Elections Change Office Holders, But Rarely Change Anything Else

Every few years, the public, generally as a result of disappointment or opposition to either the incumbent, the political process, the economy, or certain policies, decides to do the equivalent of a political purge, or "vote the bums out." Unfortunately, in most cases, all this has done is replace one set of dysfunctional office holders with another set of less experienced ones.

In the first congressional elections of President Clinton's first term, in 1994, many of the new members of Congress, who were "swept" into office when President Clinton was elected in 1992, were defeated, and the Congress switched from a Democratic majority to a Republican one. The ever versatile Clinton read the "political waters or tea bags," and "moved to the center," and became one of our more productive Presidents, trying to work with the opposition party to get things done. What often occurs after a new President is elected is that individual embarks on certain major changes, which, it seems, invariably have a certain number of detractors. President Obama, after a similar devastating mid-term election, which saw a large Democratic majority turn to a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, and a much smaller Democratic majority in the Senate. One must objectively wonder if there was so much stalling and failure to get things done productively with one party in control, will there be any hope of conciliatory behavior now? Will the two parties, and the two factions, continuing playing politics, or will they work together, and compromise on their extremes, in order to benefit the American public.

President Obama may have a more difficult go of it than President Clinton did, however. Firstly, Clinton's own political views were somewhat more centrist than those of Obama. Secondly, Clinton by nature, was a savvy politician, who was a master at the political art of compromise. How will President Obama do with an approximately 65 seat turnover as a result of these mid-year elections? The other complication is that some of the new faces in Congress were elected as a result of Tea Party efforts, endorsements, affiliations, or beliefs, and how will these new members of Congress adapt to the "crazy" political system within the District of Columbia?

In the 2008 Presidential elections, Obama campaigned on "Change you can believe in." Many of the candidates elected during these mid- year elections campaigned in opposition to this change, and the real question one must ask is whether these election results were because of agreement with a more conservative agenda, a backlash against the President and his programs and proposals, merely anti-incumbent, anger regarding joblessness, the result of the lackluster economy and low consumer confidence, a backlash or opposition to a particular issue such as health care, the huge deficits, or something else?

These 2010 mid-year elections certainly changed the face of our elected officials. However, we do not yet know if these changes will merely be cosmetic, or will they accomplish anything constructive. Let's wait and see!

It's The Public's Right, Even If They're Wrong

There is an ongoing argument about how the American system works - - its strengths and its weaknesses. Many argue that our system of campaigning rarely gets the full message to the electorate, and that it merely becomes a popularity, hyping, and advertising contest. Many have stated that our campaigning period is too long, and therefore it often seems that candidates, when elected, are just constantly running for reelection.

Much is said and written about how much of the campaign is composed of empty rhetoric and unrealistic promises. How often have we ever seen campaign promises come to fruition for the benefit of the public?

While all of this is true, and it is certainly unfortunate that so many voters tend to vote based on emotion, hope, hype, or belief in some campaign promise, or even more often, vote against something, isn't that what democracy is all about? Isn't it every American's right to have the freedom to vote as they see fit, whether it conceptually makes sense or not? How many voters really are familiar with all the relevant issues, or even what specific candidates have done versus what they promise? How often does it appear that voters elect candidates that complain about the incumbents, and complain about some issue, but rarely come up with a realistic alternative?

The reality is that American politics is far more "spin" than action. Even incumbents that are embedded in the system, often campaign as the "outsider." However, as thoroughly exasperating, and even counter- productive that may be, isn't it every American's right to vote based on whatever their own criteria might be, or no criteria at all? Who are we to tell others how they must vote? So, isn't it the public's right, even if they are wrong?

Polls Are Often Wrong

Many observers of political campaigns spend an inordinate amount of time and effort "poll watching." This becomes increasingly tedious and misleading because there are sometimes wide differences between the results reported by various polling organizations. Some of this is due to statistical error, and others due to the structure and wording of the poll. I have come to believe, however, that one of the major factors often overlooked in reviewing these polls, is that individuals responding to polls often give either tentative, partial, uncertain responses, and in some cases, I believe they outright lie.

Historically, as election dates near, polling margins narrow. To a large degree, that is because a large number of individuals are still party loyal, even if they are dissatisfied with the performance of their political party. Often, initially, opposition candidates poll very well as an anti-incumbent vote. However, when voters get a chance to think about it more thoroughly, they often realize that they also do not agree with the opposition candidate, or that what he wishes to do, might be worse.

In reality, the only poll that really matters is the polling booth on Election Day. Amongst nations that have democratic elections, Americans tend to vote in far lower percentages of eligible voters, than in other nations. Many individuals previously polled, who are disgruntled with the incumbent, or disillusioned with the state of the nation or locality, do not have strong pro-opposition candidate feelings either. I believe this, to a somewhat large degree, often accounts for low voter turnouts on Election Day.

These advance polls have been shown, however, to often have an impact on voter turnout. A close advance poll generally results in a larger voter turnout, while a poll that indicates a "landslide," often reduces voter turnout. Many potential voters either feel their vote doesn't count, or that they really don't particularly like either candidate.

Another factor that often impacts turnout, especially on the west coast, is the results announced earlier from east coast races. Often, voters go with the trends, and if results from the earlier closed polls on the east coast seem to indicate a trend (or that the media interprets it that way), it often has a significant impact on later voter turnout on the west coast. In many past elections, many experts believe this behavior had a significant impact on election results.

It is important to vote, if only for the fact that if you vote, it gives you the "right to complain," while if you do not, you may have been "part of the problem." Don't pay that much attention to pre- election polling. If you believe that one candidate is better qualified, and will better represent the interests of his constituents, I urge you to go to the polls on Election Day, and vote!

Political Contributors Follow The Leaders

Are corporate contributions based on belief in who the best or more capable candidate might be, or on political expediency? The news media recently reported that, while for the years 2006 through 2009, the majority of corporate contributions went to Democrats, thus far in 2010, the opposite is true, with close to sixty percent of all corporate political contributions apparently going to Republican candidates, or to the Republican Party. Since much of the public is under the perception that corporate America is predominantly more conservative, and thus tends to lean Republican, during 2006 through 2009, the opposite was true. Was that a change in belief, or merely a recognition in the weakening and softening of support for President Bush and many Republican office holders? Obviously, that was the same period that there was a change in the party of the President (which many anticipated because of anti-Bush sentiment), and in 2008, both the President and both Houses of Congress swung dramatically to the Democrats.

Largely because of the continued troubling economy, the perception by many Americans that the measures taken have both not worked and been wasteful, and the weakening poll numbers of both the President and the incumbents (and since the Democrats are presently in power, there are far more Democratic incumbents), there appears to widespread belief that there will be a major realignment in the power balance between the political parties at the 2010 mid-term elections.

Of course, the Tea Party's success and popularity has made it far more difficult to predict results, and even President Carter has likened his short-term popular election in 1976 to a dissatisfaction of the American public, similar to what is intensifying the Tea Party's appeal. American politics has traditionally been cyclical, and American voters have traditionally taken out their dissatisfaction and frustration by voting "the bums out." Therefore, many political pundits are predicting a dramatic victory for the Republicans in 2010.

Is corporate money therefore following the leader? It has in the past, and it certainly appears that it is once again during this election cycle. However, the Republicans should carefully remember this caveat that their dramatic victory in 2010 could strengthen President Obama's and the Democratic Party's chances in 2012, especially if the public does not perceive noticeable and dramatic improvement.