This seems to be dominating today's news cycle. The President pretty much told GM and Chrysler they must figure out a business plan soon or risk falling into the bankruptcy abyss. GM has 60 days to reconfigure itself, while Chrysler has 30 days to merge with Fiat. When these loans were handed out at the end of last year I was curious to know when it would end. Now I know.
Here is the view from the Times, the Wall Street Journal, and for fun, the Detroit News.
This is a risk to Obama's political capital and mandate. He has the support of big labor and for GM and Chrysler to reogranize themselves, labor will need to make significant concessions. Something has to give though.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Obama's Mandate
In November President Obama won an electoral mandate. If we are to compare his election the previous 4 presidential elections, where the winning candidate either did not receive a majority of the popular votes or squeaked by with a razor thin majority in the electoral college. Also President Obama has significant majorities in Congress and approval ratings that are nearly Kennedyesqe. Therefore, less than 75 days into his Presidency, he maintains his mandate. Evidence of how much he has maintained could be interpreted through the upcoming (tomorrow I believe) special election in New York's 20th Congressional District. But first, let's begin with the past.
Based on recent history (the previous 4 elections), Obama was the first to receive an overwhelming majority in both the electoral college and with the popular vote. In 1992 and 1996, President Clinton won significant electoral college victories, but he did not win more than 49% of the popular vote in either election. In fact in 1992 nearly 57% of the country voted for someone other than Bill Clinton, yet he won 370 electoral votes. In each election, 3rd party candidate Ross Perot accounted for a high percentage of votes. Many believe his candidacy was responsible for siphoning off likely Republican voters. In both cases, Clinton likely would have been elected, but he may not have received the electoral college mandate that he won.
In 2000 George W. Bush was elected President by the slimmest of margins in the electoral college, while losing the popular vote. Hardly a mandate. In 2004, he was elected by a wider margin popularly and in the electoral college than in 2000, but if 120,000 or so voters in Ohio had voted for Senator John Kerry, Bush would have lost and we would be discussing how shocking it would have been for someone to win the electoral college despite losing the popular vote by 2-3%. As a result of these thin elections, President Bush rarely (at least around election time) governed from a strong, popular position. His Presidency was rocky at the beginning because of the contested election in 2000, while in 2004 he was saddled with an unpopular war. Shortly after being reelected, he wasted his political capital on privatizing social security (can you imagine if that had been passed?) and the questionable response to Hurricane Katrina. Had he had a mandate, perhaps he could have at least made significant progress on social security and/or immigration reform and navigated his way through the Katrina mess.
Granted his mandate is not Reaganesqe or similar to Lyndon Johnson's in 1964. But the parties were much more diverse and less polarizing in 1964 and 1980. Cross party voting was much more common. We learned about this prior to the midterm. A Southern Democrat was likely more conservative than a New England Republican. So when Southern Democrats became Reagan Republicans in the 1980s it demonstrated sweeping change and a large mandate. Today the parties are too polarized and too strong for anyone to receive nearly 500 electoral votes. So as a result, Obama's 365 electoral votes represent a significant electoral mandate.
Enough dwelling on the past. President Obama was elected by carrying states such as Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina--3 solidly Republican states. He nearly won Missouri and was competitive in Montana, while swiping an electoral vote from McCain in Nebraska. In addition Democrats made strong gains in Congressional and Senate races. As a result of the 2006 elections, Democrats gained 32 House seats and 6 Senate seats. In 2008, with Obama at the top of the ticket, they gained another 20 seats in the House, while picking up 7 (or 8) Senate seats. This was despite John McCain's 1-party rule rhetoric during the closing weeks of the campaign.
The first real test for his mandate will be in New York's 20th Congressional District. Democratic candidate Scott Murphy has been using the President in his advertising. This seat is traditionally a Republican seat. It was originally picked up by Kristin Gillibrand in 2006 (she was named to the Senate to replace Hillary Clinton earlier this year). Current polling is tight. If Democrats can manage to hang on to the seat, it could be a demonstration of Obama's continuing popularity and thus, mandate. If Murphy loses, it could be an indication of a dwindling mandate and popularity.
However, current public polling demonstrates that the President maintains his popularity and likely his mandate. According to Survey USA, the President's approval ratings are relatively steady in 14 different states. The last time this poll was conducted was 10 days after the inauguration. Other polling has his overall approval rating hovering around 60%.
One final factor that may contribute to his mandate is the state of the country. Given the current economic crisis and the two hot wars to contend with, the President is has been given a mandate by the American people (although you wouldn't know it, he is getting attacked by the likes of 60s radical Tom Hayden for being too hawkish and Karl Rove for being a tax-and-spend liberal). The nation wants him to succeed because if he does, that means the current economic recession will at least slow and we may even begin to recover. As a result, he won and maintains a significant electoral mandate.
Based on recent history (the previous 4 elections), Obama was the first to receive an overwhelming majority in both the electoral college and with the popular vote. In 1992 and 1996, President Clinton won significant electoral college victories, but he did not win more than 49% of the popular vote in either election. In fact in 1992 nearly 57% of the country voted for someone other than Bill Clinton, yet he won 370 electoral votes. In each election, 3rd party candidate Ross Perot accounted for a high percentage of votes. Many believe his candidacy was responsible for siphoning off likely Republican voters. In both cases, Clinton likely would have been elected, but he may not have received the electoral college mandate that he won.
In 2000 George W. Bush was elected President by the slimmest of margins in the electoral college, while losing the popular vote. Hardly a mandate. In 2004, he was elected by a wider margin popularly and in the electoral college than in 2000, but if 120,000 or so voters in Ohio had voted for Senator John Kerry, Bush would have lost and we would be discussing how shocking it would have been for someone to win the electoral college despite losing the popular vote by 2-3%. As a result of these thin elections, President Bush rarely (at least around election time) governed from a strong, popular position. His Presidency was rocky at the beginning because of the contested election in 2000, while in 2004 he was saddled with an unpopular war. Shortly after being reelected, he wasted his political capital on privatizing social security (can you imagine if that had been passed?) and the questionable response to Hurricane Katrina. Had he had a mandate, perhaps he could have at least made significant progress on social security and/or immigration reform and navigated his way through the Katrina mess.
Granted his mandate is not Reaganesqe or similar to Lyndon Johnson's in 1964. But the parties were much more diverse and less polarizing in 1964 and 1980. Cross party voting was much more common. We learned about this prior to the midterm. A Southern Democrat was likely more conservative than a New England Republican. So when Southern Democrats became Reagan Republicans in the 1980s it demonstrated sweeping change and a large mandate. Today the parties are too polarized and too strong for anyone to receive nearly 500 electoral votes. So as a result, Obama's 365 electoral votes represent a significant electoral mandate.
Enough dwelling on the past. President Obama was elected by carrying states such as Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina--3 solidly Republican states. He nearly won Missouri and was competitive in Montana, while swiping an electoral vote from McCain in Nebraska. In addition Democrats made strong gains in Congressional and Senate races. As a result of the 2006 elections, Democrats gained 32 House seats and 6 Senate seats. In 2008, with Obama at the top of the ticket, they gained another 20 seats in the House, while picking up 7 (or 8) Senate seats. This was despite John McCain's 1-party rule rhetoric during the closing weeks of the campaign.
The first real test for his mandate will be in New York's 20th Congressional District. Democratic candidate Scott Murphy has been using the President in his advertising. This seat is traditionally a Republican seat. It was originally picked up by Kristin Gillibrand in 2006 (she was named to the Senate to replace Hillary Clinton earlier this year). Current polling is tight. If Democrats can manage to hang on to the seat, it could be a demonstration of Obama's continuing popularity and thus, mandate. If Murphy loses, it could be an indication of a dwindling mandate and popularity.
However, current public polling demonstrates that the President maintains his popularity and likely his mandate. According to Survey USA, the President's approval ratings are relatively steady in 14 different states. The last time this poll was conducted was 10 days after the inauguration. Other polling has his overall approval rating hovering around 60%.
One final factor that may contribute to his mandate is the state of the country. Given the current economic crisis and the two hot wars to contend with, the President is has been given a mandate by the American people (although you wouldn't know it, he is getting attacked by the likes of 60s radical Tom Hayden for being too hawkish and Karl Rove for being a tax-and-spend liberal). The nation wants him to succeed because if he does, that means the current economic recession will at least slow and we may even begin to recover. As a result, he won and maintains a significant electoral mandate.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Obama Calls for Overhaul of Education System
As an education guy, I thought I would throw this post up for you to read this week. President Obama is challenging a core constituency with his proposals for education reform. He is calling for merit-based pay, which teacher unions oppose for obvious reasons.
This is a similar article posted on the Times web-site. Also I thought I would include this link if anyone wants to read this article from the Wall Street Journal's perspective.
It is interesting to see the President run to the right on this issue. Merit-pay and charter schools are really unpopular in the education world and he shows some gumption by supporting them.
This is a similar article posted on the Times web-site. Also I thought I would include this link if anyone wants to read this article from the Wall Street Journal's perspective.
It is interesting to see the President run to the right on this issue. Merit-pay and charter schools are really unpopular in the education world and he shows some gumption by supporting them.
2004 vs 2008
After viewing the exit polls from the 2004 and 2008 Presidential elections, President Obama made had the support of women at a rate that is about right for a Democrat. Also striking were the gains he made among men. But what I think made the ultimate difference for Obama were his incredible gains among minorities.
Before we look at the popping numbers among minorities, let's look at some of the modest, yet significant, gains Obama made among men and women. In 2004 John Kerry won 51% of the women's vote. This number was quite low for a Democrat in recent elections (Bush made a 5 point jump from 2000). So in 2008, it should not be surprising that Obama won 56% of the women's vote. What is somewhat shocking is the fact that he won 49% (a plurality) of the men's vote. According to Heatherington and Keefe the percentage of men who identified themselves as Democrats has steadily been falling. In 1976, just over 50% of men considered themselves Dems, while by 2004 that number had fallen to nearly 45% (193). Despite the fact that just under 45% of men (also on H & K, 193) called themselves Republicans, Bush received 53% and 55% of their votes in 2000 and 2004 (two very close elections).
Despite these significant differences, what really put Obama over the edge in 2008 (and left Kerry hanging in 2004) were the gains Obama made with minorities. In 2004 Bush received 62% of the vote among white men and 55% among white women. Kerry received 37% and 44% respectively. Obama's numbers were slightly higher than Kerry's (41% and 46%). The difference was among African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, and the ridiculous "Other" category. Together they made up 23% of voters in 2004 and 26% of voters in 2008.
Here is where Obama made gains:
In 2004 Kerry received 88% of the African-American vote. His 2008 counterpart increased that number to 95%, a 7% leap. Among Hispanic-Americans, Kerry received only 53% of the vote, while Obama raked in 67% of the vote, a 14% jump! Asian-Americans, who admittedly made up a very small slice of the electorate in both 2004 and 2008, supported Kerry 56%-44%, while they supported Obama 62%-35% for an 8% increase. Finally "Others," who also are a small fraction of the electorate pulled the lever for Kerry at 54% clip in 2004. That number increased to 66% for Obama in 2008.
Another interesting comparison (and unrelated to my thesis) are the changes among age groups. Obama improved on nearly every age category. 18-29 year olds favor Kerry by 9%, but voted for Obama at a roughly 2-1 rate. 30-44 year olds supported Bush by 7%, but this time Obama won their support. The 44 and older age groups were much closer to 50% in both elections, but Obama improved upon their support (it is hard to compare because the categories are different) except those over 65, where it is clear, he actually dropped 2%.
Obviously the reasons for the shift from a Republican to a Democrat are complicated. The political environment was certainly much friendlier for the Democrats. Obama was a stronger and clearer candidate than Kerry. McCain was a less-disciplined and weaker campaigner than Bush. Just to name a few.
The two elections are fascinating to compare side-by-side (particularly through the gender and racial prisms) because we get to see just how much the country changed its mind between 2004 and 2008. But the results also create several questions: Was the 2008 election simply an anomaly? Or is it the sign of a fundamental shift in our nation's course? Are men going to gravitate back to the Democratic Party, while women continue their push to the left? Are minorities going to continue to make up more and more of the electorate? If so, are they going to vote for Democrats in numbers like 2008, or did they just come out and vote for Obama because he was an electrifying candidate?
Before we look at the popping numbers among minorities, let's look at some of the modest, yet significant, gains Obama made among men and women. In 2004 John Kerry won 51% of the women's vote. This number was quite low for a Democrat in recent elections (Bush made a 5 point jump from 2000). So in 2008, it should not be surprising that Obama won 56% of the women's vote. What is somewhat shocking is the fact that he won 49% (a plurality) of the men's vote. According to Heatherington and Keefe the percentage of men who identified themselves as Democrats has steadily been falling. In 1976, just over 50% of men considered themselves Dems, while by 2004 that number had fallen to nearly 45% (193). Despite the fact that just under 45% of men (also on H & K, 193) called themselves Republicans, Bush received 53% and 55% of their votes in 2000 and 2004 (two very close elections).
Despite these significant differences, what really put Obama over the edge in 2008 (and left Kerry hanging in 2004) were the gains Obama made with minorities. In 2004 Bush received 62% of the vote among white men and 55% among white women. Kerry received 37% and 44% respectively. Obama's numbers were slightly higher than Kerry's (41% and 46%). The difference was among African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, and the ridiculous "Other" category. Together they made up 23% of voters in 2004 and 26% of voters in 2008.
Here is where Obama made gains:
In 2004 Kerry received 88% of the African-American vote. His 2008 counterpart increased that number to 95%, a 7% leap. Among Hispanic-Americans, Kerry received only 53% of the vote, while Obama raked in 67% of the vote, a 14% jump! Asian-Americans, who admittedly made up a very small slice of the electorate in both 2004 and 2008, supported Kerry 56%-44%, while they supported Obama 62%-35% for an 8% increase. Finally "Others," who also are a small fraction of the electorate pulled the lever for Kerry at 54% clip in 2004. That number increased to 66% for Obama in 2008.
Another interesting comparison (and unrelated to my thesis) are the changes among age groups. Obama improved on nearly every age category. 18-29 year olds favor Kerry by 9%, but voted for Obama at a roughly 2-1 rate. 30-44 year olds supported Bush by 7%, but this time Obama won their support. The 44 and older age groups were much closer to 50% in both elections, but Obama improved upon their support (it is hard to compare because the categories are different) except those over 65, where it is clear, he actually dropped 2%.
Obviously the reasons for the shift from a Republican to a Democrat are complicated. The political environment was certainly much friendlier for the Democrats. Obama was a stronger and clearer candidate than Kerry. McCain was a less-disciplined and weaker campaigner than Bush. Just to name a few.
The two elections are fascinating to compare side-by-side (particularly through the gender and racial prisms) because we get to see just how much the country changed its mind between 2004 and 2008. But the results also create several questions: Was the 2008 election simply an anomaly? Or is it the sign of a fundamental shift in our nation's course? Are men going to gravitate back to the Democratic Party, while women continue their push to the left? Are minorities going to continue to make up more and more of the electorate? If so, are they going to vote for Democrats in numbers like 2008, or did they just come out and vote for Obama because he was an electrifying candidate?
Monday, March 2, 2009
Steele to Rush: I'm sorry
Thought this was kind of interesting. CPAC just wrapped up over the weekend and Rush Limbaugh key-noted the final night. It appears that the White House and other Democrats are attempting to turn Limbaugh into the face of the Republican Party. They have been somewhat successful because now Republicans have to answer questions about him. Some of them, like Michael Steele and Eric Cantor are not exactly embracing him as their leader. Steele went as far as describing him as "an entertainer" and had to apologize. Although not before feeling Limbaugh's wrath.
Minority Parties in Congress
The initial objective of whomever is the minority party in Congress (particularly the House of Representatives) is to get out of the minority. The primary goal of the Republicans right now (just as it was for the Democrats in 2006) is to take back control of at least one chamber, so they are able to at least stunt the other party's agenda, if not advance their own.
To take back the majority, the minority party in Congress--specifically the 214 Republicans who should still show up for work every week--need to play a largely rhetorical role. This was quite vividly demonstrated during the recent stimulus fight. House Republicans had absolutely no chance of stopping the passage of the bill. So throughout the process they found the closest TV camera and basically screamed about the funds in the bill for contraception (which was eventually removed) and other Democratic-type pet-projects. This was to intentionally demonstrate what they viewed as the frivolousness of the bill. Their message was designed to penetrate the districts of some of the more moderate Democrats. This may led to them picking off some votes which would have embarrassed Democratic leadership or if it were later in the legislative cycle, sunk the entire bill altogether.
Vocal minority opposition in the short term can also help them in some long term battles. Let's take the President's upcoming budget plan. Had Republicans balked at questioning the stimulus package, they would have to start out fresh in their fight against the budget. But since they already attacked the stimulus on spending grounds, they can credibly question the Democrats current budget proposal along the same lines. Then when a health care initiative or another massive spending program is introduced later in the year, they will have already begun to paint the President and Democrats in Congress as drunk on spending. This may make some Blue Dog Democrats a little queasy, which would force them "to," as described by Pearson and Schlickter "cast votes that are tough to defend in their districts" (183). As a result they may join the vocal Republican opposition. Then the plan may lose popularity throughout the country and could force Democrats to risk losing the bill on the House floor or scrap the plan altogether before it even makes it to the floor.
Democrats reacted similarly to proposals made by President Bush when they were in minority. One example was their vociferous opposition to Bush's plan to privatize social security just following the 2004 election. In the House, Rep Earl Pomeroy argued that Democrats were "going to stand and fight to kill the privatizing approach." While in the Senate (where the minority at least has some power, as long as it has at least 41 members, like the current Republican caucus), Minority Leader Harry Reid stated the following: ''The Bush plan isn't really Social Security reform...It's more like Social Security roulette. Democrats are all for giving Americans more of a say and more choices when it comes to their retirement savings. But that doesn't mean taking Social Security's guarantee and gambling with it. And that's coming from a senator who represents Las Vegas."
What else can a party that suffers a 75-or-so seat deficit in the House do to stay relevant? I guess they really need to just dig in, get as loud as possible and try to portray the Democrats as out-of-touch, while hoping that their plans fail. If they agree to work with the majority, then they have to try to take credit for it if it works or take some blame if it fails (neither of which is gamble worth taking while in the minority). So it is not surprising to see leaders like Minority WHIP Eric Cantor calling the stimulus package “a spending bill beyond anyone’s imagination,” after it passed.
In the Senate the Republicans can threaten to filibuster, but the way it is currently structured (58-41) they can surrender one member of their caucus during cloture votes and still maintain the filibuster. If they lose the Minnesota seat to Al Franken, the entire caucus must stick with them. So their role may also shift to a largely rhetorical position (particularly with the 3 moderate Republicans from Maine and Pennsylvania). However the good news for minority parties, the next election is always just around the corner and it is another opportunity to turn the minority into a majority.
To take back the majority, the minority party in Congress--specifically the 214 Republicans who should still show up for work every week--need to play a largely rhetorical role. This was quite vividly demonstrated during the recent stimulus fight. House Republicans had absolutely no chance of stopping the passage of the bill. So throughout the process they found the closest TV camera and basically screamed about the funds in the bill for contraception (which was eventually removed) and other Democratic-type pet-projects. This was to intentionally demonstrate what they viewed as the frivolousness of the bill. Their message was designed to penetrate the districts of some of the more moderate Democrats. This may led to them picking off some votes which would have embarrassed Democratic leadership or if it were later in the legislative cycle, sunk the entire bill altogether.
Vocal minority opposition in the short term can also help them in some long term battles. Let's take the President's upcoming budget plan. Had Republicans balked at questioning the stimulus package, they would have to start out fresh in their fight against the budget. But since they already attacked the stimulus on spending grounds, they can credibly question the Democrats current budget proposal along the same lines. Then when a health care initiative or another massive spending program is introduced later in the year, they will have already begun to paint the President and Democrats in Congress as drunk on spending. This may make some Blue Dog Democrats a little queasy, which would force them "to," as described by Pearson and Schlickter "cast votes that are tough to defend in their districts" (183). As a result they may join the vocal Republican opposition. Then the plan may lose popularity throughout the country and could force Democrats to risk losing the bill on the House floor or scrap the plan altogether before it even makes it to the floor.
Democrats reacted similarly to proposals made by President Bush when they were in minority. One example was their vociferous opposition to Bush's plan to privatize social security just following the 2004 election. In the House, Rep Earl Pomeroy argued that Democrats were "going to stand and fight to kill the privatizing approach." While in the Senate (where the minority at least has some power, as long as it has at least 41 members, like the current Republican caucus), Minority Leader Harry Reid stated the following: ''The Bush plan isn't really Social Security reform...It's more like Social Security roulette. Democrats are all for giving Americans more of a say and more choices when it comes to their retirement savings. But that doesn't mean taking Social Security's guarantee and gambling with it. And that's coming from a senator who represents Las Vegas."
What else can a party that suffers a 75-or-so seat deficit in the House do to stay relevant? I guess they really need to just dig in, get as loud as possible and try to portray the Democrats as out-of-touch, while hoping that their plans fail. If they agree to work with the majority, then they have to try to take credit for it if it works or take some blame if it fails (neither of which is gamble worth taking while in the minority). So it is not surprising to see leaders like Minority WHIP Eric Cantor calling the stimulus package “a spending bill beyond anyone’s imagination,” after it passed.
In the Senate the Republicans can threaten to filibuster, but the way it is currently structured (58-41) they can surrender one member of their caucus during cloture votes and still maintain the filibuster. If they lose the Minnesota seat to Al Franken, the entire caucus must stick with them. So their role may also shift to a largely rhetorical position (particularly with the 3 moderate Republicans from Maine and Pennsylvania). However the good news for minority parties, the next election is always just around the corner and it is another opportunity to turn the minority into a majority.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
