....November 13, 12:39 PM
 
 
 
The Voters Are Angry And
Change Is In The Air

By MICHAEL SCHENKLER

Follow me on Twitter @QueensTribune

The voters are angry.

Last Tuesday’s Election Day had a message.

Voters voted with their emotions reacting to the economy: to not-yet-fixed woes on Main Street, to the jobless rate, to their own difficulty in making ends meet.

They punished the folks in power; incumbents felt their anger. Surprise results all over the map can be traced to voter dissatisfaction with the status quo.

While corporate America may be experiencing the beginnings of an economic recovery, the small businessman keeps looking for signs that the recession is over. While Wall Street and bailed-out firms begin to show surprising profits, opportunities for those laid off or with salary cuts are not improving. While Washington has poured trillions into solving the problem with our economy, the workers and businesses in the neighborhoods are still worried about keeping their heads above water and food on the table.

There is no right and wrong here. The government is trying and has been trying to fix what was broken. Starting with Bush and Paulson and then the Obama administration, money has been thrown at the problem to turn the economy around. But we really don’t feel the relief yet.

And so we went to the polls on Election Day and made the people in office pay.

While we don’t think this is a rejection of the President or a measurement of how the people – especially in our area – feel about him, it is however, a measurement of how they feel about his accomplishments – specifically in handling the recession.

The Nobel Peace Prize, the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, the international goodwill generated do not matter to the voter who struggles to pay his bills. Charisma, political party, and the best intentions do not weigh in when keeping one’s job or one’s business open is an issue.

And so, the people lashed out. Those in office felt it.

Mike Bloomberg did much worse than expected. Neighboring Nassau County Exec Tom Suozzi may have lost his election. Three Republicans were elected in Queens. Corzine lost, Virginia went Republican, the Nassau County Legislature went Republican, the GOP gained in Suffolk County and Westchester County Exec Andy Spano lost.

While many factors influenced each election, the one commonality seems to be that those in office did worse than anticipated. At this moment in history, good for the Republicans, bad for the Democrats.

So what’s the go-forward message?

The Democrats in the House of Representatives have heard. They scurried back to Washington to do something for the people. As I write this on the weekend, the House and the President are working diligently this weekend to give the people of this nation a health care program – with a public option – that is long overdue.

Watch them deal with this problem and return to their district to work harder than before to engage the voters. Each member of the House will face re-election in just a year and they have their work cut out for them. The voters have made it clear that the people in office are the ones to pay if things don’t improve. So improve they must. It starts with Health Care – the President has set the agenda.

And, “It’s the Economy Stupid,” will be the mantra which drives Washington between now and the 2010 election. On a more local basis, our illustrious State Legislature is also up in 2010 – every last member of the nation’s most dysfunctional legislature must face the voters during this time of discontent. And the financial challenge in New York State is even greater than the Washington task of fixing the economy.

With an accidental Governor who is feigning a re-election attempt and who appointed a U.S. Senator who can raise money, but has not demonstrated she has the support of the people and hopes to be carried to victory by the senior US Senator who will breeze to re-election, an untested Comptroller, an AG who should be running for Governor, this creates a very dubious team to lead a very dubious and continually failing State Legislature into battle this is the time to test incumbent Deems.

With former Speaker Joe Bruno’s trial just beginning, one of an on-going string of trials of State electeds, incumbency scores no points. All they have is an unlevel playing field and fundraising rules inviting a continuation for the same ol’, same ol’.

But it’s unlikely the State finances will recover quickly, so 2010 may just be the time for a newbie to take down a old, lazy, overfunded incumbent State Legislator. Money can’t buy votes if the people are angry.

Just ask Mike Bloomberg, John Corzine, Tom Suozzi, and and and...


MSchenkler@QueensTribune.com

Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.
 
 
Why The Lethargy In The Mayoral Race?

Henry Stern
By HENRY STERN

This was written as the mayoral race was fast approaching its finish line.

We have not seen a mayoral election which aroused so little excitement since Mayor Robert F. Wagner (Dem-Lib) won a second term in 1957 by defeating the Republican candidate, Robert K. Christenberry, who was postmaster of New York in the Eisenhower administration.

Mayor Wagner, the second mayor in the 20th century to be elected to three terms, (the first was LaGuardia and the third was Koch) was the son of New Deal Senator Robert F. Wagner, author of landmark legislation protecting labor’s right to organize and establishing Social Security.

We ask why there has been relatively little excitement about this election. An article on that subject appears in this week’s Village Voice, written by Tom Robbins. He criticizes his colleagues in the press as well as the mayor and notes it “is an odd blessing for a man who made his fortune as a media mogul.”

Another irony is that, critical as many people are about various things the mayor has said or done over the last eight years, and annoyed as they may be over the term limits extension, they are likely to vote for Bloomberg because this is a race between two men, not between the mayor and an abstract standard of virtue.

The argument that while many politicians are corrupt because they take money, Bloomberg is suspect because he gives money is hard for people to swallow.

Some people believe that it is unfair for one candidate to spend much more than the rivals. The most expensive campaign will founder if people do not believe the candidate’s message, no matter how often they see it on television. Political history abounds with stories of rich men who ran for office and lost. Ross Perot and Tom Golisano are two. For an earlier example, William Randolph Hearst ran for Mayor of the City of New York, in 1905 and 1909, and Governor in 1906. He had a printing press as well as a fat purse, but he did not win. In the classic film loosely based on his life, “Citizen Kane,” two stacks of newspapers have been prepared for distribution as soon as an election result is reached. One says “KANE ELECTED.” The other says “FRAUD AT POLLS!”

Wealth gives a candidate an edge, and allows him to bring his message to the voters, but unless the message resonates, and is supported by credible evidence or persuasive argument, it is unlikely to succeed. Between two candidates of similar reputation and level of recognition, money is an important factor.

Many voters will support or oppose candidates because of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, physical attractiveness or sexual preference. Others are concerned with ability and ideology. Most make their choices for a combination of the categories listed above. That’s the way it is.

In most cases, when an incumbent is challenged, people will vote on the basis of whether they believe the incumbent has done a good job, and whether they think that the challenger can do better. When the race is for an open seat, advertising and campaigning is likely to have a greater impact.

One fact not mentioned so far this year is an old belief that African-American candidates do better at the polls than at the voting booths, because people don’t want to appear prejudiced, but have no problem expressing racial preferences in private.

Now that we have a black President, black Governor and a black candidate for Mayor, these matters are looked at differently than they were years ago.

But as some aspects of American life have changed for the better, others have changed for the worse. By measuring children born out of wedlock, prison population, drug addiction, unemployment and underemployment, education and language gaps, the loss of what are viewed as 19th century virtues, and lack of participation in public affairs, we know that social problems remain. We cannot help observing, however, how little elected officials have to do with many of these issues, and how in fact they try to avoid them rather than spending that elusive asset known as “political capital.”

The strength of a democracy is based in part on how much its citizens know.

StarQuest@NYCivic.com

Not4Publication.com by Dom Nunziato
Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.