Election Insights
Election Insights is a political analysis publication of the Business Industry Political Action Committee (BIPAC).   BIPAC is an independent, bipartisan organization, that is supported by several hundred of the nation’s leading businesses and trade associations.

November 18, 2009
Election Insights
By Bernadette Budde

You won't see this on Oprah or Larry King Live, but while celebrity political voices are getting the headlines, there are more pertinent 2010 developments to incorporate into our assessments of likely outcomes.

Governors

• Colorado:  Without much fanfare, state senate minority leader Josh Penry (R) got in and then out of the nomination battle, claiming he didn't want to split the party or subject himself to attacks that would weaken the eventual nominee against Governor Doug Ritter (D).  Former Representative Scott McGinnis (R), who explored and then opted out of a statewide contest in 2006 when he left the House, is the intended beneficiary of a smaller field.
• Connecticut:  Popular Governor Jodi Rell (R) decided against seeking another term in 2010.  Her stellar ratings across party lines and particular appeal to independent women had Republicans convinced she would lift the rest of the ticket in 2010, making it easier for the Senate nominee to take on Senator Chris Dodd (D).  Now, Republicans start without a known candidate for governor and a growing list in the Senate field.  This is a pickup opportunity for Democrats in the state and the reshuffling of candidates could give Dodd some breathing room, despite his dreadful poll numbers.
• Iowa:  Last week's Des Moines Register poll has former four-term Governor Terry Branstad (R) leading Governor Chet Culver (D) by 20 points.  One of six announced contenders, Branstad hasn't been on the ballot since 1994.  In the early 90's, Branstad faced budget trouble which tanked his ratings too.  Apparently, 'nostalnesia', longing for the good old days but forgetting their downside, has set in with some voters.
• New Mexico:  Former Representative Heather Wilson (R) isn't running for the open seat for governor.  Some of the same factions who kept her from winning the 2008 Republican primary for Senate would have accepted her candidacy for governor. 
• South Carolina:  First Lady Jenny Sanford has endorsed state legislator Nikki Haley for the Republican nomination over three others in the primary for her semi-estranged husband's open seat.  This wasn't the most covered of the Sanford soap opera, but local message boards were  full of opinions, most of them acknowledging the role Mrs. Sanford has always played in Mark Sanford's political success. 
• Wisconsin:  Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett (D) announced for governor this week.  He said his family agreed and the wounds suffered when he was assaulted in August have healed.  He was beaten outside the state fairgrounds when he attempted to stop a domestic dispute.  Later, a number of city residents wore shirts that read 'Our Mayor Is Not A Creampuff' (the delicacy everyone eats at the fair). 

Governor/Senate

• Florida:  Dr. Phil could have his hands full with this family squabble.  The Republican Senate primary is a continuing saga with one clear arc:  Marco Rubio (R) is for real and Governor Charlie Crist (R) is in trouble if the goal was to end 2009 as the inevitable senator.  Straw polls at local party gatherings have Rubio squashing Crist.  Dismissed as nothing but a bunch of people getting together, the caucus ruckus nonetheless has given Rubio a platform, which in turn has earned him great publicity.  Money and an endorsement from Club for Growth boost Rubio as more than an intriguing upstart.  Crist is making communication staff changes while 'retconning' (a soap opera term for altering slightly on replay a scene we've all seen from the past) his now non-embrace of the Obama stimulus package.  Meanwhile, the cracks in the Crist candidacy has encouraged challenges to the other early entrants in Florida's statewide open seats.  State senator Paula Dockery (R) has announced she will challenge attorney general Bill McCollum (R) for the open gubernatorial race. 
• Illinois:  Neither the governor, who is running, nor the senator, who isn't running, were elected to these offices.  Look for prisons and the death penalty to be an issue on both sides in the gubernatorial race.  The November filing deadline brought prominent names from other state offices into these contests, including those who have pursued this combination of offices before.  The primary is February 2nd.  Look for a rundown on the Illinois contests next week.  For now, bear in mind that Republicans and Democrats have intraparty squabbles neither side expected to endure just a couple weeks ago. 
• Texas:  This one is in a class by itself.  Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) is running for governor against Governor Rick Perry (R).  She announced that months ago.  She also announced months ago that she would resign her seat in the Senate sometime before the end of 2009.  Now her statement says she's resigning her seat sometime in 2010, whether she wins the March 2 primary or not.  If you believe the polls, she losing to Perry.  Regardless, she's made herself a lame duck in the Senate, with the likelihood of a special election sometime in spring 2010.  This is one of the 38 Senate seats on the ballot in 2010.  Time for Dr. Phil to sit down with Perry and Hutchison?

Senate

• Massachusetts:  Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorsed Representative Michael Capuano (D-8) for the Democratic nomination in the December 8th special election to replace the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D).  He's been polling weak against frontrunner Martha Coakley (D), the attorney general.
• New Hampshire:  The national party's recruit for the Senate, former attorney general Kelly Ayotte, now has at least three competitors for next September's Republican primary.  Ovide Lamontagne, who lost his bid for governor in 1996, has announced as a conservative alternative, describing himself as 'liberated' from having to run as the establishment's candidate this time.  Senator Judd Gregg (R) isn't running again.  Democrats have settled on Representative Paul Hodes (D-2).
• Utah:  Attorney general Mark Shurtleff made an emotional announcement on local talk radio that he was dropping his bid for the Republican nomination for the Senate due to his daughter's fragile mental health.  Senator Bob Bennett (R) is still expected to face a challenge, starting at the spring local caucuses prior to the June state convention, which is the first step toward the primary.

November 12, 2009
Election Insights
By Bernadette Budde

Democratic Dissent:  Climate Change and Health Care

A total of 60 Democrats, more than a fifth of the party caucus in the House, broke from their colleagues on one or both of these key measures in the 111th Congress.  Democrats delivered 211 votes on climate change for the Waxman-Markey compromise, losing 44 who voted against.  Saturday's health care final passage had 219 of the Democratic caucus in favor, with 39 in opposition.  The following 23 Democrats voted against their leadership on both of these bills:  Representative Jason Altmire (PA-4), John Barrow (GA-12), Dan Boren (OK-2), Bobby Bright (AL-2), Travis Childers (MS-1), Artur Davis (AL-7),  Lincoln Davis (TN-4), Chet Edwards (TX-17), Parker Griffith (AL-5), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-A/L), Tim Holden (PA-17), Larry Kissell (NC-8), Dennis Kucinich (OH-10), Jim Marshall (GA-8), Eric Massa (NY 29), Jim Matheson (UT-2), Mike McIntyre (NC-7), Charlie Melancon (LA-3), Walter Minnick (ID-1), Glenn Nye (VA-2), Mike Ross (AR-4), John Tanner (TN-8), Gene Taylor (MS-4).  Eight of the 23 are from the Class of 2006 or 2008, suggesting the factures within the Democratic ranks predate recent elections. 

Updates from November 3rd Elections

Republicans made gains in the Virginia state assembly, adding at least six to their previous majority.  The party will now have at least 59 seats, up from the 53 they held prior to the election.  The switches came throughout the state, in line with the big victory for incoming Governor Bob McDonnell (R).  The incoming mayor of St. Petersburg, Florida is a Republican.

November 4, 2009
Election Insights
By Bernadette Budde

It was an early night for those who followed the gubernatorial campaigns.  Polls showing a close race in New Jersey were wrong.  Prosecutor Chris Christie (R) had 49%, a comfortable four-point margin ahead of Governor Jon Corzine (D).  In Virginia, the post-Labor Day trendline continued as former Attorney General Bob McDonnell (R) won by 18% over state senator Creigh Deeds (D).

Get out the colors and get back to the self-help books.  New Jersey and Virginia go from blue to red, if you still think in those hues. New York's 23rd goes from red to blue.   At the start of the century, we talked about purple voters, long before the pundits picked up this tone.  So yesterday in the crayon box universe. I'd say we're in for elections where the color scheme is that icky ugly horrible shade of bruises, the kind that turn green and yellow before they go away.  Disgusting imagery!  Well, that's the mood of the voters.  Throw a punch, land where it may.  Survival in this climate requires an adept incumbent with a bob and weave dexterity that the losers couldn't master.  Deeds never got off the mat after the primary, and Corzine couldn't shake off the perception of corruption and ineffectiveness.  Traditional Democrats didn't feel like going to the barricades to defend them, and independents gladly embraced McDonnell and Christie, even if they didn't exactly buy a permanent marker in the shade of Republican.  The miracle in NY-23 is that the voters didn't run the whole lot of them right out of town.

Democrats pushing a public option and bigger deficits and the old liberal playbook should feel discomforted by last night, but Republicans shouldn't get too smug.  In the statewide elections, Obama had no coattails by proxy, but neither did the two gubernatorial victors.  These races were more mano a mano than a team versus team. The Virginia victory was huge in diagramming a gameplan for a majority.  McDonnell proved one could blend his social conservatives into a coalition with those who are not of the same mind and win well over 50%.  Christie didn't get to 50% because of a pesky third party candidate who ended up hurting Corzine more than the Republicans.  But, Democratic loss in Virginia was confined to the gubernatorial race.  Republicans recaptured seats they already held for Lt. Governor and the Attorney General, which was McDonnell's post until he resigned to concentrate on the gubernatorial race.  Virginia Republicans will hold the same majority they did in the state assembly, 53 to 45, with two independents.  Republicans lost a northern suburban Prince William County seat previously held by the ousted state party chair and were behind in a district held by a veteran in Newport News.  In New Jersey, Christie toppled Corzine on a message about taxes, but the state legislature returns with no party change.

For a real smack in the face, Republicans have to rethink everything that pushed the special election in NY-23 into a deep chasm. For the first time in over a hundred years, Democrats win this seat with Bill Owens, an attorney and former military officer who was a registered Independent until he was picked as the nominee in this special election.  Owens had 49%.  If you haven't followed the Republican debacle, it takes too many words to tell the whole story.  Short version:  Saturday, the Republican nominee dropped out and endorsed the Democrat; meanwhile, the party operatives who got her in the race and/or endorsed her switched allegiance to the Conservative nominee Doug Hoffman.  Hoffman was second with 45%.  As a result, Republicans must win a net of 41 House seats to recapture control, and will have 177 seats in this Congress.  New York now has only two Republicans in the House delegation.  Vice President Biden welcomed disaffected Republicans to vote for Owens, then told them this didn't mean they had to become Democrats.  Hard to envision anyone rushing out today to convert to any party, here or elsewhere.

The special election in CA-10 went as expected with Lt. Governor John Garamendi (D) defeating David Harmer (R) by a large margin.  Democrats enjoy a big registration advantage.  Garamendi climbed the biggest hurdle in winning the Democratic nomination over state legislators who had large treasuries, geographic bases, but insufficient public appeal.  The seat was vacated by Ellen Tauscher (D), now an appointee in the State Department.

In mayoral races, it was another example of voters shoving ineffective or indifferent establishment figures out of the way, while knocking down more barriers to entry for candidates.  Just as 2008 was a first, many mayoral winners built majorities based on their platforms that appealed across social, cultural, racial lines.  In Atlanta, a white woman, Mary Norwood leads the field and will be in a runoff with an African-American male, Kasim Reed.  Both are identified as Democrats although the contest is nonpartisan.  Demographic changes in the city as well as multi-racial coalitions make it possible for Norwood to win after more than 40 years where black candidates have been elected as mayor.  An African-American Democrat was also elected as mayor of Charlotte, replacing a retiring Republican.  Former NBA star Dave Bing won a full term as Detroit mayor on a platform of jobs and private sector solutions to the city's decline.  After ousting a 28-year incumbent in the primary, Democrat Linda Thompson becomes the first woman and first Afrian-American mayor of Harrisburg.  Two Democrats are headed for a runoff in Houston, where Annise Parker had 30% and Gene Locke had 26%.  Independent Michael Bloomberg was elected to a third term in New York with only 51% in a very low turnout.  We don't want to know what he spent per vote.  Syracuse selected its first woman mayor, Democrat Stephanie Miner.  Republicans took over in Stamford, Connecticut, and Democrats won in St.Petersburg, Florida.

Last night, we could decide the voters can be described as angry, fickle, finicky, going from Barack Obama for president to Republicans for governor.  That's the rebellion of the mainstream 'fix-it' revolution evident around us.  But it would be a mistake to overlook the thoughtfulness behind this punching at the insiders. We can also explain this behavior as evidence of an electorate open-minded about party label, discerning about campaign platforms, and ready to act in the moment by processing information about current issues.  In both states, exit polls show that the gubernatorial race was not about sending a message to President Obama.  CNN polling the morning of the election reported the president with 56% approval in Virginia, two points higher than his national approval rating.

For those who want to make something bigger of these outcomes, such as an end to Democratic rule, there were no moving vans in front of the White House during the night.  Elsewhere in America, more millions of people were attending to their lives than pondering the outcome of these elections.  Earlier in the evening, the White House said the president would likely watch the Bulls.  If you missed it, they beat the Bucks 83 to 81.  Meanwhile, on 'Dancing With the Stars', Michael and Anna along with Mark and Lacey were eliminated.  DWTS is a great parallel to elections.  One advances on the show by pleasing the pros and the viewers.  Sometimes, the pros like the performance yet the voters just aren't feeling it.  For example, Aaron was forced into the dance-off with Mark even though he had the highest score of the season from the judges the night before.  You just never know what all those folks at home are going to do to confound the experts.

October 28, 2009
Election Insights
By Bernadette Budde

Situational Awareness - We heard that phrase in the news after the Northwest pilots failed to respond to signals as they overshot their destination.  This isn't a bad description of what is taking place in the political arena as we head toward the one-year marker from the 2010 general elections.  A lot of alarm bells are going off and plenty of warnings from ground control, yet much of the political system flies on without reacting.

I wonder about the troubled incumbents in the Senate class of 2010.  Do they hear the new warning signals, and if they do, are they reacting in the right way to save themselves?  This cycle's Senate class was last on the ballot in 2004, a year when social issues could rally voter blocs, the economy was a secondary issue, and campaigns still believed victory was dependent on turning out the dedicated partisan base with messages controlled by party operatives.  Spend enough, microtarget enough, execute enough ... win enough votes.  Then along came 2006 and 2008, with independents, bloggers, YouTube, volunteers, meetups, and all those new voters who decided what voices were credible.   

There are some high-profile incumbents in big trouble.  Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) knew what it was like to win a Republican primary in 2004, but this time he's running as a Democrat against one of those insurgents from the House class of 2006.  Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) faces a convention filled with delegates who are likely to come from Tea Party and 912 backgrounds.  Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has more than one opponent in a state where independents decide outcomes.  In an ordinary time, none of these veterans would worry.  Crank up the old machine, call out the troops, talk about your record, amble along to election day.

The most prominent of the big names in trouble is Senator Harry Reid (D-NV).  The majority leader  has consistently low approval ratings and weak reelect numbers.  He may inspire or cajole his caucus in Washington, but back home he is just another mistrusted incumbent begging for a vote.  His real challenger isn't one of the multitude of Republican aspirants; his real opponents are the voters who chatter among themselves, reinforcing their wariness of his state-based track record.  The cozy relationships that enabled him to win support across party lines and place operatives throughout local institutions may now be part of his problem.  It's one thing for an ally to get a great job, but now his son is a Democratic candidate for governor.  Too many Reids in one cycle?

The normal reaction for an incumbent in trouble is to raise money and talk big about using it.  Winning the off-year dollar chase produces confident incumbents who engage in huff and puff.  They often forget about challengers catching up or reaching adequate thresholds sometime later in the cycle.  The traditional reason for raising funds is to buy tv ads to reintroduce oneself to the voters, recalibrate an image, build name identification, then pound the life out of the smothered opponent.  Regarding Reid, there was talk recently about his ability to 'vaporize' the opposition because he has so much banked in his treasury.  Effective strategy once upon a time, but not as likely to work in 2010 for incumbents whose job performance scores are weak but whose identity is high. 

My political radar tells me nobody can buy or talk his/her way out of trouble in 2010.  The newcomers have an advantage over the veterans in being trained to react, or better yet anticipate, the mindset of the public.  The House class of 2006 proved they weren't flukes when nearly all of them returned with stronger margins in 2008.  I'm betting the 2010 election is more likely to take out veterans in the Senate and the House than those who went through the turbulence of the last two cycles and landed safely.

October 21, 2009

Election Insights
By Bernadette Budde  

Everyone else must be reading different tea leaves because I'm still not certain what's happening with all the old benchmarks others are using to predict the outcome of the 2010 election.  In another two weeks when we know the results of the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial race, there will be enough for everyone's point of view to be confirmed.  

Campaigns still matter.  When they are undistinguished, petty, devoid of content, trivial, insulting, and otherwise not up to expectations, voters tune out.  That's not the same as saying voters don't care or are disengaged.  Look for low turnout from the very groups whose participation drove 2006, 2008, and will determine 2010.  It is a mistake to think they've abandoned politics.  Instead, they looked for something or someone who sounded remotely like 2008, and finding none, went about their lives.  Trust me, they'll be back.

Candidates still matter.  When they are overshadowed by the ads or remain mysteries this close to the election, the voters are likely to go with the person who is perceived to have some core beliefs, even if there isn't total compatibility with the voter's self-interest. 

For the above reasons, I'm expecting a draw on November 3rd, with New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine (D) winning in the low 40's, with hefty defections from both major parties, but more detrimental to Republican Chris Christie, who is fading because of support going to the intriguing independent Chris Daggett.  In Virginia, there are so many undecideds and weakly committeds that it would be possible for Democrats to win, if Creigh Deeds were running a real race and came across with any personality whatsoever.  Instead, voters at least can attribute some issue positions to Republican Bob McDonnell, even if they are wary of his views.  This sounds ridiculous, but Deeds either wins in an upset because the bored-to-death turn out to vote, or he finishes in the low 40's so out of the running that the defeat is blamed on him and not the Obama Administration or national Democrats.  

This week's ABC/Washington Post poll continues the pattern of sobering reality checks for both parties.  Independents are at 42% of the electorate, with Democrats at 33%, and Republicans at 20%.  The congressional generic ballot, that asks which party you would vote for if the congressional election were held today, has 51% picking the Democrat and 39% picking the Republican ... because the respondents aren't really offered another choice.  Look to NY-23 for what happens when voters get three genuine choices and aren't forced to contort themselves into the 'R' or the 'D' box.  Independents who spring from the mainstream of their communities, find funding, participate in debates, get local press ...well, exactly what we'd expect.  They stay competitive enough with the major party contenders to shake up the outcome.  We have an economy built on consumer choices, why are we stunned when the independent voter picks the independent brand?

The system always assumed donors moved in herds toward the conventional candidates, and the party's leverage was in narrowing the options for traditional givers.  Third quarter fundraising figures suggest the breakdown in party discipline and the rise of the independents is spilling over to the money side.  A lot of money is available for those who are disrupting the national picks.  Some are self-funded but others are attracting new donors or those who aren't persuaded by party leadership. In some ways, the successful fundraising in the third quarter and the polling movement in the Florida Republican and Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primaries reflect the dissatisfaction of party regulars with the entitled attitudes of the national party establishment.  In the open Senate seat in Florida, Marco Rubio is more than a nuisance candidate against Governor Charlie Crist (R), whose inevitability was always overstated, if you listen to Florida commentators.  In Pennsylvania, Representative Joe Sestak (D PA 7) is far from a gadfly in his contest against party switcher Senator Arlen Specter (D).  Rubio and Sestak seem like heroic independents because they were told to get out of the way, and they didn't.  Despite a recession, there is plenty of political money out there, as Rubio and Sestak proved.  They also proved there is a way to come across as an insurgent without being attacked as a delusional fringe renegade.  Rubio was speaker of the Florida legislature and Sestak was a military leader; picking them isn't the equivalent of backing Lyndon LaRouche or Ralph Nader.  

Real candidates are supposed to take a poll to measure public opinion, then match up their issues with majority consensus. However, good luck figuring out how to play to the public if you are a candidate. According to this week's ABC/Washington Post poll, the public is all over the place about issues, holding incompatible notions about the great issues of the day.  They hate big government, but want a public option in health care reform.   Overall views on health care reform have remained unchanged since all the August activities, but support for a public option is now growing even among Republicans.  They think the country is on the wrong track, but 57% approve of the president's job performance, including his performance on the economy (53%).  Just under half the voters trust President Obama to make the right decisions for the future (49%), but Republicans in Congress are trusted by only 19%. Yesterday's CNN/Opinion Research poll shows equal distortions of normal patterns.  Two-thirds said the president has the personal qualities needed for the office and 55% approve of his performance in office, yet only 48% said they agree with him on issues that matter most to them.  Seven in ten are proud he won the Nobel Prize, but only 42% approve of the Nobel Committee giving it to him.  Try messaging to voters who hold two conflicting views at the same time.  

As if this wasn't confounding enough, we're fielding calls this week from the usual parade of candidates who are in town looking for support.  Explain to me why anyone who plans to run against Washington and its undue influence and its special interest money is in Washington to hold a fundraiser and to meet insiders in order to go back home to buy ads to tell the voters (who mistrust both parties) how much they hate Washington and its influence infrastructure and  money.  

The reliable indicators of election projections aren't going to serve us well in 2010. 

October 14, 2009
Election Insights
By Bernadette Budde

There are still three weeks to go before the four supposedly big cue-giving elections of 2009.  The contests are two vacant House seats, CA-10 and NY-23, one from each party.  The two gubernatorial races are in Virginia, where the incumbent can't run again, and New Jersey, held by a very unpopular incumbent.  

The political chattering class is watching these as if we can just tune out when they are over, assured we can predict 2010 based on what happens.  On one side, the great mentioners have decided if Republicans pick up governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, the Obama Administration is over and Democrats are in deep trouble.  On another side, the commentators figure any victory for a Democrat confirms the wisdom of everything Congress has proposed.
 
Make what you want of the closing weeks of the November 2009 elections.  Everyone will rattle off a whole bunch of punditry the morning after.  But, in the run up to the final number count, I can barely listen to the dialogue.  At some stage, all four contests have devolved into yammering, involving everything from where someone lived, what someone's brother did, how someone speaks, what someone wrote about women in their early 30's, and how chubby or how fit the candidates appear.  

As the 'Saturday Night Live' Weekend Update skit would ask in wonderment, 'Really!?'  This is the best we can do after the 2008 election brought millions to the polls for the first time, motivated by issues and the belief, perhaps naïve, that their participation would affect the outcome.  It almost seems a debasement of the system to watch what's going on right now, a year before we go to the polls for another historic election.  The Virginia governor's race is just over the river from the capital, the outgoing governor is the Democratic National Committee chair, and this is the contest that emerges!

Three observations about these elections and cautions for the future:

1) There are a lot of really bad campaign ideas out there, and the candidates are paying a fortune to implement them.  Really!?  Someone thought it was a good idea for Creigh Deeds (D) to keep running the same ads in northern Virginia long after the polls and woman-on-the-street conversation said 'enough already; we get it; the Republican is a social conservative; now tell me about you; better yet, tell me about me.'  The Republican response hasn't been much better, with their own womenfolk saying Bob McDonnell is a really good boss or father or husband.  

2) There are a lot of really tone-deaf party leaders out there who apparently weren't listening to the followers, now more empowered than ever.  Really! Some little group of Republican designees decided in NY-23 it was wise to pick a member of the state assembly with a history of bad relationships with the party base.  Then they acted betrayed when the faction that warned them opted to put someone else in the race, nominated by a party already qualified for the ballot. 

3) There are a lot of really annoyed voters out there who don't care what the red team says about the blue team or vice versa. Really!?  New Jersey pollsters act surprised that two semi-appealing guys from two semi-disrespected parties can't get much beyond 40%.  In recent weeks, the third party contender got enough exposure this week to win the endorsement of the state's largest newspaper.   If the third party nominee in NY-23 places first or second or even a close third, what an upset. 

October 7, 2009
Election Insights
By Bernadette Budde

I don't follow college football so I stole the word 'Boisinnati' from a CBS Sports online columnist.  Yesterday, at a meeting in our conference room, the fans of Boise State (of which BIPAC's President Greg Casey is the most vocal) were complaining about the insular, closed, out of touch, outdated, unfair system whereby only those teams playing in the BCS-recognized conferences are considered for the big bowl/national championship, even if others have a better record.  Looking for political metaphors everywhere, I googled Bowl Championship Series and found a column entitled 'BCS Title Game is for the Big Boys.'  The football pundit coined the word 'Boisinnati' for the two teams currently 5 – 0, in effect telling their fans to get over themselves.  Boise State and Cincinnati weren't real football powers, thus not worthy to play in the big games.  Sounds like the political operatives of the Republicans and Democrats arguing with each other about who is more popular, while the public snickers at both of them, somewhat intrigued by players who aren't as familiar.  

In politics, somebody decided the world is made up of Republicans and Democrats, with bad news for one translating to good news for the other.  Pollsters measure so-called generic polls, with the choices of voting for one party or the other to win an election or control Congress.  Independents are almost always forced to pick in which direction they lean.  Undecideds are perceived as individuals lacking enough information about one or the other to develop an informed opinion.  The campaigns on issues or candidates are then designed to convince the electorate of one brand over the other, with independents looked upon as an amorphous lot who will eventually be absorbed into one of the major contenders, or better yet, just fade away for lack of interest. 

Well, what happens if we no longer live in a system of two choices?  We have a couple examples in our midst right now. 

By early October, if you believe the polls, the New Jersey gubernatorial race has become too close to call because lo and behold an independent candidate, Chris Daggett, is beginning to get attention.  He could end up in double digits by some measures.  He qualified for state funding for his campaign, and he was allowed to participate in a recent televised debate.  Daggett won't win because he was ignored for months by Governor Jon Corzine (D) and attorney Christopher Christie (R) whose teams behaved as if it were a choice of one or the other.  Whoever pulls this out on November 3rd can thank Daggett for splitting the opposition, and ought to be grateful the voters didn't have more time to explore other options.

The New York 23 special election for the seat vacated by Secretary of the Army John McHugh is another example.  If Republicans are so optimistic about the decline of President Obama's approval ratings, there should be no doubt about the Republican chances to retain this open seat, right?  Instead, this contest is an example of both parties fumbling a handoff.  Republicans picked state assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava and the Democrats selected Bill Owens, who was registered as unaffiliated before entering this contest.  Meanwhile, controversy over Scozzafava's voting record and her family financial entanglements convinced the Conservative Party to put a candidate in the race.  Doug Hoffman, passed over for the Republican nomination, is the third candidate in this race, engaged in a viable campaign with money, endorsements, ads, grassroots, etc.  He has a realistic chance to win, or come in second. 

Remember:  Fiesta Bowl 2007, Statue of Liberty play, two-point conversion, Boise State Broncos over Oklahoma Sooners, the player gets engaged to the cheerleader, great sports, great drama, and great theater.  Even those who didn't like football stayed tuned until the end. 

My prediction:  Somewhere in America in 2010, an independent wins a race and teaches both parties a lesson.  Watch those approval ratings for both party's congressional leadership, and tell me another can't beat both of these teams.  The ratings for the two parties are like the equivalent of the last two Heisman Trophy winners being hurt and somebody nobody knows gets a chance to star.  Come to think of it, aren't Tim Tebow and Sam Bradford ailing this week?

September 30, 2009
Election Insights
By Bernadette Budde

If you live anywhere near Washington, D. C., you are still talking about Sunday's Redskins loss, a super expensive and very profitable team, to the supposedly dreadful Detroit Lions, playing with a rookie quarterback with a great arm but a newcomer's head.  Surely, this kid couldn't go 99 yards, so what the heck, call whatever play you had on the clipboard!  Does any of this have the faintest political undertone to you?

When asked about my favorite states or races, I lean toward the political equivalent of the upstarts taking on the presumed frontrunners.  As time unfolds and we learn more, contests will fall on and off many different lists.  Below is the 'Bernadette list', for now, of places that intrigue me as an analyst and the questions the pundits should ask before forming an opinion. 

Florida Republican Senate Primary:  All things being equal, why wouldn't Marco Rubio (R) have a chance against Governor Charlie Crist (R)?  Is this the Hillary-can't-lose mentality that failed to react to a personable, energetic younger candidate who should have the good sense to wait his turn?  Polls show Crist winning big, but these are measures of name identification, which is easy for a creative upstart to elevate.  Money edge goes to Crist, but the fan faves always have it early.  How much does it take to communicate across modern media?  I don't know – did it cost Susan Boyle anything to become a household name?  Party establishment regulars are for Crist; excellent for him, but who will vote in a Republican primary?  Recent caucus straw polls with Rubio trouncing Crist are said to mean nothing.  They aren't random samples, of course, but countless members of Congress got flustered with crowds of fewer numbers at August town hall meetings.  Come laugh at me next year, but for now, keep an eye on this one.  If you think the voters are tired of being told who is entitled to run, and if the chattering classes are open-minded, Rubio could catch on before a late August primary.

Pennsylvania Democratic Senate Primary:  Senator Arlen Specter (D) didn't prove he was a brave independent by jumping to the Democratic side; he proved he was more comfortable in another party whose nomination could have been handed to him if only the deciders had eased out potential opposition.  That's the old way of discipline, but few leaders can control what happens with ambitious pols. If the voters aren't crazy about either party right now, why would anyone trade an unpopular label for a slightly less unpopular one?  Voters have tolerance for those running without a label, even if the closed system of the Senate would struggle with how to accommodate the free lancers.  In 2004, Specter barely won a Republican primary.  Maybe he isn't that good at primaries, but his style is more suited to the openness of a general election?  In 2006, nobody encouraged now-Representative Joe Sestak (PA-7) to run as a challenger for the House.  He did, he won, he got reelected, he's in the Senate primary.  Of the two, who won more elections in modern times as a Democrat?  Sestak.  Who looks bold?  Sestak, who defied party elders and is running without the apparent blessing of the White House.  Watch this one because it appears Sestak has grabbed the 'nobody tells me what to do' label from Specter.  Ok, some of you will call and tell me Specter is Brett Favre – doesn't matter what uniform he wears or how long he's been around, he's still got the mojo when it matters.  

Utah Republican Caucus/Convention/Primary:  Don't overlook this because it is a certainty Republicans can't lose in the general.  That's why ornery voters can play around with fire here.  Stirring the pot on the Republican side won't put a Democrat not named Matheson in the Senate in Utah, and he says he isn't running. A Democrat is less likely to win here than the Lions quarterback is to make us forget the Manning brothers.  Senator Bob Bennett (R) has a real fight for the nomination, and he knows it based on his activities of late.  The process encourages the town hall style newcomers to show up at early spring local caucuses, almost undetected and unannounced, pick their delegates to the 3500-person state convention in early summer, and deny a veteran incumbent a spot in the primary.  The process aids the insurgents and the previously underinvolved, especially the anti-Washington, anti-incumbent, anti-government voices.  Anyone remember defeated Representative Chris Cannon (UT-3)?  He was beaten by the supposedly unknown (in party circles) former state college football player Jason Chaffetz.  Now Representative Chaffetz, a media natural, is the featured House freshman on CNN's website, with frequent YouTube updates about his adjustment to Washington.  Chaffetz has many fans within the Tea Party and 912 movements. I googled Glenn Beck Utah to see what turns up; lots of people, for starters, and they aren't saying nice things about Bennett.  If there is a rumble between the traditional Republicans and the new street warriors, it's going to take place on turf such as this. 

September 23, 2009
Election Insights
By Bernadette Budde

The realignment of institutional power continued after the Labor Day return of the 111th Congress.  

Voters have power, and August/September was another reminder from whence influence springs.  Pundits were struggling to understand the citizen uprising on the Mall the weekend before Congress came back from recess, following a few weeks of town hall noise. It doesn't matter how many annoyed/angry/curious/orchestrated (pick your adjective) people marched, motivated by whom/what (fill in the blank).  What the demonstrators proved was their engagement, across generations and issue clusters, putting Congress on notice that the 'fix-it' revolution wasn't satisfied by the outcome of the last two elections.  

Some may argue this ire is aimed at the Administration, but it strikes me that the riled-up are equally annoyed with Congress, or other institutions perceived to be clueless about everyday American life (maybe unions, corporations, media, etc?).   My fantasy is the pro-Obama warriors from 2008 join up with the 2009 anti-government protesters to teach the supposed leaders of both parties a lesson in authentic grassroots.

And, guess who is on the ballot in 2010?  Remember, no matter what, President Obama is in office until January 2013.   Nobody in the House can feel comfortable when the congressional job approval remains low.  With 38 Senate races and 39 gubernatorial seats up in 2009/2010, the potential for wholesale dumping is there staring us in the face.  Depending on the poll, neither party's leadership ranks higher than 40 percent, with Democrats still ahead of Republicans.  Party identity within the electorate is shifting, with gains being made by unaffiliated/independents.  Fewer than 60 percent in some polls say they would vote for an incumbent.  Independents are looking for someone other than Party A or Party B, which should cause skepticism about generic ballot questions that provide only two choices.  What makes us think there won't be third-party contenders?  And, what makes national party operatives think they can designate favorites in key races, and convince state/district voters to follow this lead?  

Organized interests have power, diminished as it might be in the era of the well-wired individual with a passion for something, not dependent on central authorities to act.  As this is written, the courts are reviewing campaign finance cases that could overturn all or portions of the law regulating spending in the 2010 cycle.  For now, this is unsettled law, but long-time experts think the courts are eager to carve out greater freedoms for uncoordinated independent expenditures by entities without economic motivations for political advocacy.  Imagine the consequences of unlimited spending combined with boundless energy fueled by disgust with both political parties and their anointed candidates?   

Power isn't static within the Congress either.  Regarding internal adjustments, the Senate rearranged senior slots following the death of Senator Ted Kennedy, the chair of Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP).  Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), number two on that panel and the chair of Banking, decided to keep that post rather than assume the top spot on HELP.  Dodd is on the ballot with middling poll rankings.  He's also involved in financial services reform, a topic with almost as many pitfalls as health care.  Instead, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) gave up his Agriculture chairmanship for HELP.  Harkin has been involved in the health care debate for decades.  The three senators below Harkin on Agriculture already hold other key committee chairmanships on the Judiciary, Budget and Finance committees.  This allowed the number five Democrat on this panel to become the chair, Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR).  She is on the ballot in 2010 seeking her third term.  Portraying herself as an independent voice on issues such as union organizing, health care, and tax reform, Lincoln now wields a committee gavel in a Democratic caucus where the magic 60 hasn't materialized without compromises.

September 9, 2009
Election Insights
By Bernadette Budde

If he had survived to the end of his term in 2012, the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) would have served in the Senate for 50 years.  Just days before he was buried, a first-term senator resigned and was replaced by an interim appointment.  One man wanted just one more day or one more vote in an institution where he spent his adult life; another man wanted to leave for other pursuits, perhaps equally important to the
common good.

For many reasons, both developments underscore the fundamental shifts that continue to play out in the Senate.  Conventional wisdom tells us the place is establishment, old-school, the haven for old bulls.  Yet as we look at the still unfolding first year of the 111th Congress and the upcoming 2010 election, no one can overstate the unprecedented upheaval taking place within this chamber.  Before the end of this year, there will be seven members who were appointed rather than elected since January 2009.

By any measure, the Senate isn't what we learned in the text books.  Last session, a former majority leader resigned in a decision that had nothing to do with health or scandal.  Six years ago, a former majority leader was defeated. The Republican caucus alone has gone from 55 seats to 40 in just two election cycles.  Just over half of the 100 individuals who were in the Senate at the start of this decade, 52 of them, have the potential to return at the start of the 112th Senate in January 2011.  What we know of politics, luck, fate, life tells us that the odds are good the next Senate will have changed more than half its membership in just ten years.

Yet for most of us, we continue to believe the myth that the place is static, deferring to the same familiar faces every time an issue makes its way on our agenda.  We tolerate the underinvolvement of some who have been there a long time.  We overlook the third who are in their first term because they lack seniority.  We help many who want to run without asking whether they can fix what is wrong when they get there or live in the hope they will vote right, if we even can define what that means now.

As you ponder what to do with your grassroots and PAC dollars, consider the enormity of what you can influence in the coming months.  With the death of Senator Kennedy and the departure of others, there are now 38 contests in 37 states on the 2010 ballot.  I'm in the camp that says Democrats can't lose control, and could even gain a seat or two.  At the same time, I believe we will see substantial rearrangement of people as the public decides it is time for a number of incumbents to go.   No matter the partisan outcome, every election realigns power within the majority and minority.

During his tenure in the Senate, Kennedy served with 10 presidents, half of whom were Republican, half Democrat.  In the very early days of his career, his stint in the Senate overlapped briefly with the patriarch of the Bush clan, the late Senator Prescott Bush (R-CT).  He served with his brother, along with the sons - and daughter - of previous colleagues.  He was in the minority and majority more than once.  He chaired committees, rose to majority whip, then had that post taken away from him four years later by party colleagues.   He ran for president 30 years ago and dropped out following an undistinguished primary performance, losing to an unknown former governor who was considered a one-term failed president.  He derailed a Supreme Court nominee, and he helped a former committee aide win confirmation to the Supreme Court.  He died with his boots on, 40 years after Chappaquiddick was supposed to make him unelectable.

Watching the funeral mass, one couldn't help but notice three former colleagues in the first two pews.  Had 2008 unfolded in a different manner, each of them might now be mentioned as the spiritual heir to his legacy in the Senate.  But, alas, they are elsewhere because 2008 disrupted the natural, predictive order of things.  There was Vice President Joe Biden, who was elected in 1972, a decade after Kennedy.  Were he still in the Senate, he would be looked upon as the senior orator with the sense of history who could transform an adrift majority without alienating the minority caucus.  There was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose decades-long passion was passage of health care reform.  Following the Kennedy death, she might have acknowledged the lessons of failure to reach consensus in crafting an explainable package.  She has chosen a different path.  There was President Barack Obama, who received the torch from Kennedy almost two years ago, but ran with it toward the White House, not a legislative mentoring career that could have inspired persistence in new generations of elected officials.

Right now the public mood is to throw out everyone who is in office and replace them with somebody who can fix it.  Anger at elected officials is understandable and that mindest has its place.  But, a part of me hopes we can transform anger into discernment before we randomly bring in the new without regard for the loss of continuity and competence.  Whether you agreed with Senator Ted Kennedy or not, there is a lot to admire about someone who can do a job for almost 50 years without running out of ideas or energy.

September 2, 2009
Election Insights
By Terri Bogert

California 10 Special Primary Election

Out of 14 candidates running in this special primary election, Lt. Governor John Garamendi came out on top, with 25,329 votes, or 26.2 percent, but fell short of winning the seat outright.  Attorney David Harmer (R) came in second, with 20.1% percent.  Because no candidate received more than 50% of the vote, the top vote getter from each party, Garamendi (D) and Harmer (R), will face each other in a special election on November 3, 2009, along with three minor party candidates who had no primary challengers. 

Among the Democrats, Garamendi faced strong competition from state Senator Mark DeSaulnier.  DeSaulnier was endorsed by former Rep. Ellen Tauscher who gave up this seat to join the State Department, although her ability to help was limited as a federal appointee.  DeSaulnier's attacks on Garamendi for being a carpetbagger and living outside the 10th proved ineffective, while Garamendi, running on his experience as state assemblyman, senator, insurance commissioner and lieutenant governor, received important statewide labor support as well as endorsements from prominent Bay area newspapers.  Placing third among the Democrats, state Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan put in $850,000 of her own money, and received 12 percent of the vote. 

Republican businessman and attorney David Harmer topped the GOP field with 20.1 percent. Harmer, with no previous political experience, is the son of John Harmer, a former California lieutenant governor. 

Almost 70% of voters cast their ballots by mail.  Because of the extensive fire and smoke in California, Governor Schwarzenegger extended poll hours to 10:00 pm.  

Florida Senate 

Governor Crist recently made his choice to fill the vacated seat of U.S. Senator Mel Martinez (R) – the seat he himself, is running for in 2010.  Late last week Governor Crist appointed his former chief of staff and attorney George LeMieux after reportedly interviewing eight Republican candidates for the appointment. 

Crist went with a trusted and loyal confidante that will mirror his political approach and policy positions.  LeMieux even describes himself as a 'Charlie Crist Republican' and few would disagree.  In this role as Senate caretaker or placeholder, LeMieux will not run in 2010 which helps ensure Crist won't be blindsided as he campaigns for the seat.  Governor Crist faces former state house speaker Marco Rubio for the GOP nomination for the Senate seat.  On the Democratic side, Representative Kendrick Meek (D-17) is running.  

Massachusetts Senate Special Election 

The special election to fill the late Senator Edward Kennedy's seat will be held on January 19, 2010.  The special primary election to choose the nominees will take place on December 8, 2009, with the candidate filing deadline set for November 3, 2009. 

There is still an active effort underway to change Massachusetts election law and allow an interim appointment – something Senator Kennedy personally requested shortly before he passed away because of the critical health care reform efforts facing Congress in the weeks ahead.  In fact, Massachusetts allowed the Governor to appoint a Senate replacement in 2004, but many believe the law was changed to prohibit then Governor Romney (R) from appointing a Republican if Senator Kerry was elected President.    A hearing is set for next week, and the greatly outnumbered Republicans are lining up against it in large part because it provides a 60th Democratic vote for health care reform. 

Some of the potential Democratic candidates:  Joe Kennedy, nephew and former Massachusetts representative and citizen energy activist, Representatives Ed Markey, John Tierney, Stephen Lynch and Michael Capuano; Attorney General Margaret Coakley and Marty Meehan, former representative and now chancellor of the University of Massachusetts at Lowell. 

Potential Republicans include Kerry Healey, former lieutenant governor and 2006 nominee for governor; Scott Brown, state senator; former U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan and Boston businessman Chris Egan.

August 26, 2009
Election Insights
By Bernadette Budde

The health care debate consumed much of the cable shows, but there were other developments to recap during the last few weeks.  As we head toward Labor Day and the return of the 111th Congress, you will need to adjust your rosters. 

The Senate

Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) are resigning.  That's two of the 40 Republicans, or five percent of the caucus, removing themselves from the current debate for other pursuits. 

The Martinez replacement will be selected by Governor Charlie Crist (R), himself a candidate for the 2010 Martinez seat.  Yes, this is confusing.  Martinez announced earlier that he wasn't running again, but the most recent move is to resign early, a la Palin.  Crist is reviewing a long list of 'formerly-were' names, with the definite intention of picking an adequate caretaker who won't compete for the open seat, for which Crist already has primary opposition.  Yes, this too is confusing.  Martinez says he wants to spend more time with his family and with other activities, having served less than five years of his six-year term. 

Hutchison is running for governor.  Yes, Texas already has a Republican governor who is running again.  Governor Rick Perry (R) has been leading in the primary polls, providing anyone thinks there is such a thing as an accurate sample of likely Republican primary voters.  She says Perry has been around too long.  Perry was elected to the Texas legislature in 1984; Hutchison was elected to the Texas legislature in 1972.  Yes, she was in politics before he was.  Perry will call a special election upon her official resignation from the Senate.  The election could be in the spring, or it could be in November 2010.  Regardless, this will mean there are now 37 Senate races, 19 held by Republicans, 18 held by Democrats.

This 2010 Senate tally doesn't count what might happen in Massachusetts with Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) who is undergoing treatment for a brain tumor.  He's asked the state legislature to change the succession statute to permit the governor to appoint a replacement in case of a vacancy until a special election is held.  Given that he did not attend his sister's public funeral, his active days in the Senate are likely coming to a close. 

Also related to Senate contests:

• Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) said he isn't running again.  The son of Representative Ron Paul (TX-14) is running in the Republican primary with an insurgent-style campaign similar to his father's presidential efforts.
  
  
• Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) had surgery for prostate cancer. 
  
  
• Representative Mark Kirk (R-IL) made his long-awaited public declaration for the Senate, and state party chair Andy McKenna resigned shortly after dropping out of this contest in deference to Kirk.
  
  
• All the House members who were potential contenders against Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said they weren't going through with a primary bid against her.
  
  
• Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA) had the longest tease in recent will-I/won't-I history when he made his formal announcement to challenge Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) in the Democratic primary

Governors

New Jersey's reputation for political corruption was on display again this summer, and voter's 'final-straw' disgust is helping prosecutor Christopher Christie (R) take the lead over Governor Jon Corzine (D).  This could be about taxes or something else too, but Christie is perceived as the one who can take on the bad guys - time for a change theme.  No need to read too much into this.  When Republicans take on the role of enforcers against self-dealing public officials, they can win in these states without getting into big policy disputes, or social issues.  Turnout isn't expected to set records, with anticipated drops in reliable Democratic core groups.  Corzine needs a big push from something or somewhere that has so far been invisible in this contest.  Christie has no legislative record to attack, and it isn't working to tag him with some out of state/out of office figures we want to forget.

Virginia polling, if one believes you can create an accurate predictive model, also has Republicans ahead in the race to succeed Governor Tim Kaine (D).  This is another race where the Republican candidate is from the prosecutorial rather than legislative or executive branch.  Bob McDonnell (R) resigned as attorney general to be a full-time gubernatorial candidate.  Creigh Deeds (D) is a state legislator from the southwestern part of the state.  Neither candidate is the ideal profile for the independent suburban voters in Northern Virginia, where the margins have been narrow with more undecideds (or disinterested) than the rest of the state.  A Washington Post poll in early August measured high numbers of persuadable voters, with more than half the voters who now say they are somewhat committed willing to take another look at the candidates.  From afar, this contest appears to be about nothing in particular, made up of disconnected particles from previous elections without a short-hand phrase attached to either contender.  Deeds tried to make it about abortion (McDonnell is well-identified with pro-life causes) or former President Bush, but from the poll numbers, voters weren't moved or more likely weren't paying attention.

Everyone who watches late night television knows Sarah Palin is no longer governor of Alaska, but you might have missed that Jon Huntsman (R) became ambassador to China and stepped down in Utah.  Alaska was already on the list of 2010 contests.  Utah will require a special election.  There will be 37 gubernatorial contests in 2010 in addition to the two in 2009.

In other recent gubernatorial developments:

• Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) isn't seeking a third term, and he's been on the talking circuit explaining his views about restraining spending and fixing health care.
  
  
• Governor David Paterson (D-NY) is still in huge trouble with no way out of his bad poll numbers.
  
  
• Governor Jim Doyle (D-WI) said two terms is enough and he isn't running again.  Both parties will have multiple contenders. 

August 19, 2009
Election Insights 
By Bernadette Budde

This is one more of my August reflections on time past.  When you read this, I'll be at day one of the Dodge County Fair, an annual event for multiple generations in our family.  The big-name entertainment for this year's nostalgic crowd is Styx ('Mr. Roboto' and a bunch of other songs from the 1970's I can't remember).  Many of you wanted me to leave behind a forecast for 2010 elections.  There will be plenty of time to weigh candidate matchups.  For now, there is enough time to remind ourselves there is never a time, not even August, when we can tune out what is taking place around us that will affect, even briefly, our assessment of how things are going. 

Hard to believe looking back, but a year ago we didn't know either party's vice presidential candidate, and most of the speculation was far off the mark.  It wasn't until August 23, 2008 that we were introduced to the Democratic vice presidential nominee, when then-Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden rolled up their sleeves at a hot rally in Springfield, IL.   We didn't know about Sarah Palin until August 29.  In less than a year, come and gone.  She's now a staple of David Letterman monologues, a former governor, and a grandma.   The night before we met Sarah after a stealth flight to Ohio, Obama stood before those lampooned columns in a Denver stadium to accept the Democratic nomination.  We were yet to hear of Joe the Plumber.  During the conventions, Harry and Louise appeared in ads running in Denver and the Twin Cities arguing that 'too many people are falling through the cracks' on health care.  We saw the couple again this summer, but Congress left for the 2009 recess without voting on a health care bill.  

On August 19, 2008, here's where things stood in politics, sports, popular culture.  Anything happen in a year to change your mind about something, someone?  

• The Quinnipiac Poll released that day had Obama at 47, McCain 42, which generally matched other frequent measures of the two candidates.  Obama's scores were down a few points, with Republican cheerleaders convinced the Paris Hilton 'he's just a celebrity' ads would cause the Democrats to crater, denying them a post-convention bump.  Bet you had to think a minute before remembering that ad, or what motivated the opposition to run it.  Obama went on to win 365 Electoral College votes, 53% of the popular vote.  Democrats gained eight seats in the Senate and 22 in the House. 
  

• That day, the United Auto Workers finally got around to endorsing Senator Barack Obama for president.  Hardly in on the ground floor of that campaign.  A year later, they struggle to survive in an industry that is shrinking.  This summer, clunkers made by UAW workers are worth money if you can prove you own one.  Regarding the labor agenda, the 111th Congress is on recess without having voted on card check in the first 100 or 200 days. 
  

• We were all nervous about the market when the Dow closed at 11,348 on August 19, never realizing that would look good by October when it fell below 8,500.  In early August 2009, the market finally edged over 9,000. 
  

• It wasn't only political pundits whose judgments were faulty.  Also on that day, Marquette's basketball coach, Tom Crean, signed a 10-year $23.6 million contract with Indiana.  His first-year record as a Big Ten coach:  6 wins, 25 losses.  New MU coach Buzz Williams in the Big East:  24 wins, 9 losses.  Do the math about which school got better value. 
  

• In the category of 'isn't that old news', a year ago Green Bay Packer fans were stunned that retired quarterback Brett Favre had signed with the Jets.  After a 9-7 season and lots of interceptions, Favre retired, or so it seemed, again.  When I left for the 2009 fair, he had just signed a one-year deal with the Vikings. 
  

• The rise and fall of personalities was underscored by the August 2008 Olympics in China.  A year ago, Michael Phelps won a record eight gold medals and was America's role model for young people.  A few months later, he was photographed with a bong at a party.  This year's swimming competitions are all about the suits, not the swimmers. Gymnast Shawn Johnson won the gold medal on the balance beam in 2008.  She's now more famous for winning 'Dancing With the Stars' over Gilles and Melissa.  You knew neither of them a year ago; now you know all about their private lives. This Monday, ABC announced Tom DeLay is joining the cast this season, which begins in September, along with Kelly Osbourne.  I'm speechless.

For indulging me in these memories, domo arigato. 

August 12, 2009
Election Insights 
By Bernadette Budde

Last week, I roamed down memory lane with a narrative about my summer of 1969, the transition between graduating from college and coming to the Washington area for graduate school.  This is the continuation of my history lesson for our summer interns.  In my farewell comments to them, I wanted them to leave Washington with questions to ponder as their careers unfold for the next 40 years.  The point was this.  If they remain in the political arena for the next 40 years, the length of my time here so far, they'd be preparing for the 2050 elections.  What happens this year, following the elections of 2008 with the ongoing debates in the 111th Congress, will lead to generational changes in how the nation handles energy and health care.  They should take note of all the seemingly tedious and trivial things taking place around them.  In another 40 years, one never knows what adaptations will emerge from what takes place around us that we overlook. 

These are the seven questions/categories I suggest they ponder for the year 2049: 

1. Who are the American voters, and how many are there in 2050, and how do they divide themselves?  In 1969, one had to be 21 years old to vote.  Voting was on election day with complicated exceptions for shut-ins who could vote by absentee ballot. Would it have mattered in 2008 if 18-year-olds didn't vote, or there wasn't early voting?  In 2049, does anyone still talk about a geographic base, or microtargeting?  No one 40 years ago would believe Mississippi could have two Republican senators and a Republican governor, or that a Democratic presidential candidate won America's Midwestern heartland.  Are Republicans winning in California or New York by 2049?

2. Where in the world do American voters live?  Afghanistan, Sudan, Mars?  Forty years ago, nobody deliberately went to Vietnam or Cambodia; now these are mainstream travel destinations.  How can we facilitate the voting rights of Americans who live abroad?

3. How many people work in anything resembling a factory or a cubical?  If we still believe in employer-employee communication within the workplace, where exactly is that place?  Is the workplace full of healthy but cranky 100-year-olds still trying to recover from dips in their 401k from the recession of 2008/2009? 

4. What is the basis of the economy, and in turn, who are the mainline trade associations?  Are there still unions?   What company heads the Fortune 500?  Nobody knew about Wal-Mart 40 years ago.  Does the ExxonMobil brand name go the way of Humble Oil?  Put Algae in Your Tank? 

5. What will elections be about?  Have we invented new issues?  Forty years ago, no one asked a candidate about abortion or gay rights or immigration.  Have we balanced a budget?  What benefits are 100-year-old baby boomers demanding from government and the private sector?

6. In the 10 presidential elections between now and 2049, have we eliminated more barriers to the White House?  Have we elected a woman, Hispanic, Asian, non-Christian, never-married, foreign-born (changed the Constitution)?  I'll bet the person elected president in 2048 isn't born or is still in gradeschool in 2009.  See President Barack Obama, age 8 on August 4, 1969. 

7. Is anyone first elected in 2010 still around?  Who is the equivalent of Representative John Dingell (D-MI 15) or Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), both of whom were already veteran legislators in the summer of 1969.  Makes you want to pay more attention to those ambitious young ones parading through your door in 2009/2010, doesn't it?  

Discuss among yourselves

August 5, 2009
Election Insights 
By Bernadette Budde

Our interns left last week.  At their farewell luncheon, they asked for advice about politics and life.  This is the first summer in many years we didn't hold a briefing for the Washington summer interns of our supporters.  So, in lieu of that, here is a variation of my meandering trip down memory lane you might share with your interns, new hires, or children ready to leave home.

If this year's interns and new graduates stay in the political arena as long as I have, they will look back on 2009 as a year of defining generational consequences, even if no one recognizes the subtext in our midst.  In 40 years, it will be 2049, with the 2050 elections before them.    Remember, what goes around usually does come back around.  See below.  If you are stumped by the historical references, ask someone over 60. 

In May of 1969, I graduated from Marquette University (the beginning of the Al McGuire era, pre-Doc Rivers, pre-Dwyane Wade) and was finishing my sixth summer at the Green Giant (pre-Pillsbury, now shuttered) bean factory in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin.  

It was the summer of the first moon landing. Walter Cronkite, then at CBS/died this summer, kept us informed for hours on live TV.  Astronauts were the celebrities of their day.  A few days ago, they came to Washington to tell their stories for the 40th anniversary of the lunar landing, and all three looked healthy enough to go again.  What a different time. Years earlier, President John F. Kennedy had said we would put a man on the moon and bring him back alive.  Could any president today make that claim without being chastised for his gender exclusionary views?  For the next 40 years, scores of less famous astronauts would accomplish their missions without the fanfare bestowed on Armstrong, Aldrich, Collins.  Some would go on to political life.  Behind the scenes on the ground crew for the Apollo 11 moon landing were future astronauts Harrison Schmitt, later a Republican senator from New Mexico, and Jack Swigert, who died before being sworn in to the House seat he won in Colorado.  

This was also a great summer in music. Although we didn't know it at the time, the Beatles were recording their last album together.  After 'Abbey Road' was released in August 1969, Paul gave interviews that suggested the group was in chaos.  For many of us, they never died or faded away.  Last Saturday, Paul (post-Beatles, post-Wings, but still the cute one at age 67) performed at FedEx Field outside of Washington.  Yes, there was also Woodstock in upstate New York.  Arlo Guthrie showed up the first day; this January, he sang at the presidential inaugural music celebration at the Lincoln Memorial (I was there, not Woodstock).  The Who also were at Woodstock, notable for their rock opera 'Tommy' performed that year.  In 2009, The Who's songs are the introductory music for three of the most popular shows on network TV, the CSI series.  In other music news, the Jackson Five signed with Barry Gordy and young Michael went to live with Diana Ross in early 1969.  You know how this story ends 40 years later.  

It was the summer of Chappaquiddick, a tragic personal and political scandal if ever we saw one.  We didn't need talk radio to be engrossed in this story.  Public confession and all, it wasn't the end of a career for the main character, young Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA).  This summer, the elder statesman of the Senate is undergoing treatment for brain cancer.  Headed toward Labor Day 2009, a president he endorsed as the embodiment of the new Camelot is attempting to pass a health care bill, which over the intervening years has become the hallmark of Kennedy's public service.  Kennedy's son in the House of Representatives has become an advocate for those who struggle with alcohol and drug addiction, open about his own recovery.  In the intervening years, nearly all the Kennedys we thought would hold office are dead, or otherwise out of the public eye.  Witness the non-appointment of Caroline to the Senate in early 2009 from New York, to the seat vacated by the Wellesley Class of 1969 graduation speaker, Hillary Rodham (Clinton).  

It was the summer of anti-war demonstrations, although Kent State was still a year away.  In the spring of 1969, former Hollywood grade B actor/Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA) sent troops to Berkeley to silence those rowdy students shouting with megaphones (yes, really, no social networking tools, just word of mouth to get everyone there).  There were over 500,000 troops in Vietnam, and often just as many marchers on the streets in Washington, DC, yelling at President Richard Nixon.  I don't recall the chant because it wasn't as memorable as 'hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today.'  Ho Chi Minh died in early fall, and we had yet to find out about the My Lai massacre.  Colin Powell was an officer in Vietnam, and so was John Kerry.  John McCain was in a POW camp.  You know where they are now.  

The war altered popular culture in many ways. 'Hair' was on Broadway; it's back this year.  After seeing it in 1969 and 2009, I can tell you we've learned nothing about drugs, sex, or war in 40 years.  In 1969, four of us college roommates saw 'Hair' on Broadway as our bridesmaids outing in NYC prior to the post-graduation wedding of our college friends Fu and Bob from Long Island.  This spring we saw the 2009 Hair with their daughter when we were in NYC to watch Marquette in the Big East basketball tournament.  Their daughter got us the tickets, and she worried we'd be shocked, apparently not realizing this was our generation on display, so to speak.  Last Saturday, we had a mini-40th reunion at the wedding of Fu (who died in 2007) and Bob's son in NYC.  Who says people in Washington or New York lack family values?  In 40 years since graduation, anything that can happen to anyone has happened to our crowd, but friendships endure.  

And thinking about NYC, in 1969 'Midnight Cowboy' (an X-rated movie) set in the then gritty Manhattan (pre-lawn chairs in Times Square) won the Oscar as best picture of the year.  That so-called cultural depravity starred Jon Voight (pre-dad of Angelina, pre-GOP dinner speaker, pre-McCain endorsement).   Will 'Borat' and 'Bruno' star, Sacha Baron Cohen, endorse the GOP candidate for president in 2048?

After that summer of one thing or another, on Labor Day weekend, I came east with an ironing board (it's still in my closet) in the back of my uncle's station wagon (he now has a car with over 250,000 miles) for the trip east to begin graduate school at the University of Maryland. I was in town only a few days before taking the bus from College Park (pre-subway) to watch the Capitol funeral ceremonies for Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL).  He was later known as the father-in-law of Senator Howard Baker (R-TN).  (Google them. Trust me; they are both very famous men). The east side of the Capitol was beautiful (pre-Visitors Center destruction) and accessible (the guards didn't carry big weapons).  I saw President Nixon up close (security wasn't that restrictive), who had somehow been resurrected and was sworn in as president in January 1969, after being politically dead at least twice in the 1960's.  In a few months, Nixon would nominate two controversial figures to the Supreme Court, who were never confirmed.  Before YouTube and Twitter, it was possible to derail appointments, and we'd see a lot more attention to the court in the next four decades. 

As I settled into my graduate school experience, I was able to continue my sports diversions.  It was the first season for Maryland basketball coach Lefty Driesell.  In 1970, Driesell would recruit Tom McMillan, later of the NBA and House of Representatives, from Maryland (now gray, but still drawing a crowd when he attends Washington Wizards games).   Watching the local sports reports felt a bit like home because Vince Lombardi of Green Bay Packer fame was the new coach of the Washington Redskins.  A year later, the invincible hero was dead of colon cancer.  The Lombardi Cancer Center at Georgetown is named after him.  The Redskins had a disappointing season without Lombardi, but a year later, George Allen (his slogan: 'The future is now') came to town.  That would be the father of 2006 defeated Senator George Allen (R-VA), likely to be remembered as the first victim of amateur 24/7 camera/video capture of campaign events.    

In other 1969 sports news, Stan Musial was voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.  This summer in St. Louis, he handed the first-pitch ball to President Obama at the All-Star game.  Wes Unseld was both MVP and NBA rookie of the year for the Baltimore Bullets; his son is now an assistant coach for the Washington Wizards (nee Bullets).  Jack Marin played on the 1969 Bullets; years later, he ran for Congress from North Carolina and came for an interview.  It was fun to see him sweat.  Someday, my favorite 2009 Wizard Caron Butler may run for Congress.  When he does, remember to invite me to sit in as a guest observer.  

You all have this personal narrative of your transitional summer.  Go tell someone.  

Next week, seven questions for the class of 2009.

July 8, 2009
Election Insights 
By Bernadette Budde

Nostal-nesia and the Art of Candidate Recruitment 

That word I made up in the headline is a combination of nostalgia and amnesia, a malady afflicting both political parties as they approach 2010 elections.  No partisan operative should be blamed for the recycled names who resurface on their own, but strategists in both camps are guilty of looking to the pages of yesteryear for a number of their prospects.  We don't have to give the names or the states, you know them and where they live. 

Nostal-nesia symptoms manifest in many ways. Some Republicans want Ronald Reagan reincarnated.  They want an American spirit back like the one they recall from 1980 and 1984, but apparently forgot about 1982 when a bad economy and a flawed 'stay the course' message toppled scores of the party's candidates.   Some centrist Democrats want Bill Clinton's style reincarnated.  They liked 1992 and 1996, but they select memories of bipartisan legislative victories, carefully ignoring the policy debacles leading to incumbent wipeouts of 1994.

A few months ago, I threatened to put a sign outside BIPAC's candidate interview room:  'If you've been here before, do not enter.'  But, the parade has already started and there is no way to stop that trip down memory lane.  One recent visitor was so nostalgic for the past that he pulled out an annotated copy of Contract with America from 1994.  With seven more election cycles behind us since then, one has to question the saliency of these points.  At the time, the document was a set of governing principles that guided the new Republican congressional majority, not so much an electioneering slogan. 

Losing candidates often long for another chance without acknowledging that the conditions contributing to defeat the first time might not have gone away.  We told all repeat candidates in 2008 that 2006 wasn't an aberration.  Voters wanted change and were skeptical of Republicans.  If they lost once, they'd lose again without substantial shifts in voter mindsets or adjustments in their campaigns.  Wonderful people lost in 2006 and again in 2008 because they suffered from nostal-nesia.

Nostal-nesia infects those seeking office who can't switch from yesterday's topics to the ones current independent solution-minded blocs want addressed.  Much of this is generational, and the successful candidate ought to be talking to voters born after Michael Jackson recorded 'Billie Jean' in 1983.  A couple of days ago, BIPAC's David Hawxhurst and I were comparing notes on remarks made by a political figure on the deficit.  David had a line so hilarious I can't type it without giggling: 'Every time he opened his mouth, out came dust and mothballs.'  This doesn't mean young people aren't worried about government spending, but they don't want to be lectured by their hypocritical elders either. 

As business advocates, we also suffer from nostal-nesia.  We look at the Congress and wonder where the problem solvers have gone.  We want Howard Baker, Bob Dole, John Breaux, J. Bennett Johnston or some other smooth revered dealmaker to run the place.  We want the civility and sensitivity of Bob Michel or Tip O'Neill ruling their caucuses.  We forget about all the ruckus and disappointments of those sessions.  These men were marvels, but they couldn't make permanent fixes either.

Nostal-nesia is curable once a big dose of reality takes hold.  We're not going back to the way we thought things were.  Tv ads won't win elections or policy debates; grassroots and affinity messaging might.  Republican and Democrat bases won't decide the outcome of elections; persuadable independents and weak party identifiers rule.  Well known, well funded candidates don't always win elections; neophyte candidates who over time connect with individual voters will shock the over confident.  Voters won't cast their votes on primary day or the first Tuesday in November; early voting is becoming the norm.  Numerical majorities grant a party leadership titles in the legislature; control of the agenda belongs to coalitions assembled by the entities who care enough to stay at the table.

July 1, 2009
Election Insights 
By Bernadette Budde

House Passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act:  'Thriller'

The vote on the first comprehensive energy bill of the Obama administration passed the House 219 to 212.  Barely enough Democrats could promise 'I'll Be There' once they were forced to 'Get on the Floor' to confront the conflicting messages from nervous constituents, blurred business input, and talk show hosts who said passage was 'Dangerous.' 

The White House and congressional leaders were forced to lobby as if they had a slim hold on the House, not the 40-vote majority earned in the last election.  The message to proponents of the bill went out: 'Don't Stop til You Get Enough.'  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was said to be corralling votes until the final minute on Friday, June 26.  She lost 44 in her own party who voted against the bill; indicating significant Democratic House members acted as if 'She's Out of My Life.'  It could have been really 'Bad' for her and Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) because without concessions, there would have been enough votes to 'Beat It.'  There were eight Republicans for whom this was not a 'Black or White' vote.

Republican support allowed the House to pass this along to the Senate.  Consensus among Hill strategists is that the Senate is in no mood to 'Wanna Be Startin Somethin' for which they lack 60 votes. Those from coal country have to be looking at the 'Man in the Mirror' wondering what pressures await them this summer.

For some business interests, the climate change/energy bill is not as easy as 'ABC.'  Mainline trade associations tended to be against it, citing higher energy prices and taxes along with government intrusions into the market place.  Republicans contend the package will lead to a light switch tax.  Companies engaged in alternative renewable energy, efficiency products/services, along with some utilities, favored provisions of the bill, if not the overall package. 
Here is a recap of the facts behind the numbers:

• Democrats delivered 211 votes for the energy bill, even though it was backed by the White House and the traditional elements advocating the party's initiatives, such as labor and environmental groups.  Makes you wonder why anyone thinks these forces control the agenda.  
  
• Democrats from 24 congressional delegations opposed the bill.  The state with the most voting against it was Pennsylvania, where four Democrats split from the caucus.  There were three each from Alabama, Indiana, and Texas.
  
• Chairman Waxman lost four Democrats who serve with him on Energy and Commerce:  Representatives Mike Ross (D-AR), John Barrow (D-GA), Charlie Melancon (D-LA), and Jim Matheson (D-UT).  Representative Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) from this panel was one of the eight Republicans who voted yes.
  
• Of the 44 who voted against, 17 of these Democrats are from the class of 2006/2008.  All of them replaced Republicans. 
  
• Among the eight Republicans in support of the bill was Representative John McHugh (R-NY), the Administration's choice for Secretary of the Army.  Only one of the Republicans breaking with the caucus is a newcomer, Representative Leonard Lance (R-NJ).
  
• The Secretary of the Interior's brother, Representative John Salazar (D-CO), voted against it.

June 24, 2009
Election Insights 
By Bernadette Budde

This is the week you get phone calls about the second quarter/June 30 Federal Election Commission (FEC) campaign finance deadline.  An artificial measuring point, the quarterly candidate reporting period is one marker the fundraising professionals use to nudge their reluctant clients into making a pitch. 

We won't know how successful candidates, mainly incumbents at this point, have been in using that tired old line 'I need to frighten off my opponents,' but it's as if the last election never ended when it comes to requests for money.  Given the climate, I'm astonished at how much has already been contributed by PACs in the 2009/2010 cycle.  We're supposed to be in a recession when individual donors are nervous about job security and personal discretionary income.  We just had an election where special interests were under attack, organized political giving sounded less honorable than direct small donations, and both parties took a swat at lobbyists.  Democrats have also gained seats in both the House and Senate, not usually the party whose incumbents have the easier time raising non-labor money. 

Whatever else is going on in the political or business sectors, the asking and the receiving don't stop.  Despite the presumption of bad times in funding circles, organizations with current legislative priorities were involved.

• From January 2009 through the end of March 2009, PACs spent $39 million on federal candidates.
• Democratic federal candidates outraised Republicans by more than two to one from PACs during this period.
• Labor PACs spent between $8 and $9 million of the total amount.
• Health care interests accounted for $5.3 million, the largest non-labor sector.
• Finance/insurance entities contributed $5 million during the first quarter.
• The transportation sector donated $2.8 million during this period.
• Energy and natural resources gave $2.6 million in the opening round.
• Communications and technology PACs were $2.2 million of the total.
  This week, the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at Brigham Young University released their regular post-election review of money and persuasion.  They had access to a random sample of individual donors giving under $200 to the presidential campaigns.  Among their findings:
• The majority of the donors to the Obama presidential campaign were women.
• Obama small donors were younger and used the Internet to make their contributions.
• The majority of the donors to the McCain presidential campaign were men.
• McCain campaign small donors wrote checks.
• Over half of McCain's small donors were over 65.

I frequently remind corporations who come to us for advice that their employees are likely to be receptive to making political donations even if they aren't giving to the PAC.  The company I reviewed last week had, according to the FEC public record, 90 employees who gave more than $200 to the Obama presidential effort in 2007/2008 and 45 who gave to the McCain presidential campaign during the same period.  Employees made donations to nine other presidential candidates, including 14 who supported Hillary Clinton.  Hardly any of them made a reportable contribution to the PAC.  The path to success is to turn the donors to candidates and causes into PAC believers.

June 17, 2009
Election Insights 
By Bernadette Budde

We're asked for a list of target races almost every day.  My response has been, 'a year from now, we'll still be three months from the end of the primary season; what's your rush?'  Others come to us for grassroots advice, realizing the complexity of issues before Congress demands serious conversations with members of Congress, especially the Democrats elected in the last two cycles.  So, how do you take 50 states, 435 representatives, 99 (for now) senators, 39 governors on the ballot in 2009/2010 and come up with a framework to narrow the focus?

BIPAC's Prosperity Fund leadership determined a course of involvement for the 111th Congress and the 2010 elections within weeks of the 2008 outcome.  The principles we used are simple and aimed at winning the argument on a core business agenda, regardless of which party controls legislative bodies.  There are two broad premises underlying the selection of states for special focus.  One is that elections drive dialogue; therefore, the closer the elections of the past and the greater the uncertainty about future outcomes, the more opportunities to engage candidates and voters on issues.  The other is that the newness of elected officials, either by length of service or reshuffling on major committees, helps us; the more recent the exposure to the issues of the day, the more likely we'll encounter open-minded legislators who expect to hear from constituents. 

The formulas for evaluating each of the 50 states were complicated.  Some admittedly subjective measures were included, but other factors such as the margin of victory in the 2008 election were quantifiable without dispute.  If both the senatorial and gubernatorial race in Florida are open seats, and if young Hispanics are registering as Democrats, and housing foreclosures are on the rise, you don't need three decades of experience to tell you this is a key state.  If Illinois has both an appointed senator and governor, and if corruption angers voters, and if suburbanites are worried about preserving a dual-income lifestyle, it doesn't take a mathematical equation to tell you the 2010 climate could be different than four years ago. 

In applying the selection criteria and statistical formula, the following 15 states (in alphabetical order) rose to the top of the Prosperity Fund chart:  Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia. 

These 15 states have 11 senate contests in 2010.  Working this list takes into account the Senate Majority Leader in Nevada; the party switcher in Pennsylvania; appointed members in Colorado and Illinois, and open seats in Florida, Missouri and Ohio.  Three of these states (CO, NC, and VA) have both senators serving in their first term.  Democrats have taken seats held by Republicans, this century, in AK, CO (two), MN, MO, NM, NC, OH, PA (two if we count Senator Arlen Specter) and VA (two).  Want to find some Democrats to talk to about health care or energy, perhaps even card check, here's your list.

The House members in these states are also worthy of a new assessment because every election results in a realignment of power within the body, regardless of partisan margins.  Look at Ways and Means:  new ranking member, more new Republicans than Democrats, and both Las Vegas as well as Louisville have a Republican and a Democrat on this panel.

If you are looking for off-beat wild cards to add to your list of states in the spotlight, consider New York.  Along with Illinois, neither its current governor nor its junior senator was elected to these offices.  Both of them are on the ballot in 2010. A second, this term, upstate House vacancy is about to be replaced with a special election.  This week, we've been treated to a plot twist even my favorite soap-opera wouldn't consider (General Hospital takes place in fictional upstate Port Charles, NY, for those of you in the know).  By the time you read this, some other plotline may have come along, but as of Monday, Democrats lost their one-seat margin in the state senate when two Democrats, of varying rumored unsavoriness, decided to caucus with Republicans, thereby shifting control of the body to Republicans.  As the drama unfolded, Republicans were reportedly looking for a lost key to enter the room, and the governor was threatening something or other.  As of Tuesday, one of the switches returned to the Democratic side, which in effect tied the Senate at 31-31. Doesn't this sound like a place where voters may toss out a lot of people just to teach someone, anyone, a lesson when they get a chance to go to the polls? 

June 10, 2009
Election Insights 
By Bernadette Budde

It was an early night after a long campaign whose outcome left little doubt about the power of local ties. State senator Creigh Deeds won the Democratic primary with 50 percent of the vote. Terry Mcauliffe was second with 26 percent and former legislator Brian Moran finished in third with 24 percent.

The pundits loved Mcauliffe and assumed his money would compensate for no base. Mcauliffe misjudged the mood of the voters and made many of the mistakes seen in the Clinton presidential effort. In fact, the former national party chair invoked the Clinton name while parading the former President on the campaign trail. Virginia is a state with sufficient newcomers to overwhelm the old first families, but Mcauliffe came across as a smug carpetbagger, not fooling anyone with all those dropped g's.

Deeds listed a string of names who endorsed him from all over the state. No national following, but voters who mattered respected their judgment. He comes from south and west of Charlottesville.  Suburbanite backers of the other two contenders started out treating him like some rube. Big mistake. Deeds has a pleasant demeanor and apparently thrived on being underestimated. He stressed his support for transportation and education, unifying themes, while identifying with former Governor Mark Warner (now Senator) and outgoing Governor/national party chair Tim Kaine. Undecideds took note when the Washington Post endorsed him.

Deeds faces Republican Robert Mcconnell, the former Attorney General, in november. Mcconnell beat deeds in the 2005 Attorney General race in a close race. That contest was dominated by the so-called values issues which are expected to be muted during this contest. In his commercials, Mcconnell says he wants to be the jobs Governor.

June 3, 2009
Election Insights 
By Bernadette Budde 

The United States Constitution is brief in describing the judiciary and the appointment/confirmation process.  Article III, Section 1 on judicial powers says the following:  'The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.'

Earlier in Article II, Section 2, the authority of the president and the power of the Senate are outlined in one convoluted sentence:  'He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.'

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was the last member of the Supreme Court to win Senate confirmation on January 31, 2006.  He was approved on a vote of 58 to 42.  Of the 55 Republicans in the Senate at the time, all but one voted to confirm Alito.  The lone no vote was cast by Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), who was defeated in the 2006 election.  There were four Democrats who joined the 54 Republicans favoring Alito.  They are all still in the Senate:  Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Tim Johnson (D-SD).

Just three years ago, the 109 Congress isn't the same body as the 111th Senate who will stand in judgment of Sonia Sotomayor.  Obviously, Republicans lost control after two devastating Senate elections in 2006 and 2008.  Here is a summary of other changes with political implications:

• Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) was a Republican three years ago, and he was chair of the Judiciary Committee that held hearings on the nomination.  Now he has the lowest rank of the 12 Democrats. Specter voted for Alito.
  
• All current Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee were members of the panel in 2006, but of the 12 Democrats now on the committee, five are new, including four who weren't even in the Senate three years ago.  This includes Senator Ted Kaufman (D-DE) who was appointed in January to replace Vice President Joe Biden, who was a member of the Judiciary Committee during his Senate career.
  
• Besides Biden, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is the other 109th Judiciary Democratic member not on this year's roster.
  
• More than one-fourth of the Senate wasn't around for the Alito confirmation.  Of the 100-person Senate three years ago, 26 are no longer there.  Eleven of them, all Republicans lost reelection bids, seven Republicans and three Democrats didn't run again, one Republican died, and four Democrats joined the Obama Administration.
  
• Only 40 Senators remain in office who voted for Alito. 

While it has been a time of upsets (Diversity over Susan Boyle, Magic over Cavaliers, Kris Allen over Adam Lambert, Shawn Johnson over Gilles Marini), look for Sonia Sotomayor to win confirmation with at least 60 votes.

May 27, 2009
Election Insights
By Bernadette Budde

There is potential for massive change in state capitals after the 2010 election.  At least half the nation's governors won't be the individual who served in that office during the 2008 election.  Five of the current officeholders are there because they moved up to this office when their predecessors resigned in the last few months, three because of presidential appointments and two because of scandal-ridden resignations.  Term limits prevent a significant number of the Class of 2010 from running again. 

Of the 11 governors guaranteed to be back because they aren't on the ballot, three are prominent Republicans who had Washington credentials when they returned home to seek office.  They are Governors Mitch Daniels (R-IN), Bobby Jindal (R-LA), and Haley Barbour (R-MS).  All three are reluctant to be branded as their party's saviors, yet each has the potential to advocate a different solution to economic growth than the current national administration.  Daniels won his second term in 2008 while President Obama carried the state, suggesting his ability to earn backing from ticket splitters.  In his first term, Daniels confronted budget shortfalls, but wasn't praised at the time.  By the 2008 elections, voter anger had subsided to converse in a calm voice, and Daniels promised he wasn't running for anything else.  Jindal, who has tackled health care reform, isn't on the ballot until 2011.  Barbour won his second term in 2007 after his take-charge response to hurricanes, and is credited with manufacturing expansion in Mississippi despite a national downturn.

Looking for clues for 2012?  Democratic governors in Iowa and New Hampshire are seeking reelection in a climate where social issues take a backseat to jobs.  Republican vice presidential nominee Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) is on the ballot, possibly with an intra-party challenge due to ongoing disputes about budget as well as personnel decisions.  In Minnesota, Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) faces the voters for the third time, following two elections where he failed to get a majority. 

Big-stakes primaries are expected in both parties in open seats in California and Pennsylvania.  No one in the mix has the high national profile enjoyed by term-limited Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) or Governor Ed Rendell (D-PA).  Both could end up in the administration tackling complicated issues.  Schwarzenegger and Rendell have promoted infrastructure finance and design, while struggling with day-to-day endemic budget shortfalls and uncooperative state legislators.

Among the more popular elected officials, Governor Ted Strickland (D-OH) has high approval ratings despite his state's economic circumstances.  Along with Governor Bill Ritter (D-CO), each has confounded business and labor interests by defying rigid labels to describe their governing ideology.  Both were among the wave of 2006 gubernatorial contenders whose appeal to independents created the local infrastructure for the Obama efforts two years later.  Republicans with sound rankings are Governors Jodi Rell (R-CT) and Butch Otter (R-ID), both of whom ooze that authenticity the pundits stress is the essential personal quality underlying every election strategy.

May 20, 2009
Election Insights
By Bernadette Budde

The intriguing appointment of Governor Jon Huntsman (R-UT) as ambassador to China set off many discussions about the motivation within the Administration in selecting a potential political rival.  I'm a big fan of Huntsman.  He served on BIPAC's board for a brief time between leaving his first stint in government and his appointment as President George H. W. Bush's selection as ambassador to Singapore.  Hmm ... wasn't China on 41's resume?  What struck me wasn't so much this pick but rather what we've come to discover about the resumes of other high-level officials.

Over half the President's Cabinet is made up of individuals who have been elected officials. Of the 15 members of the Cabinet, eight have been in office, seven have not.  The President was so persuasive that five of the eight gave up an office they were holding at the time, including Hillary Clinton.  She was poised to run offense on major domestic issues in the reconstituted Democratic Senate, yet she opted for one of the most soul-sapping jobs in the world at State. Two women governors gladly gave up their posts to run tough agencies, Janet Napolitano at Homeland Security and Kathleen Sebelius at Health and Human Services.

The individuals President Obama chose weren't always the most news-making of the talent pool available at the time.  With the exception of Rahm Emanuel, the two others from the House weren't prominent names or issue leaders.  Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, formerly a Republican member from Illinois, was popular and a fixture of the House, but the country never heard of him.  Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, then a House member from California, had earned labor's respect in her early career, and union backing helped her topple a Democratic incumbent in a primary, but she might not have topped the AFL-CIO list of anticipated nominees.

This Cabinet isn't the resting place for waning careers.  Secretary of State Ken Salazar was only four years into his first term in the Senate, a member of the Class of 2004 who took an open Republican seat in Colorado, as President Obama did in Illinois.  Two former governors are both in their mid-50's, attorneys who could have joined any firm in the private sector.  Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke didn't need a job.

The commitment to government service is unquestioned in the Cabinet. Of the seven who didn't come from elected office, all have been in military or other public sector spots most of their careers.  The exception is Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, a lauded academic.  While all this is said in admiration for their willingness to endure what public life expects, part of us should wonder whether private sector careerists couldn't provide a different perspective in the inner sanctums of power.

Is it that nobody from industry or advocacy groups (labor, environmentalists, etc.) wanted the jobs, or given the screening criteria, none could qualify?  Sad if we are setting up a process or system where not everyone can apply. 

May 13, 2009
Election Insights
By Bernadette Budde

As I was finishing my road trip to Indiana yesterday, answering a question about Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) decided he'd rather be a senator. 

Daniels is one of the unheralded political and policy success stories in the country. Now in his second term, he is thriving while the state undergoes an economic transition with fallout from auto and other manufacturing.   Winning re-election in 2008 while Barack Obama was carrying the state, Daniels recovered from a press and public bashing for his tough fiscal stance during his first term.  

Crist, the much ballyhooed state leader, won't have to face the outcome of his first term decisions in a second term because he wants to come to Washington.  This is the same place where Daniels made an impact and then left. 

My musings during yesterday's gathering led to a brief history of other cycles when governors brought innovation from the states to national attention. The tenures of Midwestern governors John Engler (R-MI) and Tommy Thompson (R-WI) come to mind. Engler is now the president of the National Association of Manufacturers and Thompson spent time at the helm of the Department of Health and Human Services earlier this decade. Republicans failed to win these statehouses once the legends departed, but each is a reminder of reform-focused pragmatic policymakers who didn't have to be president to make permanent changes in how the country views welfare and education.  

This election cycle begins in just a couple of weeks with gubernatorial primaries in New Jersey and Virginia. I bet more people in these states are speculating about Governors Crist, Palin and Jindal for 2012 than they are the upcoming nominations in their own backyard. 

Democrats can't be certain to keep either of these states. The primary in Virginia could have the drama of last year's presidential contest yet the coffeehouse chatter is subdued. Republicans aren't burning up the wires in New Jersey either. 

We haven't lost our taste for elections, but perhaps we like them off in the distance. Regardless, it promises to be a preview of 2010 when incumbent Republicans won't be running in California or Florida and Democrats have an open race in Pennsylvania. Illinois and New York have appointed Democrats looking for voter approval. Texas expects a Republican primary where anything, even talk of secession, could be debated.

May 6, 2009
Election Insights
By Bernadette Budde

Last week BIPAC began its 2009 regional conference tour in Anchorage.  An odd place perhaps, but the long plane ride gave me a chance to reflect on how upside down the world has become. 
 
Dependent on well-connected members who were superb at the politics of the era, Alaska was quite confident of good times with abundant resources.  Upon landing at the Ted Stevens Airport, I was struck by how fast everything a state takes for granted can shift.   Could such an edifice be built today?  Will that type of seniority and the ability to deliver for a state ever be replicated? 
 
Next week we are in Indianapolis, in a supposedly Republican state that voted for President Obama.  Yet, the last three years have resulted in a series of state and local elections where old partisan predictions were unreliable.  Nothing seduces like success, and it was evident in the number of national campaign operatives who couldn't fathom a Republican candidate not carrying Indiana, just because one always had.  Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) was re-elected in 2008, recovering from hard fiscal decisions made during his first term.  Obviously, many ticket splitters backed him and Obama. 
 
At the risk of dumping dots on the table that don't connect for the rest of you, I have been muddling over what these two states have in common.  Both have a United States senator whose father held office before them.  While both were advantaged by carrying the name, each had to keep the office on their own.  Neither can be just like dad and be effective.  Too much is expected of them by different constituencies, in states that are not what they were even a decade ago.  Each is on the ballot in 2010, prohibitive frontrunners, who are in the midst of taking on difficult issues without suffering consequences in their ratings back home.
 
In a shrinking Republican minority, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R AK) has a chance to be effective in a system where earmarks are harder to deliver and less valued by constituents when they are acquired.  Given the wipeout of the younger members in her party, and the relatively few seats won by Republicans in the Bush 2000+ era, she has a gender and the generational opportunity to be a leader.  As the Anchorage audience reminded me, she is ranking minority member on Energy and Natural Resources and she's only been there since December 2002.  They also pointed out her approval ratings are soaring at a time when most elected officials are lucky to be at 40 percent. 
 
Sen. Evan Bayh (D IN) has been elected twice with more than 60 percent, and he might get close to 70 percent this time if the trend continues.  With growing seniority in an ever more junior Democratic majority caucus, he has come out of the shadows to voice a moderate tone within the Democratic ranks for a practical look at old programs.
 
Indiana is still a manufacturing state, despite a downturn in the auto industry.  If this sector is to be revived, Indiana has as much at stake as Michigan or Ohio. Senators such as Bayh will have to blend the platforms of labor and business on an array of issues if his constituents are to have reliable jobs in pleasant Midwestern communities.  Whatever the topic --- drug prices, health care, climate change, food processing --- some Indiana employer is affected.  And, he and his colleagues can't ignore the world market and the implications of tax policy on domestic jobs. Bayh has a mixed record on trade, a subject that can't be ducked during the course of the Obama Administration.
 
So, when someone says 'this isn't your father's Oldsmobile,' here are two examples of elected officials who understand that, and are thriving as a result of thinking anew. 

April 29, 2009
Election Insights
By Bernadette Budde

As I sat down to write this piece, CNN broke into their swine flu coverage to report that Sen. Arlen Specter (nee R) was becoming a Democrat, with a rather scathing statement about the drift of his former party.  The lesson learned: never bet on anything. 
 
We live in a political environment where nothing should surprise us.  We have lost so much of what passed for normal; we shouldn't depend on any predictions.  There is no such thing as a word cast in stone, a label that stays attached, or an election outcome that frames a legislative body.  The Senate in a few weeks is all but certain to have 60 Democrats, without an intervening election, death, or appointment.  Wonder what is next?  Never turn your back to the ocean.  I can't venture a guess, after three decades steeped in soap operas and TV drama. 
 
Many years ago at a BIPAC regional meeting in California, legendary political consultant Bill Roberts was our luncheon speaker.  He was asked to predict the outcome of an election in his backyard, and didn't he think X was headed toward victory based on the latest polls.  He said something to the effect that the campaign wasn't over, and he quoted his grandmother telling him 'never bet on anything that talks.' Horses or dogs, ok -- but humans, no. He went on to explain:  the debates were yet to be held, there was the potential for a well scripted frontrunner to unravel in front of an audience with an offbeat question, even in a state where TV ads had overtaken candidate interaction with the public.  He went on to remind us that the most difficult questions for candidates were those about issues asked/answered multiple times and then forgotten, or the question so obvious no answer had been practiced.  He cited the Roger Mudd query 'why do you want to be president' and the Ted Kennedy babbling response.  (To our younger readers; jgi - you know what that means.)
 
I was reminded of this long-ago conversation with Roberts when BIPAC's Lindsey Hurlbut and I were comparing notes on our impressions of the Miss USA contest.  She's from Texas and has been around pageant life as well as the women who participate.  Like candidates, they are trained and well versed on how to answer questions, especially on hot button issues.  Like candidates, by the time they reach this level, it is not their first rodeo.  
 
Candidates take note.  There are no forums without peril, no passé issues, and no under-informed questioners, looking good in the suit – but not enough so to satisfy the judges. Hollywood blogger Perez Hilton asked Miss California during the Miss USA pageant about gay marriage, an issue that had been on the California ballot.  He's gay, and he didn't like her answer.  She didn't become Miss USA, and some bloggers have pursued her ever since for either her inarticulate answer about 'opposite marriage' or her insensitivity.  

She wasn't the only one put in the hot seat in what had been considered nothing but a swim suit competition. The Dancing with the Stars/General Hospital soap opera judge asked the first semi-finalist about corporate bailouts in the stimulus package.  Ah, remember the days when women only cared about diamonds and not nuclear throw weights.  In the pre-blog era, a similar comment eventually toppled a Reagan White House chief of staff.  (Again, not sure what I am talking about? jgi.)
 
We now live in a world of alternative information sources, where a blogger like Hilton has a greater reach than Roger Mudd ever enjoyed. The Donald Trump-owned Miss USA show had a record low 5 million viewers, but immediately after, what remains of the network news all picked up the story.  The real effect was the proverbial viral nature of the comment and the medium --- Hilton's Twitter followers more than doubled.  He has more followers than National Public Radio or Time.  During the same period, Ashton Kutcher was in a Twitter contest with CNN, and Kutcher won (for older or clueless readers, just Google it).  Kutcher has almost half a million more followers than the New York Times, which was the highest of the print news organizations.
 
The 2010 election will be the first national election when daily newspapers and local television anchors have a diminished role.  Makes me wonder where we're headed for 2012 presidential coverage when fewer national networks may send beat reporters into the field. I'm troubled when someone like David Yepsen won't be at the Des Moines Register to write about the candidates and the Iowa caucus preliminaries.  As much as we complained about the Boston Globe, at least we knew the reporters covering the New Hampshire primary understood the process.  There won't be a shortage of information, but what's the value of it? Ready for more ask all/tell all Larry King Live or Tyra Banks interviews with the ex-lover of the ex-vice presidential nominee's daughter? (You can YouTube this too if you can stand it).
 
We don't know what we'll hear in the upcoming elections, from whom, about what.  Until we do, it's far too early to be lining them up for 2012.  I don't even know anymore from day to day who is a Republican and who is a Democrat.

April 22, 2009
Election Insights
By Bernadette Budde

Like any great episode of Lost, every day has its moments when I can't figure if we are living in the past, present, or future, much less which zone others are in when they are talking about events. 
 
Without getting too zany, here's an example of this confusion.  Some of you want to know who will win the Minnesota Senate race --- the one that took place in November 2008.  Most of us think it is 'over' and Al Franken (D) has won, but the State Supreme Court won't hear Norm Coleman's appeal until at least May.  This election happened in the past, yet we don't know the outcome, and are having a hard time describing what takes place each day.
 
Others want to know who won the special election in NY 20 on March 31, 2009.  We think Scott Murphy (D) has more votes than Jim Tedisco (R), 273 more if you believe the final count. But the courts will also intervene on this one, perhaps before the end of April.  The election happened in the past, yet we are unsure about the current count of absentee voters who cast their ballots before the election.  Confused about the tenses in that sentence?
 
Many of you can't understand why we still list Kathleen Sebelius (D) as the governor of Kansas when she's in the Cabinet.  No, she isn't.  She's been nominated by the President, but not yet confirmed by the entire Senate.  Remember just a few weeks ago, we all thought Bill Richardson and Judd Gregg were in the Cabinet.  They weren't, and they aren't.  We expect Sebelius will receive Senate approval, but until then, she's still the governor.
 
When we can't describe the past, or define the present, what makes us think we should be too hung up on the future?  Pundits are staking out predictions on how many seats either party will win in November 2010, along with who is ahead for the Republican nomination for president in 2012.  I challenge them to answer the most basic question in our business: how many Rs and Ds are in the House and Senate this very minute?
 
Regarding the outcome of 2010, let's remember it is April 2009, not a year from now.  A year ago, tell me you knew Hillary Clinton would be Secretary of State.  Tell me you knew even last month that 66 million-plus would listen to a woman named Susan Boyle, making her the most famous woman in the world. (If you don't know who she is, don't admit it to anyone). Even a year from now, we're barely into the primaries, and at least half the states won't have completed filings for office.

Most good predictions about the future rely on a factual base in the present, filtered through wise assessment of the past.  In the parlance of Lost, if I'm in 2009 and know the purge happened, and you are in 1979, awaiting Ronald Reagan to come save you, we aren't going to have a meaningful conversation about what to do right now.

You don't have to watch Lost to know we aren't all on the same wavelength, and something we can't explain is happening around us.  For certain, we can't turn back time, just ask Cher. 

April 8, 2009
Election Insights
By Bernadette Budde

Here we go again.  The outcome of another election is in doubt. Now the pundits who were so sure of their storylines going into the contest are flustered. 

At one point in the post-election tallies, the NY 20 special election was tied, with more than 6,000 absentee ballots yet to be counted.  As of last night, the latest press accounts have Republican Jim Tedisco besting Democrat Scott Murphy by 17 votes. It will be at least another week before the absentee ballots, including those of expatriates and military, are included in the tabulations. 

Then it will be on to disputes over recounts and other familiar aftermath complications. 
 
Last week I said there was nothing to talk about in this election as far as 2010 prospects were concerned, nor should this congressional race be seen as a do-over for 2008.  There is only so much one election can tell us, even with all of our analytical skills on overdrive.  But, upon reconsideration, why not remind ourselves of a few election realities. 

First, nobody knows for sure what a congressional district will produce until candidates are chosen and the campaigns begin.  We're four elections beyond the 2000 census upon which the 2002 lines were drawn.  Tell me there is a place in America that hasn't been demographically changed in eight-plus years. The 2010 elections are ten years after the census, and five congressional elections after the clever partisans thought they drew advantageous boundaries.

Open seats are always complicated to predict; it is just a matter of whether the competition happens in a primary or a general election.  In this special election, neither party had a primary but instead selected candidates in the old-fashioned smoked-filled room.  We won't know if either side would have been helped by sorting this out in front of the voters as a screening body. 

Failure to replicate their winning model in open seats is a major reason why Republicans no longer control the House. They had more of them in 2006/2008 than Democrats, and they couldn't hold them.  Right now, the same party imbalance is likely for 2010 with more Republicans announcing they won't run for the House than there are Democrats stepping aside.

Party registration or previous election performance are at best interesting stats, not a factor in how anyone will vote.  Almost every piece I read about NY 20 said Republicans had a 70,000+ advantage, but few stories went on to point out how many recent registrations were unaffiliated with either party.  Besides, party registration is a label, not a behavior or identity.  Independents matter in election outcomes, but so do the choices made by those who on paper appear to be party faithful but really aren't.  There was ample evidence in the last two elections to suggest voters in this district were capable of splitting tickets as well as picking the outsider with the pleasant personality. 

This is relevant for 2010 because there are 34 districts carried by Obama where Republicans hold the House seat, and 49 carried by McCain with a Democrat in the House.  So what?  This doesn't point to a target list.  Instead, it would be worth studying why Rep. Peter Roskam (R IL 6) can win with Obama at the top of the ticket, while other suburban Republicans can't.  Or what did Republicans not do right in Pennsylvania where McCain easily won in PA 4 and PA 10, but two freshman Democrats, Reps Jason Altmire (PA 4) and Chris Carney (PA 10), easily won re-election.

Mechanics matter.  I'll go out on a limb and say nobody will ever again win a competitive election without winning the absentee/early vote categories.  We used to say the ground-game was more critical than the TV ads, but now we have to say that what happens before Election Day outweighs what happens in the final 72 hours leading up to the election.  
 
Voters last night in Illinois demonstrated though not all elections require recounts and absentee ballots. As expected, IL 5 voters sent Cook County Commissioner Mike Quigley (D) to Congress in yesterday's special general election.  Quigley bested a spectacular Democratic field in the March 3 primary.

April 1, 2009
Election Insights
By Bernadette Budde

Election Day is becoming like Groundhog Day.  Wake up, go vote.  Wait for results.  Too close to call. Long protracted wait. Count absentee ballots.  Repeat. 
 
The latest version of this movie to play out is NY-20.  With all the precincts reporting, less than 100 votes separates Democrat Scott Murphy from Republican Jim Tedisco.  Nearly 6,000 absentee ballots need to be counted, and the process is expected to take a few weeks.
 
While everyone else is rushing to judgment the morning after, as if this were the election of the century with predictive signposts for 2010, I'm not so sure this was anything other than a contest between Candidate A (not so appealing) and Candidate B (only ever so slightly more appealing).  If I change my mind, and decide something earthshattering was going on here, I will write about it next week.  Otherwise, take a chill pill and watch with an open mind as 2010 unfolds in the months ahead.

© 2009 Montana Petroleum Association, Inc. All rights reserved.