Snowe Job

I've been following politics in America for a long time, and I have to admit that I never saw Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe's decision not to seek a fourth term coming.

I'm not alone in that. A lot of people are surprised, but I suppose none of us should be. Snowe is, after all, 65 years old. She would be in her 70s when her seat will be up for election again. She is at the age that most Americans have been conditioned to expect to be retired — even though, given the state of the economy, few can expect to retire.

But Snowe has spent one–third of a century in Congress — and she is the only woman to have served in both chambers of a state legislature and both chambers of the U.S. Congress in a career that spans four decades.

She is also something of a dinosaur — a centrist in an increasingly conservative Republican Party. That fact has made her a true swing vote, courted by both sides on many issues.

Apparently, though, the obvious polarization in our national politics has played a significant role in her decision not to remain in Washington.

"I am a fighter at heart, and I am well prepared for the electoral battle," she said. "Unfortunately, I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term."

From everything I have read, I have the impression that Snowe is popular with her constituents. In three previous Senate elections, her share of the vote went up each time. She was elected with 60% in the Republican year of 1994, re–elected with 69% in 2000 and re–elected again with 74% in the Democrat year of 2006.

My understanding is that she got consistently high marks from her constituents, even though the state has been trending Democrat in national elections, and she almost certainly would have won a fourth term if she sought it.

It would have been good news for Republicans if she had run for re–election — not because modern Republicans could count on her to vote the party line but because her withdrawal takes away what was probably a safe seat for the GOP and turns it into a tossup.

Things are complicated by the calendar. The deadline for gathering enough signatures to be on the ballots in Maine's primaries is March 15, as Matthew Gagnon observes in the Bangor (Maine) Daily News.

"This is not something that can be done by a political novice in two weeks," writes Gagnon, "indeed it is a difficult task for established figures."

Chaos can be expected, and that's bad news for Republicans, who need only a net gain of four seats (three if the Republicans win the presidency) to seize control of the U.S. Senate.

They were counting, I am sure, on retaining Snowe's seat. Because the Democrats were so successful in 2006, Republicans have only 10 seats to defend in the 2012 cycle — and, until yesterday, eight were considered reasonably safe (including Snowe's). Democrats had (and still have) good reason to be concerned about six of their seats, possibly more, but they have more breathing room now.

As Stuart Rothenberg observes, Snowe's decision "places [her seat] firmly in the center of the fight for the Senate majority." He rates it a tossup — a prudent position to take, given that no nominees will be chosen until the primaries on June 12.

Larry Sabato's "Crystal Ball" contends that the seat now leans to the Democrats — even though the candidates for the office are not yet known.

It is, at the very least, something of a field leveler. If Democrats can win Snowe's seat, that makes the mountain that Republicans must climb that much steeper.

Split Decision

In the light of day, it appears that voters in Maine repealed the same–sex marriage law.

The law was receiving a narrow endorsement last night, but late returns ultimately went against it.

Not so the vote on the medical marijuana law. More than 58% of Maine's voters supported easier access to the substance.

Maine's vote on same–sex marriage seems to be the only thing that changed overnight.

The outcome in Virginia is unchanged from last night. Republican Bob McDonnell was declared the winner of the governor's race early in the evening, continuing a trend that has been constant for more than 30 years.

And, in what may be the biggest election surprise of 2009, New Jersey still has a Republican governor–elect this morning, in spite of the fact that the president and several other high–profile Democrats came to the state to campaign for the Democratic governor.

So now we move on to 2010.

Perhaps Democrats have learned — once again — that they are not imbued with the divine right of kings because they won a majority in Congress in 2006 and 2008 and won the presidency in 2008. I had hoped they had learned that lesson in the 1990s, but it appears they will need more than one lesson.

And my guess is they will get more than one lesson.

The Votes Are In

Turnout for today's elections was light, as it usually is in odd–numbered years. And I know that polls close at different times in each state. But the results seem to be coming in at a frustratingly slow pace.

• I've been watching the election returns, and I've heard a lot of theories about what has happened in Virginia. There will be theories about New Jersey and New York, too, I'm sure, but, at this point, Virginia is the only place where today's election results are known.
  
  Some people have spoken of the Democrats' inability to bring young and minority voters to the polls without Barack Obama on the ballot, and I think that may be a factor, but I think it is more likely to be a problem next year.
  
  Most people seem to agree that this election is not a referendum on Obama's presidency. Nevertheless, I have heard some saying the results represent an anti–incumbent mood. That's a tougher case to make, as far as I am concerned, at least in Virginia. State law bars the incumbent from seeking a second consecutive term, and he seems to be personally popular, but his popularity doesn't seem to be transferring easily to the Democratic standard bearer.
  
  The Republican's triumph doesn't seem to be connected to any sort of anti–incumbent mood in Virginia.
  
  My suspicion is that it has much more to do with what I believe to be the real historical trend. The party that has won the White House has lost the governor's office the next year ever since the Carter presidency, as I wrote in May.


• But an anti–incumbent mood may well have played a role in New Jersey; if the projection that was just made a few minutes ago by CNN holds up, the Republicans are going to win the governor's office there. And the Democratic incumbent is on the ballot — so it is plausible to conclude that this is a referendum on his performance in office.
  
  For that matter, the outcome in New Jersey could be seen as, if not a referendum on Obama, certainly an early temperature reading. And there may be some findings Obama would do well to heed.


• But the White House says Obama isn't watching the election returns. It will say that he is "watching the game." It won't positively confirm which game. Football? Can't be the NFL, unless he's watching a recording of the Falcons–Saints game from last night. ESPN2 is showing a college game, but do you suppose Obama is really more interested in the Bowling Green–Buffalo game than the outcome of the New Jersey election? He was campaigning in New Jersey last week. He had some interest in it then.
  
  Baseball? Can't be. Today is a travel day in the World Series.
  
  I suppose he could be watching the NBA, as some of his aides speculate, but that season is just getting started, and the NBA will still be playing in April. Over the next three years, Obama will have to work with the New Jersey governor, in one way or another, because of the economic difficulties with which the state is being forced to contend.
  
  So I find it hard to accept that he is paying no attention to the election returns tonight or that an NBA game has his attention instead.


• I think 2010 probably will be the real backlash election. The hurdles facing the president and his party seem clear. Obama won't be on the ballot. And he risks alienating some supporters by actively trying to transfer some of his star power to incumbents who may be in trouble, like Chris Dodd and Harry Reid. But he is the leader of the party, and his personal appeal was responsible for attracting many voters who belong to demographic groups that are not normally electorally active. It will be a challenge to get them to return to the polls. Many are ignorant about the way things work and somehow got the idea that a single election could be eternally binding, whereas the folks from the opposition party already are motivated — as they usually are.
  
  Nothing gets a politician's attention like election returns — normally, unless one happens to be the president and thinks that, in some way, he is above such things. But I doubt there is any truth to that tale about his election night activities. And one can sense something of a sea change already occurring within the ranks. Democrats already are making noises about delaying action on health care reform until next year — if not sometime after the midterm elections.
  
  The window of opportunity for Obama and the Democrats to get some things done in the first half of his term seems to be slamming shut.
  
  Perhaps some of the Democrats who were on Capitol Hill in the first years of the Clinton presidency now remember the beating the party took when it emphasized health care reform over job creation and, perhaps belatedly, want to take steps that can avoid a repeat of that experience.
  
  Based on what I'm seeing tonight, I think the battle next year will be won and lost with independent voters. Since independents seem to favor a progressive social agenda, that might be a good place to start in the campaign for their allegiance. On the surface, it looks like more of a reach for Republicans than it is for Democrats.


• A couple of social issues were on the ballot in Maine, though, and supporters of both are leading with just under 30% of the vote counted. About 51% of the voters are endorsing the law that was approved by the legislators and signed by the governor allowing same–sex marriage. And more than three–fifths of voters support expanding the list of conditions that could be treated with medical marijuana.
  
  Once a reliably Republican state in presidential elections, Maine has shifted toward Democrats in recent decades, but it is represented in the Senate by what may be the last Republican moderates — Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Neither will face the voters in 2010 so it does retain some of its political roots. But the Republican Party that is admired in Maine has more in common with Abe Lincoln than Newt Gingrich.
  
  For many years, though, Maine had a reputation for recognizing emerging social issues. "As Maine goes, so goes the nation," the saying went. The saying originally referred to Maine's tendency to be on the winning side in presidential contests, but it also has been a political barometer for social issues. The present political climate may be giving it the opportunity to reclaim that role.
  
  But there, as elsewhere, the returns tonight seem to be driven by independent voters.
  
  Neither party is in the position of claiming a majority among self–identified voters in most states. The ones who call themselves independents typically hold the key to electoral success. To ignore what their votes can tell you is to court disaster.
  
  That may hold some cues for Obama, who has not been an advocate of either cause but may want to revise his position to curry favor with independent voters, many of whom supported him last year but seem to be abandoning his party in New Jersey and Virginia this year — and might abandon it in other places next year.

Well, that's just a thought. But the numbers in Virginia and New Jersey, compared to what we saw a year ago when Obama carried both states, are startling.

The battle of the 2010 midterms began in earnest tonight.

As Maine Goes ... ?

There used to be a saying that went like this: "As Maine goes, so goes the nation."

It was a tribute to Maine's reputation as a bellwether state.

That piece of conventional wisdom kind of fell into disfavor during the Depression, when only Maine and Vermont opposed the 1936 re-election bid of Franklin D. Roosevelt (prompting a Democratic strategist to quip, "As Maine goes, so goes Vermont.")

Once a rock-ribbed Republican state, in recent decades, Maine has trended more and more to the Democratic side, and, in 2008, the state is generally expected to vote with the rest of the New England states for Democrat Barack Obama for president.

But in the only apparently competitive race in the state (aside from the presidential campaign), the Republicans seem to hold the edge.

Republican Susan Collins has been representing Maine in the Senate since 1996, when she was elected with 49% of the vote to the Democrat's 44%. When Collins was re-elected in 2002, she received 58% of the vote.

Because the national mood has shifted dramatically since 2002 (when Collins joined the majority in the Senate in supporting the Iraq War resolution), Collins has been expected to face a stiff challenge in her bid for a third term.

Yet, Collins is more of a moderate — which places her to the left of most of her Republican colleagues in the Senate — and that may serve to insulate her in a place like Maine. She was one of the few Republican senators, for example, who voted to acquit Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial.

Collins' moderate voting record seems to help her in Maine — even though many people, including Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, believed the Democrats were positioned to capture her seat this year.

But Sabato writes, "Politics can be just like fishing. You can have the best equipment, find the best location, and have the perfect conditions, but sometimes, the fish just aren’t biting. That’s how Maine Democrat Tom Allen feels right about now."

To this point, there hasn't been much evidence of a coattail effect from Obama that could benefit Allen in his Senate race.

Allen has been representing Maine's first congressional district since 1996, and he's usually received 60% or more of his district's vote. He endorsed Obama's presidential bid in May, apparently hoping some of Obama's popularity in New England would rub off on his own campaign, and he's also been trying to link Collins to George W. Bush's policies.

But it hasn't been working. In Maine, as Sabato says, "the fish just aren't biting." While surveys don't mean much at this stage of a campaign, the recent polls have shown Collins consistently maintaining a double-digit lead over Allen.

Certainly there are Republican incumbents who face an uphill climb in their bids to be re-elected this year. Right now, Collins doesn't seem to be one of them.

Sabato says the Senate race in Maine "leans Republican."

Who's Getting Your Vote on Election Day?

Perhaps you've been spending the Fourth of July holiday patting yourself on the back for being free and independent.

Are you as free and independent as you think you are?

Most Americans will go to the polls in November believing that they will be voting for Barack Obama or John McCain for president.

But — while the ballot may give them the choice between those two names, as well as the names of third-party candidates — voters actually will be casting their votes for a slate of electors who will choose the next president when the Electoral College convenes in December.

(Actually, the Electoral College never meets as a whole national body. A state's electors meet in their state capital and cast separate ballots for the presidency and the vice presidency. Their votes are reported to Congress, where the final tally is calculated.)

If you go to your polling place planning to vote for a specific candidate, you will — sort of. Your vote will be counted (presumably) in the popular vote tally in your state and in the nation — but the election that will actually choose the next president and vice president will still be about five weeks away — and the only participants will be the electors who are chosen in November.

And, unless there is a virtually unprecedented coincidence, none of the electors will be named Obama or McCain.

A state's number of electors depends on its representation in Congress. Each state has two senators, so each state starts off with two electoral votes. Then, a state gets an additional electoral vote for each congressional district it has. Representation in the House is based on population, so larger states, obviously, have larger electoral vote totals.

Each party nominates its candidates for the Electoral College in the months prior to the election. Their names won't appear on your ballot, but if you vote for Obama, you're actually voting for the slate of electors who were nominated by the Democrats in your state and if you vote for McCain, you're actually voting for the slate of electors who were nominated by the Republicans in your state.

I presume it works the same way for third-party and independent candidates — although it's been 40 years since a third-party/independent candidate received more popular votes in any state than either the Democrat or the Republican.

In America, we have direct democracy in the elections of every official except the president.

To elect a president, we still rely on representative democracy, as we have for more than 200 years.

That, my friend, is how the Electoral College works.

But, even when it appears simple, it really isn't.

The general assumption is that, if a candidate gets the most popular votes in a given state, that candidate will receive all of that state's electors.

And, indeed, most of the time, if a candidate receives more popular votes in a particular state than anyone else, that candidate receives all of the electoral votes.

But the winner-take-all assumption doesn't always hold.

For one thing, there are very few laws that govern the behavior of electors.

A couple of states have made their own rules for voting in the Electoral College. Maine and Nebraska allocate their electoral votes on a proportionate basis. A candidate can win some electoral votes by winning the overall popular vote, and a candidate can win an electoral vote by receiving the most popular votes in a congressional district.

Maine has had this law on the books since 1972, and Nebraska made it a law there in 1992.

It's legally possible for more than one candidate to receive electoral votes from Maine and Nebraska. To date, however, that point of law has been a moot point because none of the congressional districts in either state has voted for the candidate who lost the state's total popular vote.

In a close race, though, it's possible that such a split could occur.

(And, in another interesting twist, I've heard talk recently about legislative efforts in some states that would require the electors of those states to vote for whoever receives the most votes nationally — regardless of which candidate finished first in that state.)

For another thing, there have always been "faithless electors," who vote for someone other than the candidate nominated by their party or who choose not to vote at all. Typically, the "faithless electors" act alone, and they usually appear to abandon campaigns that have already lost — so their support for or opposition to their party's candidate is not seen as critical to the outcome.

---

---

In fact, America had a so-called "faithless elector" in 2004. One of the electors from Minnesota — a state that was carried by John Kerry — voted for Kerry's running mate, John Edwards. (See above.)

And, over the years, there have been other instances of "faithless electors." In 1988, West Virginia voted for the Dukakis-Bentsen ticket over Bush-Quayle, but one of the electors voted for Bentsen, not Dukakis. In 1976, the state of Washington voted for the Ford-Dole ticket over Carter-Mondale, but one of the state's electors voted for Ronald Reagan, who had lost the battle for the Republican nomination to Ford that summer.

The "faithless elector" phenomenon doesn't happen often — but it does happen.

Nearly half of the states have laws on the books now to punish the "faithless electors," although usually parties can rely on a high degree of loyalty from their electors. They were hand-picked by the parties or their nominees, after all.

Such laws are rarely, if ever, enforced. It appears that electors are at a greater risk of being disciplined by the state party than they are of being punished for violating the law if they choose not to vote for the candidate who carried the state in November.

What are some of the arguments for and against continuing to use the Electoral College?

Those who believe it is an antiquated system that should be scrapped and presidents should be elected by direct vote say

• a candidate can lose the popular vote and still be elected by the Electoral College.


• under the winner-take-all system, candidates focus their attention and resources on large states where the race is close. Small states, and large states where the outcome is a foregone conclusion, are ignored.


• participation is discouraged in states where a campaign is not competitive — opponents of the Electoral College say this would be eliminated by direct vote for president because parties would have more incentive to get out their voters everywhere, not just in a few battleground states.

Supporters of the Electoral College say

• in order to be elected, a candidate must demonstrate a widespread ability to win votes. A Democrat, for example, cannot be elected merely by carrying a handful of large states, like California and New York, where Democrats have been successful on a regular basis in recent years.


• the power of minority groups is enhanced. They can provide the winning edge in close contests.


• the system maintains the integrity of the separation of powers in the Constitution.

A lot has been written about the Electoral College in recent years, especially after George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in 2000.

Among those speaking against retaining the Electoral College are

• New York Times, "Making Votes Count," Aug. 29, 2004.


• Bradford Plumer, Mother Jones, "The Indefensible Electoral College," Oct. 8, 2004.

Do you want to know more about the Electoral College? Here are some links for that:

• About.com: The Electoral College System


• About.com: Why Keep the Electoral College?


• How Stuff Works


• Library of Congress


• Project Vote Smart

And, if you just want to have a little fun, here are some links where you can calculate the electoral votes, based on how you believe each state will vote.

• American Research Group Electoral Vote Calculator


• Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Electoral College Calculator and Map Generator


• RealClearPolitics.com Electoral Map


• U.S. Electoral College Calculator Version 2.2


• Wall Street Journal Electoral College Calculator


• Washington Post Electoral College Prediction Map

There's a lot more information on the Electoral College out there.

Paul Maslin, writing in Salon.com, speculates about how Obama can reach the magical 270 mark that will give him a majority of the electoral votes.

"Certain cold realities haven't changed," Maslin writes. "Unless there is a popular-vote landslide in November, the presidential election is still best seen as a collection of 50 statewide contests."

And, in those 50 statewide contests, Maslin says he has observed some factors that will be important:

1. "The number of competitive states has been contracting."


2. "The number of states that shift markedly from one election to the next has also been contracting."


3. "In a non-incumbent year with two candidates from regions that have been unrepresented at this level for a long time — the Rust Belt and the Southwest — stronger regional variations could occur."


4. "Every successful GOP candidate since 1968 has hailed from California or Texas."


5. "[T]he last two successful Democrats came from the South, a region that had underperformed in previous elections."


6. "The choice of a vice-president has had a pretty spotty geographic impact in the past five elections."

Recently, there has been a lot of talk on both sides about making the election a 50-state campaign. It would be nice if that were truly possible, but the reality is that — with the Electoral College in place — it simply isn't feasible for either campaign to actively seek votes in certain areas.

That will become even more significant as the days of the campaign begin to dwindle and the focus narrows to the states that are too close to call.

But there is clearly a sentiment out there that the Electoral College has outlived whatever usefulness it had.

Not long ago, Obama paid a visit to North Dakota — the kind of place Democratic candidates never visit during a campaign.

North Dakota has only 3 electoral votes, and it hasn't voted for a Democrat for president in four decades.

It's as surprising to see a Democrat making an appearance in North Dakota as it would be to see McCain scheduling a campaign stop in the District of Columbia — which seldom gives the Democratic nominee less than 80% of its vote.

If the Electoral College were to be abolished and the election depended exclusively on the popular vote, candidates would have to look for votes wherever they could find them.

Perhaps, one day, the Electoral College will be abolished. But it's the procedure that will elect the next president.

And all the presidents in the foreseeable future.