Should Political Campaigns Take an All-Star Break?

By Richard A. Lee

Major League Baseball took its annual mid-season break for the All-Star Game this week, but there was no break in the action in New Jersey’s 2009 campaign for governor.

Two days after throwing out the first pitch at the All-Star Game in St. Louis, President Barack Obama headed to New Jersey to campaign with Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine.  And earlier in the week, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele visited the Garden State for an appearance with GOP challenger Chris Christie.

In political campaigns, the stakes are high and time is always short. A short hiatus, such as baseball’s three-day All-Star break, appears – at least at first glance – to be unwise and impractical. But think about it for a moment.

Baseball takes a three-day break while teams are competing for first place, players are chasing records, and milestones are approaching – and it does not diminish interest in the sport or the intensity of competition.  In fact, teams, players and fans can be re-energized by the break, making for a more exciting second half of the season.

The All-Star break does something else for baseball that would benefit politicians: It humanizes the players. True, they are superstars with tremendous physical skills, but we also see how much they are just like us. Like fans, they take pictures and videos of the players and festivities. We see them with their wives and children (and in some cases, parents) at events such as the AllStar Red Carpet Parade and the Home Run Derby. And when they meet the President of the United States, their faces exude the same sense of excitement, nervousness and honor that any American would display.

Politicians often try to paint a similar picture. They strive to humanize themselves because they know there is a value to making voters feel that they are just like them. As Roland Barthes wrote in an essay about photos used by politicians: “A photograph is a mirror, what we are asked to read is the familiar, the known; it offers to the voter his own likeness, but clarified, exalted, superbly elevated into a type. This glorification is in fact the very definition of the photogenic: the voter is at once expressed and heroized, he is invited to elect himself.”

Another significant occurrence that takes place during the All-Star break is the opportunity to see that athletes who are fierce competitors throughout the season can actually appreciate and respect each other’s talents, and work together as a team toward a common goal. Political campaigns, by their nature, rarely allow for such dynamics. Instead, opponents are attacked and demonized in an effort to obtain victory at the polls.

Despite any benefits that may accrue if politicians followed baseball’s lead and took a short mid-campaign break, chances are slim that it will ever happen. But we do have some history that lends additional support to the concept.

After the 9/ll terrorist attacks, politicians – including New Jersey’s gubernatorial candidates – put their campaigns on hold. When they did resume, the tenor was more civil and the debate was more substantive than personal. Granted this was reflective of the mood of the nation at that time, but the different view we saw of the candidates was much like the different view we see of baseball players during the All-Star break.

We experienced a similar moment last year after popular TV journalist Tim Russert passed away during the presidential campaign.  For one day during the hotly contested race, Barack Obama and John McCain were not rivals competing for the highest office in the nation. Instead, at Russert’s funeral at Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Washington, D.C., they sat side by side, two of many people who had come to pay their last respects to a man they all admired.

Will we see any similar camaraderie in New Jersey during this year’s governor’s race? Probably not, but that doesn’t mean we should refrain from taking inspiration from baseball. As the president said before Tuesday’s All-Star game, “As a sport, baseball has always embodied the values that make America great – hard work, leadership, passion and teamwork.”

Indeed, these are traits that can lead to success on the ball field, on the campaign trail and in virtually all aspects of our lives.

# # #

Advertisements

Just What Does $340,000 Buy You These Days?

By Richard A. Lee

By raising more than $340,000 for his independent campaign for governor, Chris Daggett has qualified for public matching funds, as well as the right to participate in two official debates this fall.

Just what else will result from having met the $340,000 threshold is not so clear.

Does it give Daggett a realistic opportunity to compete with the two major party candidates? Will his candidacy take votes away from Republican candidate Chris Christie? Can it somehow hurt Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine’s chances for re-election? Or will it simply be a wash with relatively equal numbers of Democratic and Republican voters opting for an independent candidate?

We won’t know the answers to these questions until after Election Day in November, but in the interim, there will be plenty of speculation. For my part, I decided to take a look at three research studies on independent and third-party candidates and see how the findings may – or may not – apply to this year’s race for governor in New Jersey.

There is a progression in the three studies. The first takes a broad look at challenges to our two-party system; the second focuses on minor party candidates in gubernatorial elections, and the third examines the successful campaign of a third-party candidate for governor – Jesse Ventura, who was elected governor of Minnesota in 1998. Here is what I found:

Challenges to the American Two-Party System: Evidence from the 1968, 1980, 1992, and 1996 Presidential Elections by Paul R. Abramson, John H. Aldrich, Philip Paolino and David W Rohde (2000)

In this study, the authors found that independent candidates benefit when voters’ connections with the major political parties are weakened. Moreover, dissatisfaction with the major party candidates – as opposed to their parties – played a greater role in voters’ support for independent candidates. According to the study: “The people supporting an independent candidate are not those harboring a long-developed disaffection from the major parties, but rather are those who can be moved to express anti-party views because, and probably only because, they are disaffected from the parties’ candidates in a particular election.”

In New Jersey’s race for governor, both major party candidates have been blaming the opposing party for today’s dire economic conditions. At the same time, there have been many direct attacks upon both Corzine and Christie. Based on this study’s findings, independent candidates such as Daggett would benefit more if the major party candidates target each other, rather than their political parties.

Picking Their Spots: Minor Party Candidates in Gubernatorial Elections by Steve B. Lem and Conor M. Dowling (2006)

Lem and Dowling examined gubernatorial elections in all states between 1982 and 2000. Their research was designed to determine why minor party candidates run for office when the chances of winning are slim. The authors also suggested that independents can benefit from “ideological gaps” left by the major party candidates. Such gaps create opportunities “to offer something different than the Democrats and Republicans,” they wrote.

Providing voters an alternative to the major party candidates has been a big part of Daggett’s message. By exploiting gaps in the Corzine and Christie campaigns, he and the other non-major candidates in the race could increase their appeal to New Jersey voters if this year’s election is consistent with Lem and Dowling’s findings.

The Origins and Impact of Votes for Third-Party Candidates: A Case Study of the 1998 Minnesota Gubernatorial Election by Dean Lacy and Quin Monson (2002)

Of the three studies, this is the most interesting in that it explores the circumstances surrounding an independent gubernatorial candidate who won an election. However, many of the factors accounting for Jesse Ventura’s 1998 victory in Minnesota were unique to that campaign.

While Ventura entered the race with high-name recognition due to his career as a professional wrestler, he also benefited from a well-timed newspaper report, a rare state election law, creative use of public funds, the absence of an incumbent on the ticket, and a tight campaign between the two major party candidates, both of whom had emerged from hotly contested and potentially divisive primary elections.

According to Lacy and Monson, as late as mid-October, polls were showing Ventura with just about 10 percent of the vote. But his numbers rose steadily in the latter part of October – so much in fact that on the Sunday before Election Day, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that he had a realistic chance of winning the election. The report had a profound and positive impact for Ventura.

“Even though he never officially led in the pre-election polls, the signal communicated to voters through the press was that Ventura was in a position possibly to win,” the authors explained. “In the close three-way race this significantly reduced the incentives to vote strategically.  Third party candidates face a perpetual problem of losing their supporters to strategic voting: third party voters often defect to their second most preferred candidate in order to avoid electing their least preferred candidate. With his momentum in the polls and eventual victory, Ventura overcame the usual trend.”

The timing of the newspaper report was extremely beneficial for Ventura because Minnesota is one of the few states that allow citizens to register to vote on Election Day, making it possible for those who decided to support him – even at that late stage of the campaign – to cast ballots. Ventura’s rising poll numbers also made it likely he would qualify for public funds – but not until after Election Day. So he took out a loan, used it for late advertising and paid it back after the election.

The scenario in New Jersey this fall will be much different, but one element of Lacy and Monson’s findings may have implications in the Garden State, where Democrats hope to nationalize the election and benefit from President Obama’s popularity, while Republicans contend that state issues will determine the outcome. The study found that voter attitudes on the condition of the nation had no effect on Ventura’s support. Conversely, the condition of the state played a more significant role.

“Ventura’s electoral success was due to dissatisfaction with Minnesota government rather than a reaction to national conditions,” Lacy and Monson wrote. “People who believe Minnesota is on the right track are more likely to vote for the major-party candidates than for Ventura.”

* * *

These research studies provide a good starting point for discussion of New Jersey’s race for governor. At the end of the day, however, every election is unique with its own set of candidates and circumstances. How Chris Daggett and the other candidates fare in New Jersey in 2009 will be determined by the distinctive factors in place in our state this year.

# # #

Political Allies Don’t Always Sing in Tune

By Richard A. Lee

In a symphony orchestra, each musician has a specific role, but as a group they work in unison toward a common goal – to make beautiful music. If just one member of the orchestra decides to do things differently, the results can be disastrous.

The dynamics of symphony orchestras come to mind because of two recent events in which political allies appear to be singing from different song sheets.

The first of these took place on Thursday at a Congressional hearing on deferred prosecution agreements. For New Jersey Democrats, the session conducted by the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law provided an opportunity to score political points because the star witness was GOP gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie and the agenda included questions regarding deferred prosecution agreements that took place while he was the state’s U.S. Attorney.

Not surprisingly, Republicans charged that the hearing was politically motivated (Christie labeled the session a political circus after he finished his testimony). Meanwhile, Democrats argued that the hearing was needed to determine whether deferred prosecution agreements require additional oversight, as proposed in legislation co-authored by two Democratic New Jersey congressmen. That’s not a bad argument – unless someone from your own party starts singing from a different song sheet.

And that’s more or less what happened when a member of the Obama Administration testified that deferred prosecution agreements – in their current form — have been an effective part of the federal government’s efforts to combat corporate fraud. He also warned that the proposed legislation would weaken those efforts. “The bill would impede the government’s enforcement efforts against corporate and financial frauds by limiting our discretion in appropriately prosecuting cases,” Gary Grindler, a deputy assistant attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice, told the committee.

Grindler is a seasoned attorney who supervises the Justice Department’s enforcement of anti-fraud laws, so his comments should not be taken lightly.  But in the context of New Jersey’s gubernatorial election, his testimony was ill-timed for Democrats, and Christie seized the opportunity quickly. “I agree with the Obama Administration, who think that what we did was completely appropriate,” he told politickernj after the hearing. “You heard the official from the Obama Justice Department say that they wouldn’t change a thing about what we did.”

Could the situation have been avoided?  In this case, if the White House knew that Grindler’s testimony was going to undercut an effort to tarnish Christie’s reputation, the administration could have warned New Jersey Democrats that the hearing might not be such a good idea and urged that they cancel or postpone the session. Or perhaps the White House could have had Grindler take a little more time to review the proposed legislation, so that he could tell the committee the Justice Department was still studying the proposal, instead of trashing it.

Closer to home, there was another disconnect – this one involving the election of a lieutenant governor for the first time in New Jersey history. According to the state Constitution, gubernatorial candidates have 30 days from the date they are nominated to select a lieutenant governor running mate. This generally was interpreted – by the candidates, the media and political experts – as 30 days from New Jersey’s June 2 primary election, which would have placed the deadline at July 2.  But it turns out that candidates do not officially become nominees until the primary election results are certified by the Secretary of State, and Nina Mitchell Wells, who serves as Secretary of State in Governor Corzine’s cabinet, did not certify the results until June 26, giving candidates until July 27 to select their running mates.

In the grand scheme of things, the extra 25 days may matter little in November, but it is puzzling that Wells did not clarify the deadline sooner.  As far back as April, news reports were indicating that the deadline was July 2, and it appears that both major candidates were operating under the same timetable.  Why not set the record straight sooner?

What these two episodes illustrate is just how difficult it is for a chief executive to keep tabs on every agency and every employee in his or her administration – something that President Obama discovered quickly when a passenger jet and an F-16 fighter plane were authorized — apparently without his knowledge — to fly over New York City for an unannounced photo op that rekindled fears of the 9/11 attacks.

Political campaigns face similar challenges. They must keep large numbers of people on message when the stakes are high, time is short, and egos are gigantic. No campaign is perfect. For all of its historic accomplishments, the Obama campaign still made its share of mistakes.

Successful campaigns manage to move past their missteps so they become mere blips on the radar screen. For unsuccessful campaigns, missteps can become emblematic of flawed and failed efforts — as in images of Michael Dukakis at the controls of a tank in his 1988 bid for the presidency. Here in New Jersey, it is unlikely that any of this year’s candidates for governor will run perfect campaigns immune from mistakes. But come November, how they handled those missteps could be what makes the difference between winning and losing.

# # #

Hall Institute New To Weblog!

Hello Weblog, this is the Hall Institute’s inaugural blog post. Following this first post, we will be posting critical articles regarding public policy-pertinent-issues in New Jersey. On Weblog, we hope to draw the attention and perspectives of a wide range of people who are interested in public policy issues like education, the environment, poverty studies, or just New Jersey.   

The Hall Institute is a not-for-profit public policy think tank based in Trenton, New Jersey right across from the statehouse. We are interested in advocacy, public policy, independent analysis, and original research. Most of all, we are interested in what people in New Jersey think about a political, cultural, and environmental New Jersey.  Hello Weblog, we hope to hear from you!