of Obama’s Nobel - voters simply aren’t going to tie them to the president’s victory. The only area in which the Nobel could get in the way - or, conversely, assist the president - is foreign policy, and even that seems a little unlikely in the long run.

So congratulations to President Obama for his surprise victory. Perhaps he didn’t fully deserve it (although progressives like myself have valid reasons to believe he did, to an extent) but at least the criticisms will die down relatively soon and the embarrassment will be minimal.

Top Stories: 10/12/09

The Wall Street Journal reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will be the "key" to the GOP's 2010 strategy.

Politico, meanwhile, reports that the Tea Party activists may not be so helpful for the Republican Party.

A blogger for the Washington Post comments on Rush Limbaugh's bid for the St. Louis Rams.

Nate Silver explains the reasons behind the health insurance industry's efforts to block healthcare reform.

The Huffington Post is currently holding a vote on the biggest political "game-changers" that have come from the online revolution.

And here are this weekends late night political jokes: