Category: Elections

CT-SEN: Dodd/Simmons Tied, Dodd Job Ratings Up Big

While there is going to be a lot of breathless blogging by the Right today on a poll that shows former Rep. Rob Simmons leading Senator Chris Dodd 43-42 in a Quinnipiac Poll, I think this is probably more important:

Dodd, whose approval ratings were in the negative range on Feb. 10, have rebounded slightly. Connecticut voters approve 49 to 44 percent of the job Dodd is doing compared to the 41 to 48 percent approval rating he received on Feb. 10.

The head to head shows a statistical tie with Simmons, which is obviously not good news for Dodd. But Dodd moving +12 in one month in job approval is more important 20 months out. Job approval is relevant. I don’t know how this move can be described as “slight.”

If you want to pull something relevant from the head to head with Simmons, it’s that Dodd is getting killed by Simmons among independents:

In a 2010 Dodd-Simmons match up, Democrats back Dodd 74 to 15 percent while Simmons leads 80 to 10 percent amongst Republicans and 49 to 32 percent among independent voters.

This is pretty much how we should be looking at numbers in these polls, per how we look at these numbers with every other Senate incumbent in America. Last month’s Q-Poll was either an outlier for Dodd’s approval numbers, or Dodd has done phenomenal work in the last month to repair his image in state, despite rabid attacks by Kevin Rennie and the GOP in Connecticut. I can’t make a judgment as to how to read that based solely on the top line release, but either situation reflects much better on Dodd’s chances for reelection than Simmons’ chances for beating Dodd.

Moreover, Dodd is way ahead of other possible challengers.

Sen. Dodd leads State Sen. Sam Caligiuri 47 – 34 percent and tops CNBC-TV host Larry Kudlow 46 – 34 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

As counter intuitive as it sounds, I think this poll is good news. All the focus has been and should remain on job approval until there are actual candidates in the race. Dodd has moved back close to the 50% mark for job approval, a standard benchmark for incumbent reelection chances. If he has another good month, he can get back over 50%. I like his chances for reelection significantly better with his approval at or above 50%, regardless of what this head to head with Simmons says. He’s also not going to be threatened by Caligiuri or Kudlow, which should make his job easier in that he can focus on one opponent at a time.

It’s still 20 months from the 2010 Connecticut Senate election and anyone making pronouncements about an impending defeat for Chris Dodd are not thinking honestly about this race. No doubt Dodd is going to be one of the top targets for Republicans in 2010, perhaps the only incumbent Democrat who will face a serious challenge. Republican bloggers and the NRSC are already gunning for him. But Dodd being a target doesn’t mean we get to misread polls or go breathless in anticipation of Simmons beating him. Or rather, I encourage Republicans to presume this race is done for because Simmons has a 1% edge in a poll with a 2.8% margin of error twenty months ahead of the election as Dodd’s job approval ratings are climbing double digits. Be my guest. But I’m going to take this poll, look at the rising job approval and say that maybe Chris Dodd will have to campaign a lot harder than in 2004, but I’m not ready to hand this seat to Rob Simmons by a long shot.

Disclosure: I was proud to work on Chris Dodd’s presidential campaign, but I no longer work for Senator Dodd.

Remember the 17th

Today’s New York Times has another op-ed on the abomination that is governors appointing senators to vacant seats. This time the piece is written by David Segal, a Rhode Island state representative. Segal calls on us to remember that the 17th Amendment mandates elections to fill Senate seats. He’s right in asking Congress to push for legislation that makes explicit the requirement for special elections to fill vacancies and goes a step further to demand states themselves take this step if the federal government is unwilling.

What strikes me as most shocking in Segal’s column is the statistic on the proportion of appointments to the Senate since 1913, “Nearly a quarter of the United States senators who have taken office since the 17th Amendment took effect have done so via appointment.” It’s mind-boggling that this is the result of an amendment specifically intended to bring greater democracy to the Senate.

We have a long way to go. I know there are federalism problems with Congress legislating state election law, but the 17th Amendment did just that. I see it as a question of how the 17th Amendment is applied to state election law, not the creation of new laws. But that doesn’t mean Congress should be timid; rather they must recognize that the Constitution is on their side in this matter.

Of the four Senate appointments that just took place, each has problematic notes to it. The Illinois appointment has lead to the indictment of the sitting Governor on corruption charges. The New York appointment has the appearance of Governor Paterson’s self-interest leap-frogging the interests of the state in his choice (by picking a pol in a state where he needs greater political clout to win reelection). In Colorado Governor Ritter picked a close friend who has never held elected office before. And in Delaware, while Ted Kaufman has already pledged to be a place holder who will serve only until an election can be called, remains the consummate insider, someone who most people in his state (let alone nationally) have never heard of.

This is not to say that Burris, Gillibrand, Bennett, and Kaufman may not be great senators and great public servants in the upper chamber of the US Congress. All of them have spent time working for the public in varying capacities. But the citizens of Illinois, New York, Colorado, and Delaware deserved the opportunity to choose who represents them for themselves. Gubernatorial appointments are an antiquated way to fill Senate vacancies. There may be other greater problems in our democracy — ensuring accurate vote counting and easy access to polls come to mind — but I can’t help but view this practice as anything but a stain on our democracy.

I can only hope that Burris, Gillibrand, and Bennett have the opportunity to speak with Senator Kaufman and have the humility and patriotism to call for special elections in their home states with the greatest possible speed. Let them serve until their state legislatures can pass laws governing special elections, then they should resign and if they so wish, seek the office via special election. I would guess that the voters of Illinois, New York, and Colorado would be so impressed by their selflessness in resignation for election that they would have ample chance to win. Unfortunately I doubt any of these three will feel a greater pull towards democracy than personal power. I’d be happy to be proven wrong.

Update:

Senator Russ Feingold just announced that he’s introducing a Constitutional amendment to end Senate appointments by governors and require special elections. From a press release (link):

“The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end.  In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators.  They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people.  I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute.  As the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I will hold a hearing on this important topic soon.”

This is great news.

Electing Senators

My friend and long-time Connecticut blogger Gabe Rosenberg has an op-ed in the Hartford Courant on the sad practice of using appointments instead of elections to fill vacant Senate seats. I’m happy to say that like Gabe I’m an old fashioned democrat who likes to his senators chosen through elections. Gabe writes on the current Senate replacement manouvers in New York, Colorado, Illinois and Delaware:

I’m not saying that Bennet and Kennedy are unqualified or would make bad senators. On the contrary, they are accomplished public servants and are, by all accounts, brilliant. They would make excellent senators. But call me old-fashioned: I like my senators elected.

On second thought, they are unqualified, but not because they lack experience or talent. The only constitutional requirements for a senator are age, citizenship and residency. To which states should add one more: They must be elected.

Although those appointed in Illinois, Colorado and New York will serve only until the 2010 election, they have a built-in advantage should they choose to run then, when the voters will finally be able to pick their senators. Being an incumbent with two years to build name recognition and a campaign war chest, cement political ties and bring home pork — barring a public relations nightmare such as the Blagojevich Senate yard sale — is an invaluable leg up.

Ironically, the appointment that initially had the worst stink from the cigar smoke of a back-room deal turns out to be the only one that ultimately will allow a fair start for all the candidates in 2010. In Delaware, Vice President-elect Joe Biden’s replacement will be his chief of staff Ted Kaufman, who has pledged to serve only until a special election and not to use the appointment as a springboard to keeping the seat. The move is widely seen as a way to clear the field for Biden’s son Beau, who is Delaware’s attorney general, to win the seat in 2010.

To which I say: So what? At least he will be elected. To his credit, Beau has repeatedly rejected the opportunity to follow in his father’s footsteps via appointment.

Like Tom Geoghegan’s recent op-ed in the New York Times, Gabe’s piece adds to what continues to be a growing drum beat for massive reform of the Senate vacancy-filling process nationwide. The process in which four Senate seats will be simultaneously filled by Governors and not the electorate is enough to both reveal the shortcomings in current law and practices, as well as create the impetus for change. Gabe points out in his column that CT state representative Tim O’Brien is again planning on introducing legislation that mandates all Senate vacancies in Connecticut be filled through special elections. I’d hope that similar bills drop in at least Illinois, Colorado, and New York. And while the fine people of Delaware seem to already get that democracy is better than fiat, it’d be equally good to see that state take up legislation that mandates what Ted Kaufman is sensibly doing in practice.

Aristocracy vs Democracy

I was born in Brooklyn and have lived about half my life in New York. As a result, I find statements like this, on Caroline Kennedy’s pursuit of New York’s Senate vacancy, even more offensive than I might were I merely an American citizen.

“It’s a tough thing — you can’t run against the little girl at the funeral,” said an adviser to one of Kennedy’s main rivals, referring to the image of young Caroline at JFK’s interment.

“If she wants it, I don’t see how anyone will stop her.”

I would hope that anyone would stop an aristocrat who has never held nor sought public office from being handed a Senate seat. She is not entitled to it, any more than I am entitled to a date with Angelina Jolie.

America is a democracy that has a very troubled relationship with aristocracies. But recent events make clear that we have a great deal of trouble with the concept of elections. At this moment, four Senate seats will be filled in non-democratic and unaccountable fashions: New York, Illinois, Delaware and Colorado.  It’s possible that more will emerge as President-elect Obama fills his cabinet. In the case of Illinois, there is a real problem as to how the process played out. Corruption emerged as a force precisely because the succession process was not democratic. It may be a well-trod phrase, but there isn’t a problem in a democracy that can’t be solved with more democracy.

Senate seats are too important and too special to be passed around like chips in a poker-patronage game. I think it’s high time that Congress pursue a constitutional amendment requiring special elections to fill all vacated federal elected offices. Enough of the aristocracy’s entitlement. Enough of the corruption. Enough of elite horse trading as a substitute for democratic elections. Let’s have a constitutional amendment that will sort this all out, once and for all.

The Corporate Vote

Michael Kieschnick, President of CREDO, the mobile phone, long distance, and credit card company with very progressive values, makes a plea for corporate engagement in civic engagement when it comes to elections in an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle. Here’s an excerpt:

Many companies involve themselves in elections to gain a competitive advantage. A rare few speak out on issues of fundamental importance to their employees and customers, such as Patagonia on the environment or Apple on same-sex marriage. But there is much more that can be done easily, effectively and efficiently by the business community, to help prevent a bumpy election.

First, every company could send an e-mail to every one of its customers to encourage them to vote. A reminder to vote can be easily put into every online sales transaction confirmation and in-person receipt. Remind all employees that your company supports his or her right to vote and assure them this means that they can take time off from work to do so. Give everyone who works at your company a copy of a sample ballot or nonpartisan voter guide. And help answer the most common question – where do I vote? – by widely distributing the nonpartisan, online resource, www.govote.org.

Make sure you signal your company’s commitment to its civic duty to ensure a fair election in every part of your organizational chart. Encourage your managers to instruct your customer service staff and receptionists to close every conversation with a friendly reminder to vote. Offer to lend company vehicles – even the CEO’s limo, if you have one – to local organizations that offer rides to polling places for those without transportation. And urge your company’s lawyers to volunteer with the nonpartisan Election Protection Coalition, a group of attorneys and volunteers ready to answer questions to help voters having difficulty voting at the polls.

Good corporate citizens’ civic duty doesn’t end with election day. Ask your employees if they experienced any trouble when they tried to vote and, if so, find out the nature of their difficulties. As soon as you learn of any irregularities, speak out as a business leader against any form of voter suppression.

Kieschnick goes on to make a convincing case for businesses to be good citizens when it comes to voting. His company, CREDO, is a perfect example of what can be done when a business goes whole-hog into being a good corporate citizen.

Interestingly, after reading Kieschnick’s piece, I went to the New York Times website was confronted by a giant run of ads by Starbucks. The company is offering a free cup of coffee to anyone who comes in and says they voted on November 4th. The ads all link to this YouTube video, where the pitch is made in 60 seconds:

Now this might be the sort of thing that Kieschnick describes in the first sentence of the passage I quoted above, though on a smaller scale than he probably meant it. Starbucks’ benefit of giving people free cups of coffee is that it gets people tasting their product and in the habit of getting coffee from their stores. But I actually think this is a more genuine election move. The ad is powerful and straightforward. The ad buy looks huge. And rather than bringing people who click through the ad to a Starbucks.com splash page that captures email addresses, the ad links straight to YouTube. This is either a really powerful commitment to not put the filter of business between consumers and their message, or it’s that Starbucks just doesn’t get some of the basics of online advertising. I like to think it’s the former that’s true.

Ben and Jerry’s is also giving away free ice cream on election day.

Free things are great and maybe some people will decide that the incentive of getting a free cup of coffee and a free ice cream cone is enough to wait in line and vote in this election. But I’d hope that the executives at Starbucks and Ben & Jerry’s take a look at Kieschnick’s op-ed and follow his path for greater corporate engagement in growing civic engagement in this country. Businesses have the potential to help redefine how Americans experience election day for the better. I, for one, get tired of hearing every two years stories of lines extending blocks from polling places and voters having to leave without voting so they can get to work on time. A shift in business leaders’ attitudes towards election day and how we relate to voting would have great impact on what the government does to encourage easier and wider-spread voting in the future.

Disclosure: I used to consult for CREDO Action on their anti-warrantless wiretapping campaign. 

[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]