Recently in Followup Category
To continue this line of baseless speculation using anecdotal data, I noticed that the mailer posted at Rochesterturning was sent to someone in Victor. Victor, which is a part of Ontario County, is a good target. It's more conservative than Monroe, since it contains a mix of suburban and rural voters. If I were Kuhl, I'd want to firm up my support there.
In today's Gannett News Service article, Bob Van Wicklin, Randy Kuhl's spokesman, gives the following rationale for Randy's vote against H R 2638:
Van Wicklin said Kuhl voted against the bill because it did not include two northern border security amendments he was seeking, including one that directed federal officials to study the economic impact of the proposed Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The initiative would require Americans for the first time to show a passport or special PASS card when traveling across the U.S.-Canada border.
Sounds plausible. However, a look at the record shows that this is, at best, a transparently false excuse and, at worst, an exercise in deliberate obfuscation. But don't take my word for it. Let's take a look at Randy's statements [pdf] on those two amendments last Thursday on the House floor.
Reader Rich sent a very interesting link the other day: a poll [pdf] conducted by Randy Kuhl's pollsters, McLaughlin and Associates. M&A asked a sample of likely voters whether union elections should be private ballots. By an 87% to 9% margin, those polled said that the elections should be private.
M&A also asked whether voters would be more or less likely to support a Member of Congress who voted for legislation that took away the right to have a private union ballot. By a 70% to 8% margin, those polled said that they would be less likely to support someone who voted for such a measure. (16% said it would make no difference.)
This poll is worth a closer look, because it's a good example of how a sophisticated political strategy group frames an issue.
Reader Rich wrote to point out Bob Lonsberry's March 7 column, where he asks the same question that I asked last month: Why do Veterans have a separate and unequal healthcare delivery system? Bob's column adds another angle, pointing out that medicaid recipients are entitled to care in any facility, yet Veterans aren't.
In his appearance on This Week yesterday, Bob Dole made a similar, though more narrow point:
I haven't made any judgments, but it seems to me that, if the V.A. is not equipped and Department of Defense hospitals are not equipped to deal with these very complex, say, brain injuries, then they ought to go to some private hospital where they are equipped and where they've been doing it for 30, 40, 50 years.
Dole is the co-chair of President Bush's new "Wounded Warriors" commission that will look into issues with health care delivery to wounded soldiers.
The Water Buffalo Press takes a closer look at union membership and "the average American". It turns out that a disproportionate percentage of unionized workers are in the public sector, and that the states with the lowest percentage of union membership are some of those with the highest rates of recent growth.
I agree with the Press' view that HR 800 "may benefit the membership rolls but I have trouble believing it will benefit our economy". That's why I think this issue isn't going to resonate with voters in the 29th, and shouldn't be emphasized by Democrats in the '08 campaign.
Over at Rochesterturning, pystew links to Eric Massa's explanation for referring to Randy Kuhl as "John Kuhl". The reason goes back to a snotty remark from Kuhl in the last campaign.
I don't think this little dig will win Massa any votes. Similarly, I don't that Kuhl's use of the term "Democrat Party" helps his cause. When Massa explains the "John Kuhl" remark, he gives the impression that he's so thin-skinned that he dwells on little slights. When Kuhl uses the term "Democrat Party", he shows that he's so enamored of the President that he even re-uses Bush's favorite locutions.
It's all part of the sideshow that so often becomes the main event in American politics. These kind of tactics just reinforce the cynical view that campaigns are no more than pissing matches full of name-calling and other playground bullshit. Voters deserve better.
The Massa campaign has released [pdf] a memo from their polling company. Again, this is a candidate-sponsored poll. The case made by the pollsters: a significant number of undecideds still exist, and the only thing that's standing between them and a vote for Massa is getting to know him better.
The Cheney fundraiser story just keeps getting stranger. Both the AP and Gannett are running stories based on a Massa campaign press release, as are the Rochester D&C and local TV and radio outlets.
Both Kuhl and the Vice-President's office were caught off guard. The Kuhl campaign made no comment and referred questions to Cheney's office, which initially denied but later confirmed the visit.
Massa's pre-emptive strike has Kuhl looking like he wanted to keep Cheney's $1000 photo-op and $250-plate fundraiser on the DL. You know you've invited the wrong person to town when your opponent is more excited about the visit than you are.
The Massa campaign's press release on the AFL-CIO endorsement mentioned here yesterday points out that another union, the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) also switched allegiance from Kuhl to Massa this week. It quotes an AFL-CIO spokesman who said that the 2004 Kuhl endorsement was based on Kuhl's "generally acceptable" record as an a New York State legislator, and the switch to Massa is based on Kuhl's "very weak" record as a Congressman.
I don't buy the AFL-CIO's explanation that the switch was based entirely on Kuhl's voting record and Massa's position on the issues. If this were a district with a weak Democratic candidate in a year where voters didn't have a "throw the bums out" attitude, I doubt that the AFL-CIO would have switched.
In any case, the Massa campaign can be justifiably proud of getting these unions to switch -- it's an indicator of the strength of their campaign. Over the years, the unions have changed from supporting candidates who are pro-labor to picking and supporting winners. Their endorsements show that Massa is a potential winner.
The Swing State Project's coverage of the union switch includes this rah-rah statement:
With labor coming onside, Eric is well-positioned to take advantage of the deadly Democratic wave sweeping from Buffalo to Long Island under the Spitzer-Clinton banner.
This echoes an earlier Gannett News Service piece on turnout that speculated that Spitzer and Clinton's popularity would increase Democratic turnout in the 29th. As I posted yesterday, I think their popularity is relevant only if their races are close. This year, they aren't.
The reason that candidates for Senator or Governor don't have coattails, especially in off-year elections, is that sometime voters are energized to vote only if they think their votes will make a difference. If you're not a regular voter and your heroes Elliot or Hillary are ahead by 20 points in the polls, why bother voting? They're going to win anyway. The same is true if your hero is losing by 20 points. In this voter's mind, his or her vote won't affect the outcome.
The sometime voter -- in the 29th, that's one of the ~100K who turned out in '04 but not in '02 -- is going to have be energized to vote by Massa or Kuhl in this race. Spitzer, Clinton or their weak opponents will not draw marginal voters to the polls.