“A roll of the dice” one would-be wit called it. Others have described it in considerably less family friendly terms. But, however, described, it’s described a lot. Indeed, it’s been widely reported nationally as well as across Pennsylvania.
The Corbett administration intends to turn management of the Pennsylvania lottery over to the British firm, Camelot Global Services. “Privatization” of the operation of the state lottery is about to become a fact, subject to legal reviews by the attorney general, the state treasurer and a court challenge by AFSCME, the union representing lottery employees.
Not surprisingly, turning the lottery over to a British firm has been controversial. Supporters of Corbett’s plan cite the money it will save, the expected profits it will return and the efficiencies it will produce. Opponents bewail the Pennsylvania jobs that will be lost, the lack of transparency that characterized the awarding of the contract and the possible illegality of the management change.
Both supporters and opponents, however, seem to be missing the real issue. In debating the fine points of the deal, they are playing Nero, fiddling while Rome burns. The point both sides miss so completely is that neither the lottery as it exists, nor Corbett’s proposed plans, are really good ideas.
Privatization never worked as well as its proponents argued. Outsourcing and downsizing bring as many problems as they solve. In fact, if we are ever to solve the modern problems of fiscal solvency, massive infrastructure needs, and unprecedented challenges to education, we won’t do it by zombie like application of yesterday’s techniques to today’s problems.
It’s a cliche, but a good one–we must begin to think outside the box. And one way to do that is to solve problems in government as they are solved outside government– not inflexibly or bureaucratically, but with imagination and creativity. To the point: government and government created entries must become entrepreneurs.
As it turns out, Camelot Global Services, now only a few short steps from managing the Pennsylvania lottery, offers us a virtual blue print for doing just that. Camelot is a British company, which operates Britain’s national lottery and advises lottery operations in Illinois and California.
All of this is well known. Not so well known is the ownership of Camelot. They are owned by (we are not making this up) the Ontario Teachers’ Pension fund, the largest plan of its kind in Canada with assets of 117 billion. Perhaps even more interesting, the Ontario Pension fund has numerous similar investments, owning similar corporate entities around the world.
So, while here in Pennsylvania, we are worrying about the unfunded liabilities of our own “teachers’ pension plan” (as well as our own state employees plan), Canadian entities are making a healthy buck selling services to our own state lottery.
Not a bad gig. Pennsylvania sends lottery profits to a British company, one owned by a Canadian pension fund, while we lose some unknown number of Pennsylvania jobs in the process. Meanwhile, legal issues may keep the whole thing in legal limbo for months if not years.
The winner in this one isn’t hard to locate. Hint: it’s not us. That great “socialist colossus” to our north is knocking our socks off when it comes to playing the Capitalist game.
But it doesn’t need to end this way – and it won’t if we begin to apply entrepreneurial principles to our policy challenges.
With respect to the Pennsylvania lottery and our aspirations to increase its revenue, a simple expedient might enable our two embattled pension funds (SERS and PSERS) to play the same role as the Ontario pension fund.
Jointly or together, they might spin off a new company, whose board would consist of representatives of the two pension funds and the union. The profits would go to the two pension funds to help retire the 41billion in pension debt. The expanded revenues would increase monies for senior citizens programs. And Pennsylvania could save the jobs slated to be lost as well as including the employees to be part of the decision-making process itself.
It sounds simple. But carrying it off would require some negotiation, more than a little give and take on both sides of the issue, some good will and more than a modicum of commonsensical old time Yankee ingenuity.
But what promise and what potential if this kind of thinking took hold in state government–literally getting all stakeholders invested in a major governmental reform, thinking pragmatically to a win-win solution that benefits citizens, taxpayers and government workers alike.
That’s not what we have done so far. But there is still time, not just for the Lottery but for the phalanx of problems Pennsylvania must solve in coming years.
We are not going to bring Pennsylvania into the 21st century using the tools and techniques of the 20th. The problems confronting us are massive, multiple and sometimes overwhelming. But we can solve them if we move away from rigid ideological thinking on the one hand –and trite and tired cookie cutter approaches on the other. We must begin to think outside the box–and the lottery is a good place to begin.
It was a shocker. And it grabbed headlines, not just in Pennsylvania but across the nation. Governor Tom Corbett in an abrupt turnabout is suing the NCAA for sanctions imposed on Penn State University in the notorious Sandusky scandal.
But how should we interpret Corbett’s now widely reported intentions? Are they the brilliant political strategy of a governor determined to right a wrong and defend his state against the bullying tactics of an out of control regulatory body? Or are they the desperate flailing of an embattled governor feverishly trying to rescue his own career from a political defeat some predict?
Certainly many political observers see cynical political calculations working here, a none too subtle attempt by an unpopular governor to shore up his political strength in advance of a 2014 re-election certain to be challenging for him. A chorus of critics have characterized the planned suit as “frivolous,” “grandstanding,” “a disgrace,” and “laughable.”
Moreover, Corbett’s own previous involvement in the case is controversial. Critics have long accused him of dragging his feet as attorney general in the early Sandusky investigation to benefit his gubernatorial candidacy. Then last July after the NCAA sanctions were announced, he publicly supported them, calling them necessary “corrective actions” for Penn State.
Corbett’s new position puts him squarely on both sides of the issue, leaving little doubt that political calculations are in play. Beyond dispute, the governor’s anemic approval ratings stem in part from his handling of the prosecution and his later role as an ex officio member of the Penn State Board of Trustees.
Statewide polls have consistently shown high disapproval ratings for Corbett’s management of the case, as well as deep unpopularity for the NCAA sanctions themselves. According to a September F&M poll only one in six (17%) registered voters believe Governor Corbett did an excellent or good job of investigating the Sandusky case when he was the attorney general compared to nearly two in three (65%) who think he did a fair or poor job.
But there is another side to consider. In the same poll a clear majority of voters (54%) believe the NCAA sanctions imposed are unfair. Pennsylvanians agree with the governor that the NCAA blatantly overstepped its bounds, ignored its own procedures and denied Penn State due process. Legal observers disagree in evaluating the suit, some concluding it will be a hard case to win, while others believe there are significant antitrust issues raised in Corbett’s arguments.
Surely Corbett’s arguments are familiar since they comprise many of the same criticisms many Pennsylvanians have leveled at the NCAA sanctions since last year. Corbett’s 43 page lawsuit filed in the U S District Court charges that:
. The NCAA is a “trade organization” that overstepped its authority involving itself in a criminal case. In imposing sanctions on Penn State the NCAA ignored its own procedures and guidelines.
. NCAA virtually blackmailed Penn State into accepting the sanctions without due process by threatening to suspend the football program permanently (the “death penalty”).
. The NCAA “has punished Penn State without citing a single concrete NCAA rule that Penn State has broken.and with a complete disregard for the NCAA’s own enforcement procedures.”
. The NCAA penalties have imposed “irreparable damage on Pennsylvania, on its businesses and reputation, and on the Penn State football team.
Whether one endorses these arguments or not, many fair minded people will agree that most of them should have been aired when sanctions were imposed. Corbett’s lawsuit, better late than never, will do that.
The stakes for Corbett in this bold strategy are immense. In going after the sanctions and the NCAA, he is adopting a politically popular policy. At the same time he risks the credible criticism that he is a hypocritical politician who initially supported the NCAA actions as necessary “corrective actions,” but now is changing course because he is in political trouble. Furthermore, suing the NCAA puts the case squarely into the 2014 gubernatorial campaign, a strategy with some significant plusses and minuses for him.
All in all, Corbett’s action seems to be an instance of doing the right thing for the wrong reason. In defending the state’s rights against what many believe to be an out of control trade group, Corbett is exercising the leadership expected of the state’s chief executive. But he is doing it belatedly and perhaps reluctantly. For Pennsylvanians, a measured review of the correctness and proportionality of the NCAA sanctions is a necessary, if painful, exercise. For Pennsylvania’s governor it may also be a necessary, if painful, exercise – and one fraught with potential political peril.
——–
Madonna is Professor of Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College, and Young is a former Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Penn State University and Managing Partner of Michael Young Strategic Research.
In 2012, Pennsylvania had quite a year, not a year everyone will want to remember, but certainly a year few will be able to forget. Consider some of the highlights of a year filled with dramatic, often disturbing and frequently surprising moments.
Early in the year, a beloved football icon dies in the midst of a messy investigation involving embarrassing questions about how his program may have abetted the decade’s long career of a notorious pedophile. Later in the year, that pedophile’s public trial and conviction attracted vast national attention, mesmerizing the state’s media and much of its citizenry more than any trial in memory.
In electoral politics, a former Pennsylvania U. S. Senator, possessing little organization or money and rejected by voters for reelection only six years earlier, nevertheless, makes an unlikely run for the GOP nomination for president, coming closer to winning than any Pennsylvanian in fifty years.
Then in July, the long awaited “Freeh report,” authored by former FBI Director Louis Freeh, was released, pouring scathing criticism on Penn State University for “callous and shocking” efforts to cover up child sexual abuse allegations in order to avoid bad publicity. In early November, former Penn State president Graham Spanier was indicted for what one source called a “conspiracy of silence” in the case.
Along the way, former state legislators continue to fill out change of address forms after conviction for various and sundry offenses in the seemingly perpetual “bonusgate scandal.” Among the political casualties are two former Speakers of the House.
Meanwhile, a political neophyte, Kathleen Kane, becomes the first Democrat ever to win election to the office of attorney general, leading the Democratic ticket, garnering more votes than Barack Obama or Bob Casey.
And these are just the highlights of this tempestuous year.
What most, if not all, of these epochal events have in common is that they were not predictable. But that hardly makes 2012 an unusual year. A truly unusual year would be one we “know” what will happen and it does. There aren’t many years like that, and we expect 2013 won’t be one of them. In short, Pennsylvania watchers should expect the unexpected in 2013. In that spirit, we offer a lucky seven things that won’t happen in Pennsylvania in 2013. We expect they won’t, which means some of them probably will.
Pennsylvania’s most improbable probabilities for 2013
· Governor Tom Corbett, emulating his secret hero LBJ (who knew?) announces he will not run for reelection so he can work on the mountain of problems confronting the state. The governor endorses no successor preferring to avoid distractions to his work.
· The Pennsylvania legislature gets religious on gun control, passing one of the strictest gun laws in the nation. The state’s NRA applauds the legislature’s leadership on the issue, announcing it will support “generously” for reelection each legislator who votes for tougher gun regulations.
· Pennsylvania’s dire pension crisis abates as a resurgent economy and the biggest bull market since World War II erases funding shortfalls taking the pressure off both the state and local school districts. State employee unions volunteer to scale back pension benefits to guarantee future stability of the system.
· Pennsylvania’s controversial Voter ID law is rescinded as supporters publicly acknowledge it as unworkable. One leading state Republican is quoted as saying, “giving up voter suppression tactics might not be the smart thing to do, but it’s the right thing to do.”
· The state legislature votes to reduce the size of legislature by 50 percent. The popular proposal goes to the electorate as a constitutional amendment. Some 100 legislators have voluntarily agreed to give up their seats and return to private life to make the transition as smooth as possible. At least a dozen plan early resignations.
· Simultaneously, the state legislature votes for term limits that will limit a house member to four two-year terms and a senator to two four-year terms. Members will not be eligible for reelection again in their lifetimes, and the General Assembly will officially be designated a “citizens legislature.” Pensions for legislators are abolished and campaign funds remaining upon a member’s retirement will go to the state’s general fund.
· Pursuing a package of electoral reforms, the General Assembly caps it by passing the strictest campaign finance law in the nation, sharply limiting the sources and uses of campaign contribution, making it illegal for lobbyists to contribute to any campaign and authorizing the state auditor general to audit campaign contributions made to any elected official.
· Pennsylvania adopts Senator Pileggi’s Electoral College proposal, awarding future electoral votes proportionately according to the popular vote. Pennsylvania initiates a wave of change in states controlled by Republicans.
If most of these forecasts seem unlikely in 2013, that’s really the point. A year ago, how many of the events recounted above were predicted or expected? Yogi Berra said it best: “It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future.”
If we expect the unexpected in 2013, we aren’t likely to be disappointed.
Pennsylvania governor Tom Corbett expresses himself clearly on the subject: he has “no plans to break” Pennsylvania’s vaunted “tradition” of reelecting incumbent governors to a second term. Translation, should one be needed: the governor is a candidate for reelection—and he plans to be reelected.
Others apparently are not so sure, notably the numerous wannabe Democratic opponents rumored or actually already running against him. They all sound pretty sure Governor Corbett’s destined for early retirement.
Someone has to be wrong here and if we wait until November 2014, we will discover who.
But for those of a less patient bent, we posit the compelling arguments you will hear over the next two years: 1) why Tom Corbett will invariably be defeated for reelection and 2) the equally persuasive reasons why he invariably will win reelection.
WHY CORBETT PROBABLY CAN’T WIN
Unpopularity - Corbett enters the race as the weakest incumbent for reelection in modern times. His positive job approval rating recently broke above 40 % (barely), thanks to good marks for his handling of Hurricane Sandy’s relief efforts. More typically he has been receiving approval ratings in the mid 30’s, a polling score rarely seen except among the most unpopular (and endangered) of incumbents.
Controversial Decisions – Much of Corbett’s unpopularity stems from his controversial budget cuts, especially to educational programs as well as the ongoing debate over how he handled the Sandusky sex abuse case .The bad news, however, is his low performance standings will be hard to reverse amid continuity fiscal austerity. Indeed further unpopular decisions are likely in upcoming budget cycles as urgent challenges in pension reform, infrastructure development and social programs continue.
Ideological bent – Corbett remains an ideological warrior committed to less government, alternatives to public education and no new taxes. Inconveniently for him, Pennsylvania remains a state not comfortable with political ideologues, either on the right or left. Corbett’s hard opposition to tax increases, for example, has painted him into a corner in a state increasingly desperate to find new revenues.
Political Skills – While a very successful attorney general, Corbett’s tenure in the governor’s office has revealed a paucity of those political skills usually found in gubernatorial incumbents. Some blame his political leadership for the Republican Party’s poor statewide showing in November’s election. Worse perhaps he has failed to move virtually any of his major agenda, despite having large majorities of his own party in the state legislature. Relatedly he has failed to sell most of his proposals to voters and at times seemed little interested in doing so.
WHY CORBETT PROBABLY CAN’T LOSE
Yes, But – Corbett’s problems are seriously exaggerated. Yes he has encountered some political headwinds as have most incumbent governors combating economic hard times. Moreover as an incumbent he still commands impressive organizational, financial and political resources supporting his re-election. And while his polls have been underwhelming through most of his tenure, they are showing modest improvement as he enters his third year in office. For Corbett the worst is over.
We Have Seen this Movie Before – Corbett is not the first incumbent to look like a road kill early in his first term. In the 1990’s Republican Tom Ridge looked like a goner into his second year in office. By the spring of 1996, Ridge’s job performance dropped into the mid 40’s. Ten years later Democrat Ed Rendell reprised Ridge’s problems. In February of 2006 his job performance was just a nudge above 40%. Yet both won easily: Ridge by 26 points and Rendell by 21 points.
Somebody beats nobody every time – It’s a hoary, old political axiom: you can’t beat somebody with nobody. Right now Corbett, his problems notwithstanding, is a known quantity running against a field of relative unknowns. Only one of Corbett’s putative opponents has run and won a statewide general election. None approach Corbett’s statewide name recognition. Historically this is a familiar pattern. With one possible exception the out party has not produced a viable gubernatorial opponent since 1970.
The Six Year Itch – It’s almost never good to be a candidate from the president’s party in the presidents sixth year in office. Known as the six year itch the president’s party in that sixth year almost always courts electoral disaster–losing seats in Congress, governorships and state legislatures. In 2014, it is the Democrats doing the scratching making it doubly tough for any Democrat to take on and beat an incumbent. In addition to this powerful trend, Pennsylvanians tend to reelect governors from the party out of power in Washington.
Barring an actual tie on Election Day, these diametrically opposed arguments both can’t be correct. Corbett is going to win reelection or he isn’t. But it may matter less what either Corbett or his opponents do–and more what the economy does or does not. The only incumbent governor in modern times to almost lose–Dick Thornburgh in 1982–was the near victim of what was then the worst economy since World War II. Conversely those incumbent governors experiencing easy reelections all benefited from running in a year in which the economy was strong or on the mend. Almost inevitably, Corbett’s fate is hostage to what happens in the economy during the next two years.
I’ve never met Mark Critz. I saw him on the campaign trail once or twice during his successful special election campaign in 2010. He seems like a good man. And, I have great respect for the Congressman, Mike Mikus and his entire team. They handed me my worst defeat in politics and my most rewarding win – in a mere three years’ time.
I underestimated him from the get go. Following the death of the legendary John Murtha, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) prepared for a special election to fill his seat. At the time, Minority Leader John Boehner and House Republicans were seeing the early signs of big, possibly huge, pickups in the House. Whispers of reaching the majority were getting louder despite our 39–seat minority status.
At the time, I must have sounded something like, “His district director? No way. They’re not that dumb. Why not Wozniak? Or Mrs. Murtha? Game over if so.” In reality, I should have been hoping for anyone but Critz.
The McEnroe of Politics
The NRCC kicked off the 2010 special with TV buys in both the Pittsburgh and Johnstown media markets trying to frame Critz as an out-of-step liberal. Conservative western Pennsylvania had been trending red for a while.
It was a critical error. We left ourselves vulnerable to a deadly counterattack. Mark Critz’s first ad of the special election was a candidate-to-camera response ad. Simply unheard of in political TV advertising.
It was the most effective ad of the campaign. When Critz looked straight at voters and said he was pro-life and pro-gun (and meant it), our credibility began to bleed out. When you swing and miss badly in a campaign, voters tend to not forget.
I learned then that Mark Critz and his team played a great serve-and-volley game. We’d attack hard. They’d rebut better. The final score was reflective of the way the match was played. Mark Critz proved wrong those who discounted his political talents. Myself included.
The loss sent shockwaves through the NRCC and House Republican leadership. The wave was building in the Spring of 2010 and GOP hopes were rising. But then Mark Critz seemed to disprove the whole notion by winning in conservative southwestern Pennsylvania with the political world watching.
A Second Chance
As fortune would have it, Mark Critz found himself at the center of national politics again in 2012. Once again, he outplayed the odds and won in defiance of conventional wisdom when he beat Congressman Jason Altmire handily in one of those rare, but always epic, Member-versus-Member primaries. These bizarre matchups only occur every 10 years as a consequence of biennial redistricting.
What I knew about Keith Rothfus was that he too paid little attention to conventional wisdom. He won a primary in 2010 that no one thought he could. As the newly-minted GOP nominee in the old 4th District, he arrived at the NRCC magnanimous and determined. He left a lasting impression.
To make a long story short, Keith’s race against Altmire simply broke too late. The NRCC Independent Expenditure money had been spent. As the 63-seat wave was cresting, we were trying in vain to keep up with a rapidly expanding playing field of races. Five pickups already appeared likely in Pennsylvania. I believe Keith would have won in 2010 if we had invested in the race. But no one was to blame.
In 2011, I and others were guilty of flirting with other recruits for the newly-drawn 12th District. But Keith Rothfus was the right candidate. He had proven he was ferociously dedicated to fundraising and had a strong grassroots following. I’ll take those two traits in a candidate and beat you every time.
Early polling showed that Keith had little-to-no residual name identification, even in the old 4th District. Meanwhile, Critz had a Murtha-esque base in Johnstown and respectable name ID in the Pittsburgh market from the primary. Critz started the race up 44-29% in internal Rothfus/NRCC polling.
As Labor Day approached, the NRCC went on the air early. But this time with a thematic that fit Mark Critz in a way that “liberal” never did. He “said one thing and did another”. It was the kind of defining narrative that most campaigns never achieve against an opponent.
The Rothfus campaign stretched their budget and went on the air in late August. Their objective was to both raise name ID and start building a protective layer around Keith in anticipation of the millions in negative ads that were coming.
The strategy of the Critz campaign and four separate Democratic outside groups was to spend big early in an attempt to destroy our planes on the runway. We were badly outspent early on and we knew their strategy was a sound one.
The message was straight from the Democratic playbook: the rich want to fuel their jets with the human remains of the middle class and seniors. Keith Rothfus is a bad fit for that caricature in the same way Critz was ill-suited for our attacks in 2010.
Keith Rothfus may not be flashy but he is as sincere, serious and compassionate as they come. He’s serving to save this country and every American, regardless of age, gender or race, from the approaching cliff. His lifestyle and motivations are every bit that of a “regular guy”.
Regular Guy
The biggest and ugliest debate of the campaign was the “Regular Guy” ad series. There are plenty of good reasons to not run these ads and plenty of people to remind you of those reasons. You risk trivializing the candidate. The campaign believed it would be essential to pair reality and creativity to weather the attacks.
When the attacks came, Keith’s campaign countered with the Regular Guy-themed ads again. Keith Rothfus is not the “Wall Street lawyer” the Democrats said he was. As a private practice attorney, he did some intellectual property work for Mellon Bank. I repeat, Mellon Bank. This is Pittsburgh. What resulted were this New York Times’ story andthe Stanwix Street ad.
The ads were wildly effective. They used a touch of levity and common sense to show the attacks against Keith to be empty. The campaign’s strategy broke the voters’ faith in Critz. He would limp the rest of the way.
The next poll out of the field showed Keith had catapulted up and Critz had sunk to a 38-38% dead heat. He had more than weathered the storm. He was on the move.
Critz countered with ads that were defensive on issues that had never surfaced in the campaign. We had not attacked him on cultural issues and yet he was talking about abortion and guns on TV. ‘It worked once so let’s try it again’ was what they must have been thinking. They were crossed up. The Rothfus campaign was dictating the terms of the debate.
You Learn More From Losses
The nail in the coffin was “Alice and Alice”. The ad was Keith’s idea. Great political ads pair the very expression of a person’s candidacy with a creative concept that makes an emotional connection with voters. This ad did that.
In my four years at the NRCC, I have never seen a campaign with better strategic messaging and paid communications. Mike Long and Todd Nyquist of L&N Consulting were the strategic force behind the campaign and Nick Everhart of The Strategy Group for Media was the media consultant. They prevailed against a very capable Critz campaign in some epic hand-to-hand political combat.
Despite the losses of more than a few incumbent Republican Members of Congress, we won some key pickups in 2012 that preserved a healthy majority for Speaker Boehner. PA-12 is the prototype for the kind of hard-fought wins in tossup races that defined election night for House Republicans.
In an unintended but real tribute to Mark Critz, few at the NRCC believed in our chances on the eve of Election Day. Lots of “L”s next to PA-12 in the office pool. The 2010 special election left searing scars.
The saying holds that you learn more from losses than you do from wins. That’s how we turned the most embarrassing loss as House Republicans in 2010 into our biggest win in the country’s most expensive House race in 2012.
Pennsylvanians might reasonably expect that the political world would take a breather from campaigns following almost two years of non-stop presidential campaigning. After running nationally more than one million commercials and spending an estimated six billion dollars, everyone should be ready for a rest.
Silly you!
In fact, the next political campaign is already underway—it started the day after the presidential election. We speak, of course, of the already frenzied maneuvering for position in the Keystone state’s upcoming 2014 gubernatorial election. For the first time in modern times, an incumbent governor is all but certain to face serious opposition for re-election to a second term. Some of it might come from his Republican party; more of it will likely come from opposition Democrats.
Without further ado, these are the names most likely to surface in the next several weeks and months as Pennsylvania prepares to elect its next governor.
REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES
Tom Corbett – Corbett enters the race as the weakest incumbent for reelection since 1970 when governors became eligible to run for a second term. His job performance numbers in many recent polls are in the mid 30’s and his budget cuts have drawn heavy fire from both Democrats and Republicans. Moreover, some blame his political leadership for the Republican Party’s poor statewide showing in November’s election. Compounding the governor’s problems is the debate over his handling of the notorious Sandusky investigation while he served as attorney general. The incoming attorney general has promised a thorough review of that case. Yet, for all this trouble, Corbett still is arguably the favorite in 2014. As incumbent, he commands enormous organizational, financial and political resources to support his reelection. In addition, Pennsylvanians seem to prefer electing governors from the party out of power in Washington.
Corbett’s Possible Opponents – The GOP’s prospect of losing control of the governorship raises the possibility incumbent Corbett will draw a primary opponent. The question is who might actually do it. After November’s election, there are no Republican statewide office holders available to launch a possible challenge. Consequently, the most likely Corbett opponents would be state lawmakers, including perhaps the Majority Leader of the state House, Mike Turzai or the Majority Leader of the state Senate, Dominic Pleggi or chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Jake Corman. But legislative gubernatorial candidacies historically have been problematic even in open seat races.
Outside possibilities – Other GOP possibilities are sparse. No incumbent Republican congressman is likely to challenge Corbett and the big city mayors are Democrats. One outside possibility is the emergence of an independently wealthy “outside” challenger as we have just seen in the U.S. senate race. But more likely, Corbett gets a “pass” free from serious opposition and an unobstructed path to renomination.
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES
Moving from possible Republicans to possible Democrats, the list grows exponentially. Not a few Republicans worry that Corbett could be defeated, but far more than a few Democrats are certain of it. At least 12 Democrats are potential Corbett opponents, and the number could grow. Here, in no particular order, are those now believed to be among the strongest contenders.
Ed Rendell, former governor, current pundit and sports commentator. Few doubt that Rendell would be a formidable opponent in 2014, but he has consistently ruled himself out.
Rob McCord, incumbent state treasurer, prolific fund raiser, skilled campaigner and possibly the favorite of the Democrat establishment. His largest handicap now is probably lack of statewide name recognition.
Kathleen Kane, newly elected attorney general, proven campaigner, one of the more exciting political figures to emerge on the state scene in many years. Her inexperience in state politics might be her biggest challenge, and she would be in office only a few months before announcing.
Former congressman Joe Sestak, darling of state progressives, an impressive, impassioned campaigner and proven fund raiser. Sestak’s U.S. Senate loss in 2010 may hurt him, but he brings considerable assets to the race.
U. S Senator Bob Casey, the son of a popular two term governor, now twice elected to the U S Senate, and a grass roots favorite among rank and file Democrats. Casey seems highly unlikely to run. If he did run, however, he would prove difficult to defeat.
Josh Shapiro, current chair of the Montgomery County commissioners, draws high marks because of his leadership in the state’s third largest county. He is widely recognized as a future statewide candidate, but his youth probably means he waits a few years more.
To this “A” list of potential Democrats can be added additional prospective candidates either less likely to run or somewhat less likely to win. Among this group is Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz, Philadelphia businessman Tom Knox, state Senator Daylin Leach, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, Allentown Mayor Ed Pawlowski, Auditor General elect Eugene DePasquale and former gubernatorial candidate Dan Onorato.
This is the preliminary lineup for both parties. Two years is several lifetimes in politics and much can change between now and November 2014. What’s unlikely to change, however, is that Pennsylvania is poised to have its most spirited gubernatorial reelection campaign in more than half a century.
—
Madonna is Professor of Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College, and Young is a former Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Penn State University and Managing Partner of Michael Young Strategic Research.
Overall, Pennsylvania’s 67 counties are divided into six indigenous TV markets: Erie; Johnstown/Altoona; Harrisburg, Philadelphia; Pittsburgh and Scranton/Wilkes-Barre. Plus, there are six disparate counties scattered around the state that watch out of state TV, from places as far-flung as Buffalo, New York City, Youngstown, Elmira and Washington, D.C. Below is a primer on their vote totals from the 2008 Obama-McCain campaign.
Then-Sen. Barack Obama took 54.7 percent of the vote in 2008 that produced a winning margin of 620,478 votes – he won 18 counties.
The Erie market consists of three counties – Erie, Warren and Crawford – and produced three percent of the total vote for president in 2008. Obama won 55 percent of that vote, which gave him a raw vote margin of +20,306 there. The outlook here is for Obama to do slightly worse than he did in 2008.
Eleven south central Pennsylvania counties comprise the Harrisburg-Lancaster-Lebanon-York TV market and produced 14.9 percent of the 2008 vote; Obama took 42.9 percent there. That produced a raw vote margin of -117,768. Obama carried Dauphin County and got nearly 44 percent in Lancaster. Republicans need a better vote here if Gov. Romney has any chance of taking the state.
Nine counties get their TV out of Johnstown/Altoona, which also includes Centre County, the only county in this market where Obama took more than 50 percent of the vote (he won Cambria with less than 50 percent). This market produced 5.5 percent of the vote in 2008; Obama took 43.6 percent of the vote which translated into a raw vote margin of -37,639. Obama’s vote totals should plummet in this region.
The Philadelphia TV market is the largest by viewership in the state, and all eight counties here went for Obama in 2008. Think of this market as three different levels: Philadelphia; the four suburban counties of Bucks, Montgomery, Chester and Delaware; and the three exurban counties of Berks, Lehigh and Northampton. Together it produced 41.6 percent of the 2008 vote – Obama won with 64 percent here, for a raw vote margin of +739,337. In just the four suburban counties Obama’s vote margin was +203,633. Romney’s recent polling strength has been boosted by his better than average margins in the ‘burbs. Remember that Obama’s margin in this market was greater than his overall state margin of victory. If Romney does in fact perform better in the ‘burbs, more pressure will be put on the Democrat GOTV machine in the city.
The Pittsburgh market produced 22.3 percent of the 2008 vote, and Obama won with 50.2 percent of the vote. His raw vote margin here of +19,787 all came from Allegheny County. Obama lost the 13 other counties in the market, and his margin without Allegheny County was -81,109. Republicans have performed progressively better in this market in the past several elections and would need to add to that trend for Romney to have a chance.
Obama won just four of the 16 counties in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre market, which propelled him to a 50.4 percent win, with a vote margin of +12,200. This is Bob Casey country, but Republicans believe they can cut into Obama’s 11,000+ advantage in Luzerne County, the largest in the market.
The six out of state market counties produced two percent of the 2008 vote; Obama took 43.6 percent for a raw vote margin of -14,479.
—
A veteran GOP political consultant, Chris Nicholas serves as Political Director at the Pennsylvania Business Council, where he directs PEG PAC, the state’s oldest pro business political action committee.
Old Conventional Wisdom: Pennsylvania is a state Democrats have won five presidential elections in a row: in 2012, it’s safe for Obama and out of reach for Romney.
New Conventional Wisdom: maybe not.
As the 2012 campaign wearily wends its way to November 6 one thing is becoming increasingly clear. Someone didn’t get the memo about Obama’s inevitability in the Keystone state.
In fact, Obama’s once commanding lead has narrowed. The widely followed Real Clear Politics web site tracking the average of state polls now shows Obama’s lead in Pennsylvania has dipped below 5 points. Recent polls show it even closer. In the latest Franklin & Marshall College Poll, Obama’s lead is only 49% to 45% among likely voters, while Romney’s favorable rating has risen markedly from 34% positive to 43% positive.
Even more important than Romney’s surge is the reason for it. Romney is gaining on Obama in Pennsylvania because more and more voters believe he is the best candidate to fix the nation’s economic problems. The September F & M poll revealed that Obama led Romney 47% to 43% on who can best manage the economy. That Obama advantage has now sharply reversed with Romney now leading Obama 47% to 42% on managing the economy.
In short, Romney is gaining ground on the issue that is arguably Obama’s most vulnerable: the economy. The urgent question now becomes whether there is enough time for Romney to close the remaining gap and win Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes.
To be sure, there are unmistakable signs that neither side is taking Pennsylvania for granted. Now the candidates and their Super PACs have decided to pour millions into the state, representing a major departure from the fall campaign. Until recently not a single commercial had aired in the state since the conventions.
.
The Obama campaign doubtlessly will match Romney’s efforts in Pennsylvania. Until now, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan each have made only one fall campaign stop in the state.
Game on!
But exactly what game is it? Does Romney really expect to win in a state he has trailed so long? Is Obama really concerned he could lose a state he carried comfortably in 2008 and his party has won five elections in a row?
For a reasonable answer to both questions one need not look further than neighboring Ohio. There, something similar to the pattern is playing out in Pennsylvania A once solid Obama lead has now dwindled down to a few points or less. In short, Ohio also is now in play.
The difference between the neighboring states, however, is critical and that difference explains most of what we will see in both states for the rest of the campaign. In the Electoral College calculus that ultimately governs both campaigns, Romney must have Ohio to win. (Yes there are scenarios under which he could win without Ohio but they are extremely unlikely. In the real world Romney wins Ohio or he loses the election.)
The problem for Romney is that he probably won’t win Ohio as long as Obama can concentrate campaigning there, defend his slim lead and stop Romney from further gains. That’s where Pennsylvania comes in. Romney in that critical Electoral College strategy doesn’t need Pennsylvania; but Obama does. Obama must win the Keystone state to win the national election. No Pennsylvania for Obama, no second term.
Romney’s obvious best option is doing exactly what he is now doing– forcing Obama to defend Pennsylvania during the final days of the campaign, opening up opportunities for the Romney campaign to undercut Obama in Ohio. What is going on can be compared to a giant game of political chicken in which both sides dare the other to risk losing a state each must win.
Neither campaign is likely to blink in this high stakes gambit that could well decide the election. Nor is it really possible to predict for sure which campaign will prevail. Romney’s momentum is real in both Ohio and Pennsylvania; but Obama continues to stubbornly hold on to small leads in critical states known for close elections. This one is going down to the wire. The irony is that Pennsylvania, a state that has been out of it the entire campaign, might determine in the end whether it is Obama or Romney that crosses that wire on Election Night.
When he died October 14, former Senator Arlen Specter left behind a legacy as a champion for medical research. While he officially represented Pennsylvania in the US Senate, the fruit of his labor over three decades helped improve the health and well-being of millions of Americans across the country.
Politically speaking, he was a arguably a centrist—a dying breed these days. But that label belied the attack-dog energy he invested in what mattered to him. Ironically, the cause he held most deeply and pursued most ardently—medical research—is the one that killed him.
Early in 1998, my colleagues and I huddled in our small office conference room with Senator Specter to discuss appropriations for the National Institutes of Health, the federal government’s premier medical research agency. NIH had historically enjoyed the favor of Congress, but in recent years funding for the agency had fallen off, like so many other federal programs, the victim of austere budget times.
Most of Washington was still bruised from a contentious fight over the Clinton health care reform proposal. But contrarian that he was, Specter had his own take on health reform. If science could come up with cures, better diagnostic tools and more effective treatments for chronic diseases, he argued, wouldn’t that be the best reform of all?
He grabbed a slip of paper, did some quick calculations and came up with a formula for doubling the NIH budget over five years. Others had talked about it, but from his perch on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Specter together with his Democratic colleague Senator Tom Harkin, through sheer persistence and determination got it done.
Lesser men might have stopped there. Not Arlen.
In 2009, Congress began debating the make-up of an economic stimulus package. Early versions of the legislation included investments in infrastructure, energy and job training. Arlen Specter thought something was missing. For years he’d argued that medical research wasn’t just good social policy—it was good economic policy as well. In today’s parlance, medical research was a job-creator for the communities surrounding academic medical centers.
Specter’s proposal—a $10 billion infusion of new funds for NIH—took his colleagues by surprise. Some saw it as a pipe dream. Others thought it was a grandstand play. But to a man who’d fought and beat cancer twice, the value-added of medical research was not political, it was personal.
In the end, Specter won his point.
He was cantankerous, hard-bitten and willful. Just the man patients needed fighting for their side.
He worked on the staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee and was subsequently appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget at the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Beginning on October 3 and continuing through October 22, the rapidly closing 2012 presidential campaign will host of series of fall debates. The first is likely to be the most heavily watched event of the long presidential campaign. The second and third will follow on October 16, and October 22, respectively. The vice presidential debate occurs on October 11.
Not surprisingly, both campaigns approach the debates at fever pitch. In a highly polarized, emotionally charged, hard fought race, the Obama camp believes that a solid mistake free performance will give them four more years. The Romney team believes they can still sell its candidate to the American people as a viable alternative to incumbent Obama.
As the challenger, Romney has the higher hill to climb, but Obama, as incumbent, the most to lose. With the election itself on the line, the debates are the defining moment of the campaign.
Or maybe not!
Make that definitely not.
Indeed, everything we know about presidential campaigns and debates suggest that:
the debates will not be the defining moment of the campaign,
will not determine who wins and who loses and,
will not even significantly impact the margin of winning or losing.
The conventional wisdom that debates can be decisive forms the core of a widely believed mythology about presidential debates – one full of drama, climactic moments, unforgettable punch lines and riveting history.
According to the myths, Kennedy came from behind to beat Nixon in 1960 because of his charismatic use of TV; Ford hurt his campaign in 1976 with Jimmy Carter by flubbing an answer about Soviet domination of Eastern Europe; Reagan beat Carter in 1980 after reassuring viewers he wasn’t a wild man; Dukakis lost to H. W. Bush in 1988 by failing to be properly emotive when a moderator asked him a hypothetical question about rape and the death penalty; then the same H. W. Bush lost a debate to Clinton in 1992 because he cavalierly glanced at his wristwatch during the debate expressing what some interpreted as uncaring arrogance; finally in 2000 Al Gore famously damaged his campaign with his audible sighs at G. W. Bush’s debate answers, insuring voters would reject the tedious Gore for the more likable Bush.
The trouble with all this “history” is that there is precious little evidence that any of it actually happened. In the most celebrated debate myth, Kennedy – Nixon, Kennedy was almost surely gaining rapidly with Nixon going into the debate and that trend simply continued after the debate. In the only slightly less famous myth, Ford’s gaffe on Eastern Europe certainly didn’t cost him the race. In fact, he went from 15 points down before the debates to only 5 down afterward. And to use just one more example, Gallup has estimated that the famous Dukakis goof in 1988 had no effect at all on the polls done in that race.
With few exceptions, most scholars agree that the conventional wisdom about debates as game changers is hokum. One respected political scientist, James Stimson, surveying the debates from 1960 to 2000 has concluded: “there is no case where we can trace a substantial shift to the debates.” In the same vein, two other political scientists, Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezian have written that “the best prediction from the debates is the initial verdict before the debates.” In short, if a candidate is ahead or behind going into the debates, that candidate will be ahead or behind after the debates.
But arguing that debates are rarely if ever decisive is not arguing they are also unimportant. On the contrary, debates are important and do matter. But they matter much differently than conventional wisdom teaches. While debates rarely change opinions, they often do act powerfully to mobilize voters pre-existing opinions. They make those voters comfortable doing what they have already decided to do before the debate.
Contemporary political myths, however, are seldom confused by facts. Despite all the evidence that debates are not decisive, the 2012 debates, nevertheless, will be staged as dramatic spectacles, vivid life and death struggles between the warring candidates, with the future of the republic resting on the outcome. Maybe that’s the way it should be. In show business as in politics, the show must go on. And in 2012 the debate show is the only show we have left.
—
Madonna is Professor of Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College, and Young is a former Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Penn State University and Managing Partner of Michael Young Strategic Research. Madonna and Young encourage responses to the column and can be reached, respectively, at terry.madonna@fandm.edu and drmikelyoung@comcast.net.
Loading ...
