Here's one silver lining on an otherwise disappointing night: When taken together, the results from New Jersey and New York City can be read as a repudiation of the rich man’s politics practiced by Jon Corzine and Michael Bloomberg--both of whom used personal fortunes to launch themselves into the political arena, and both of whom were trying to buy an election for the third time in the past decade.
I will admit that I was holding my nose and hoping that Corzine would win tonight, just as I have held my nose and hoped for him to win past general elections. But, as a New Jersey native, I never liked him. There was always something vaguely repulsive about the way he showed up on the political scene in 2000 to purchase a Senate seat. His only opponent in the primary that year was Jim Florio, the wildly unpopular former governor who had sparked a popular backlash after raising taxes in the early 1990s. Florio was trying for a political comeback, and I think the dominant reaction to Corzine among New Jersey liberals at the time was a mixture of both revulsion and relief--revulsion because Corzine was an unknown proposing to buy an election, and relief because an unknown buying an election sounded like a much safer path to Democratic victory than nominating Jim Florio. Corzine ended up buying two elections: the 2000 Senate race and the 2005 gubernatorial election. He tried to buy this year's race as well, spending $24 million--the vast majority of it his own money--to his opponent's $9 million. Arguably, one of the messages sent by New Jersey voters tonight was that a politician only gets to buy so many elections before he has to rise or fall on his actual performance. In the abstract, that's a pretty good message--even though the result, a hard-right Republican governing New Jersey for the next four years, is obviously a bad one.
As for Bloomberg: Yes, he won tonight, but when you consider his victory in context, it was shockingly narrow. His last win, in 2005, was by 20 points. This time, he spent at least $85 million of his own money against a candidate no one knew anything about. Yet he only won by five points. A five-point victory in a race that was supposed to be a walkover is nothing to brag about. In fact, I think it's fair to see the margin as a quasi-repudiation of the haughty way Bloomberg has behaved over the past year or so: as a rich man to whom the rules--in this case, term limits--didn't apply. (The influence of Bloomberg's wealth on the term limits debate became apparent last year with the revelation that groups he supported philanthropically had been asked to lobby the city council to let him run again.) Bloomberg hasn't been a bad mayor, and in some policy respects--education, for one--New York is better off with him in office than it would have been with his Democratic challenger. But the notion that no one, no matter how rich, ought to be able to rewrite the rules of an election is still an idea worth standing up for. Bloomberg's surprisingly slim margin of victory is a small blow for that principle.
Pundits have made much of the fact that the country is in a populist mood these days. The populism they are referring to is generally understood to be more right than left. But if an upshot of this mood is declining tolerance for the practice of people buying political office with their own money, then that's one (minor) thing for liberals to celebrate on an otherwise lousy night.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (8)
I don't disagree, but Bloomberg deserves even more of a defense.
First, in a heavily Democratic city like New York, I'm pretty sure that you need to overspend by a large margin just to win.
Second, one of the reasons that NYC was so intensely impossible to govern was the inability of an elected official to take on certain unions and special interests because of the need for fundraising. Bloomberg's freedom from all of that is precisely what has allowed him to be so effective as a mayor. It's a cause, not a coincidence. I'll admit that it's a crappy model to follow, but when it works, it works well.
I don't disagree, but Bloomberg deserves even more of a defense.
First, in a heavily Democratic city like New York, I'm pretty sure that you need to overspend by a large margin just to win.
Second, one of the reasons that NYC was so intensely impossible to govern was the inability of an elected official to take on certain unions and special interests because of the need for fundraising. Bloomberg's freedom from all of that is precisely what has allowed him to be so effective as a mayor. It's a cause, not a coincidence. I'll admit that it's a crappy model to follow, but when it works, it works well.
Democratic Gov. Corzine had his shortcomings, but he made an honorable effort to clean up New Jersey's financial mess. Historically, while the Democrats were tax-and-spend, the Republicans, beginning with Republican Gov. Christie Whitman, after Democratic Gov. Florio, were bond-and-spend. So our state debt has ballooned since the 1990's to $50 billion.
Jim Florio was also a comparably honest governor, but his political cruxification has been a warning to future politicians that New Jersey voters only want to be lied to. No one dares talk about raising the lowest gas tax in the country or, horror of horrors to the political class, cutting the patronage, dual office holding, excessive tax abat ... view full comment
Democratic Gov. Corzine had his shortcomings, but he made an honorable effort to clean up New Jersey's financial mess. Historically, while the Democrats were tax-and-spend, the Republicans, beginning with Republican Gov. Christie Whitman, after Democratic Gov. Florio, were bond-and-spend. So our state debt has ballooned since the 1990's to $50 billion.
Jim Florio was also a comparably honest governor, but his political cruxification has been a warning to future politicians that New Jersey voters only want to be lied to. No one dares talk about raising the lowest gas tax in the country or, horror of horrors to the political class, cutting the patronage, dual office holding, excessive tax abatements to developers, public pensions, and the absurdly high number of government units (550 towns, 550 school districts, etc).
Now the NJ voters have had their tantrum about corruption and high property taxes and must live with a Reagan-type Republican governor beholden to big business.
Come on, Christie isn't hard right, his primary opponent, Lonegan, was hard right. Need I remind you he said this: Lonegan proposed ending what he termed the "immoral" progressive income tax with rates up to 8.97 percent and replacing it with a flat tax of 2.9 percent.
When asked by a reporter whether his plan would mean a tax increase for the working poor, Lonegan replied that that was the whole point. He wants everyone, rich and poor, to pay the cost of government. Asked if that means giving a break to the wealthy, Lonegan again said that was his point, and it would keep rich taxpayers from fleeing the state. "Eight-point-nine percent of nothing is nothing," he said.
If Lonegan had won the p ... view full comment
Come on, Christie isn't hard right, his primary opponent, Lonegan, was hard right. Need I remind you he said this: Lonegan proposed ending what he termed the "immoral" progressive income tax with rates up to 8.97 percent and replacing it with a flat tax of 2.9 percent.
When asked by a reporter whether his plan would mean a tax increase for the working poor, Lonegan replied that that was the whole point. He wants everyone, rich and poor, to pay the cost of government. Asked if that means giving a break to the wealthy, Lonegan again said that was his point, and it would keep rich taxpayers from fleeing the state. "Eight-point-nine percent of nothing is nothing," he said.
If Lonegan had won the primary, Corzine would have clobbered him.
To be honest, I like Christie and am not unhappy he won, especially with Corzine's reprehensible fat commercials. And, if I still lived in Jersey, I would have considered voting for him like I did Kean and Whitman if it hadn't been for the fact that I would have voted for Corzine only out of spite of the national Republican party.
-
What Happened?
TNR should have established a single tab for 11-4-09 post election bitching, bragging, moaning, whining, prevaricating, dissembling and yes, forecasting. Fair notice would be given that after 72 hours everyone would be expected to be resuming their daily routine and no new articles or post would appear.
Nothing gets me on my hind legs quicker than when people draw broad conclusions and cite the evidence passed some test, allowing the conditions to be 'comparable'.
Yesterday we had an election for governor in VA and NJ, a mayor in NYC and special congressional elections in NY and CA.
Each contest was shaped by local or regional dyn ... view full comment
-
What Happened?
TNR should have established a single tab for 11-4-09 post election bitching, bragging, moaning, whining, prevaricating, dissembling and yes, forecasting. Fair notice would be given that after 72 hours everyone would be expected to be resuming their daily routine and no new articles or post would appear.
Nothing gets me on my hind legs quicker than when people draw broad conclusions and cite the evidence passed some test, allowing the conditions to be 'comparable'.
Yesterday we had an election for governor in VA and NJ, a mayor in NYC and special congressional elections in NY and CA.
Each contest was shaped by local or regional dynamics and except for the demographics and turnout (predictable in an off-off year) it would be folly to draw conclusions based upon favorable or unfavorable comparisons in all five elections. Maybe an assignment for Comp.101 could ask: "Compare the Bloomberg victory in NYC to Garamendi's in the 10th (CA).".
Nate Silver who can find the common thread months before an election, concluded:
"State-level politics, indeed, routinely differ from national ones. That's why you have Democratic governors in red states such as Oklahoma and Wyoming, but Republican ones in blue states such as Vermont and Hawaii.
That does not mean that local elections can't tell us anything about national trends -- the White House would be feeling better, certainly, if Democrats had won New Jersey, and likewise Republicans if they'd won NY-23. But usually the party that applies a one-size-fits-all approach to local races is the losing one.".
Remember the not so old SPAM that went out in the form of a riddle?
"When asked this riddle, 80% of kindergarten kids got the answer, compared to 17% of Stanford University seniors."
Q: What is greater than God, More evil than the devil, The poor have it, The rich need it, And if you eat it, you'll die?
A: Nuttin'
-
Silver Lining II
When pressed by Anderson Cooper, Ari Fleischer (one guy who could turn chicken shit into chicken salad) did not take the bait:
COOPER: "Ari, what do you make about what is happening in the congressional district in 23 and the role Sarah Palin's playing?"
FLEISCHER: "No. 1, forget the role Palin played for just a moment. I welcome a Republican Party that is reenergized on economic issues. And I think..."
COOPER: "And you think that's at the core of this?"
FLEISCHER: "Absolutely."
"No. 1, forget the role Palin played" "No. 1, forget the role Palin played" "No. 1, forget the role Palin played" "No. 1, forget the role Palin played" "No. 1, f ... view full comment
-
Silver Lining II
When pressed by Anderson Cooper, Ari Fleischer (one guy who could turn chicken shit into chicken salad) did not take the bait:
COOPER: "Ari, what do you make about what is happening in the congressional district in 23 and the role Sarah Palin's playing?"
FLEISCHER: "No. 1, forget the role Palin played for just a moment. I welcome a Republican Party that is reenergized on economic issues. And I think..."
COOPER: "And you think that's at the core of this?"
FLEISCHER: "Absolutely."
"No. 1, forget the role Palin played" "No. 1, forget the role Palin played" "No. 1, forget the role Palin played" "No. 1, forget the role Palin played" "No. 1, forget the role Palin played" "No. 1, forget the role Palin played"
Ari wishes to erase Sarah from our memory. I can't think of a better way for him to express the danger he believes she is to the GOP.
...by next week he'll be saying, "Sarah who?".
-
The big money was also repudiated in New York's 23rd - 95% of Hoffman's money was from outside the district.
The big money was also repudiated in New York's 23rd - 95% of Hoffman's money was from outside the district.
I think that's overthinking Bloomberg. He's beloved here across classes, the best mayor we've ever had by a long shot and I just don't believe that very many people care that he's rich.
My gut tells me it was entirely a turn-out issue. Bloomy knew that was going to happen too, he was such a shoe-in.
I think that's overthinking Bloomberg. He's beloved here across classes, the best mayor we've ever had by a long shot and I just don't believe that very many people care that he's rich.
My gut tells me it was entirely a turn-out issue. Bloomy knew that was going to happen too, he was such a shoe-in.
-
Sign Here
In the future, money or the total sum of dollars raised will be conditional. Yes, the Obama fund raising blitz did attract more large donors than most realize, especially toward the close. However, the dollar total only told part of the story.
The volume of small donors was even more important than the great sum suggests. Even the smallest donor considers their contribution to be an investment in a candidate's success. Just as important, any donor will have extended influence. A family member, friend or co-worker receives more of a lean from someone who has given as little as fifty bucks. A donor will be more easily mobilized to knock on doors o ... view full comment
-
Sign Here
In the future, money or the total sum of dollars raised will be conditional. Yes, the Obama fund raising blitz did attract more large donors than most realize, especially toward the close. However, the dollar total only told part of the story.
The volume of small donors was even more important than the great sum suggests. Even the smallest donor considers their contribution to be an investment in a candidate's success. Just as important, any donor will have extended influence. A family member, friend or co-worker receives more of a lean from someone who has given as little as fifty bucks. A donor will be more easily mobilized to knock on doors or make calls.
I'd wager there was a lot of money leaving the pockets of the mobs who has been mobilized by fringe groups this year, even if it hasn't gone to candidates. I think it's recognized the NRA needs to spend less in DC because they've locked in the loyalty of a constituent, someone who buys a membership.
The Internet has made it easier to tap more people and I doubt anyone will have the edge Obama had in '07-'08. The paradigm of organizing, getting out the vote and final turnout will hinge on how many give to a cause, if not the candidate's campaign.
If I wanted to increase my chances of winning in the future I'd be looking for more than 'more money'. I'd try to get something from a lot of people and make sure I kept a close affiliation with other organizations who established a bond with their investors.
Is a bigger account better than a cash strapped campaign? Sure! But it will be the biggest army of investors who has an edge. A donor to any affiliated cause has a multiplying factor.
Think: Guerrilla war as opposed to a standing army. It isn't necessarily the quality of weapons or the snappy uniform, winners capture the will to fight. That will can come pretty cheap.
-
-