The Domestic Policy Gap

Since Tuesday night's Democratic debate, Senators Obama and McCain have sparred over each other's positions on the Iraq War and foreign policy. While the Iraq War is an important issue, and one in which the candidates clearly differ, most indicators are that domestic policy will play the dominant role in the upcoming general election. This can be confirmed by looking at the exit poll results from CNN's Election Center, which list which issues voters considered most important. I've summarized the results for 6 states below:

State	Democratic Issues	Republican Issues
Missouri	Economy 55%, Health Care 22%, Iraq 19%	Economy 44%, Iraq 20%, Illegal Immigration 18%, Terrorism 13%
Georgia	Economy 54%, Health Care 21%, Iraq 21%	Economy 42%, Illegal Immigration 22%, Iraq 18$, Terrorism 13%
California	Economy 46%, Iraq 32%, Health Care 19%	Economy 34%, Illegal Immigration 28%, Iraq 19%, Terrorism 15%
Virginia	Economy 49%, Iraq 30%, Health Care 17%	Economy 32%, Iraq 24%, Terrorism 21%, Illegal Immigration 19%
New York	Economy 46%, Iraq 30%, Health Care 20%	Economy 42%, Iraq 20%, Terrorism 18%, Illegal Immigration 17%
Tennessee	Economy 52%, Iraq 23%, Health Care 22%	Economy 37%, Illegal Immigration 25%, Iraq 17%, Terrorism 17%

The highest poll for military/foreign affairs was among Virginia Republicans where Iraq and Terrorism combined for 45%. For the other states, Republicans polled this combination in the mid 30s, while Democrats polled Iraq by itself between 17% and 30%. All the poll results show the economy as the top issue ranging from 32% for Virginia Republicans to 55% for Missouri Democrats. Democrats cited health care as an important issue (17%-22%) while Republicans looked at illegal immigration (17%-28%)

While these numbers are no surprise given the condition of our economy, they should cause concern for Senator McCain. If you look at his record of bills/amendments introduced and passed since 2003 (tab McCain Categorized on the Spreadsheet), you will notice that much of his effort is focused in the defense/foreign policy arena. Out of the 92 bills and amendments he proposed and passed over the last 5 years, 60 of them came in the areas of defense, foreign policy or native-american relations. Looking at just the last 3 years, that number is 36 out of 43 total. Additionally, many of the bills I have classified as "other" are homeland security related, hardly falling under the economy, health-care, illegal immigration umbrella.

It is clear that domestic policy has not been an area of great concentration for Senator McCain. He has admitted himself that he doesn't know as much as he should about the economy, as this video shows. While this is understandable given his extensive military background, Senator McCain's foreign policy expertise may not be enough to win this election, especially considering that many of his foreign policy positions have not been very popular. Senator McCain will have to work very hard to close the domestic policy gap if he is going to make a convincing case to the American people this fall.

Lobbyists in the Washington Ecosystem

One of the stated goals of Senator Barack Obama's campaign for President is to reduce the power of special interests in Washington and return control of the government to the American people. Lobbyists are the conduit carrying special interest influence into government. According to OpenSecrets.org, over 2 billion dollars has been spent on lobbying each year since 2003. Senator Obama's efforts in the Senate include modifying rules to prevent lobbyists from sending gifts to Representatives, and forcing them to disclose who they raise money for. I think it is important to fully understand the role lobbyists play in Washington so we can take further steps to reduce the control they have over the legislative process.

A good place to start is this anecdotal article by John Dickerson at Slate. Dickerson relates a conversation he had with a lobbyist friend who explains that he and his colleagues rarely, if ever, explicitly trade votes for money. Their sway comes from the information they provide to Capitol Hill staffers who either don't have the time, or as Dickerson suggests, motivation, to find themselves. The book, Tribes on the Hill: The United States Congress -- Rituals and Realities by J. McIver Weatherford, verifies this role of the lobbyist as the information broker:

They explain the details of bills, supply computer analyses of how an issue affects different parts of the constituency, and which groups oppose or support the issue with how much enthusiasm. As John Kennedy described them, "Lobbyist are in many cases expert technicians and capable of explaining complex and difficult subjects in a clear, understandable fashion." Among the specific tasks lobbyists perform, Kennedy listed preparing briefs and legislative analyses as well as writing legislation.

Why are staffers calling lobbyists for their information? Is John Dickerson right in that the staffers are just being lazy, or is it that they just don't have the time or resources necessary to do the job? The Washington, DC law firm Meyers and Associates offer this explanation:

In many cases, lobbyists serve as an "extension" of a congressional office staff. Given the hundreds of bills and amendments introduced during each legislative session, it's impossible for legislators to gauge the potential effects that each may have on affected groups or individuals. Lobbyists assist staff by communicating often complicated issues and by knowing how to break an issue down into relatively small and simple parts. The goal is to simplify the learning process of the Member and/or congressional staff person, yet provide them with accurate and timely information. In this regard, lobbyists perform a valuable service not only to their client but to the staff and Members of Congress as well.

While I could believe John Dickerson if he were pointing to a few Congressional staffers who were lazy, I doubt that this explanation applies to all of them. I think it is more likely that the volume of bills and amendments that pass through a Congressperson's office is too much for the staff to handle by themselves. Still, do we want industry supported lobbyists to be the resources used by Congressional offices to fill in the gaps?  I believe that the party organization is much better suited to fill this advisory role.  By hiring large numbers of policy professionals, the parties themselves can provide the information and policy development resources necessary to guide a legislative effort.  While lobbyists would still be important for organizing funds and interests, they would cease to be the information source of first resort, and that would allow legislators to better serve the whole of their constituency.

Such an undertaking would be expensive, according to the Washington post, top lobbyists can earn from a quarter to a half a million dollars a year. It would take hundreds of these professionals to create an institution that would have a meaningful impact. Still, the Obama campaign is collecting over a million dollars a day. Senator Obama has reminded his supporters that he will need their efforts to bring about change both before, during and after the Presidential election.  If we want to reduce the power of the special interests, we have to be prepared to fill in the void that this would create.  This means we will have to be active and supportive in the creation of our party institutions.

Superdelegate Roundup Update - Obama Gains

Senator Obama has been making strides with the superdelgates over the past week.  Since last Thursday, he has secured 11 endorsements, compared to only 1 for Senator Clinton.  Many of these endorsements have come from Washingtion, DC and Wisconsin, areas which have already voted for Senator Obama.  This has pushed his affirmer percentage up 2 percent, breaking the 1/3 mark for the first time.  The latest numbers are:

Clinton Area Superdelegates:  208

Clinton Affirmer:  104 (50%)

Clinton Defectors:  35 (16.8%)

Clinton Undeciders:  69 (33.2%)

Obama Area Superdelegates:  307

Obama Affirmers:  103 (33.6%)

Obama Defectors:  78 (25.4%)

Obama Undeciders:  126 (41%)

Pre-Vote Area Superdelegates:  204

Early Clinton Committers:  57 (27.9%)

Early Obama Committers: 41 (20.1%)

Early Undeciders:  106 (52%)

Knocking On Doors In Ohio

This past weekend I celebrated my 30th birthday by driving to Ohio and canvassing for the Barack Obama campaign.  Since I live in Nashville, Tennessee, the Cincinnati area was the most accessible to me.  Canvassing was just starting up there and my wife and I signed up for events in the suburbs of Milford and West Chester.  These areas are very hostile for any Democratic candidate; both counties (Clermont and Butler) voted 2-to-1 for President Bush in 2004.

The atmosphere indicated by the past election results was confirmed by many of our fellow volunteers.  Amy, the organizer of the canvassing event in Milford, told us that many people in her neighborhood just check the name with the "R" next to it without knowing anything about the candidates.  Still, Amy told us that she had success convincing a number of her co-workers to register and vote for Senator Obama.  We also had some success in our canvassing.  While fellow Democrats were few and far between, most were receptive to hearing about Senator Obama; and some had already decided to vote for him.  We also found a number of Republicans who were interested in learning more about the Senator and who were glad to learn that they could get a Democratic ballot for the primary.

Not everyone in the area is open to hearing a Democratic message.  While most of the Republicans we encountered were polite before telling us they weren't interested, a few were quite gruff and one made a couple sarcastic taunts before slamming his door in my face.  This was to be expected considering that I had knocked on over 100 doors.  A worse indicator, however, came during dinner when my wife and I overheard a conversation where a table of Republicans enthusiastically anticipated the swift-boating of Senator Obama.  One of the participants declared that she had early-voted for Senator Clinton because she felt she would be easier to beat in November, while another used racial epithets to describe Senator Obama.  This just shows that no matter how high-minded a conversation we try to have during the campaign, some people just don't want to work together.

Despite these difficulties, outreach efforts in red areas are very important for the Obama campaign.  The margin of victory in the popular vote in the general election will have more significance for Senator Obama than any other of the remaining candidates.  In order to implement the far-reaching changes he has proposed in Washington, he will need as big a mandate as possible.  This means that Obama supporters are going to have to find votes in enemy territory, like Cincinnati.    Based on the efforts of the volunteers I witnessed this weekend, I am confident that they will reduce that 2-to-1 Republican advantage by November.

Clinton - Obama Senate Votes Comparison

Using the Washington Post Congress Votes Database, I compiled a list of votes that Senators Clinton and Obama disagreed on since January of 2005 when they have both been in the Senate. Also included, is a second sheet containing all votes where both Senators Clinton and Obama voted, with Senator McCain's vote included and information on whether Senator McCain voted along with the Republican Party consensus.

Here is a link to the Google spreadsheet.

I wasn't able to find any broad trends in the votes where Senators Clinton and Obama disagreed. Out of over 900 total votes, they only disagreed on 52. Out of those, Senator Clinton voted against the Democratic party consensus 30 times, compared to 21 times for Senator Obama. Both Senators appeared to agree with Senator McCain at the same rate; on 23 of the split votes, Clinton agreed with McCain 23 times, compared to 22 for Senator Obama. Senator McCain did not vote the other 7 times Clinton and Obama were split.

I have not had time to go through each of the motions to determine the most noteworthy disagreements. The only controversial things that appear obvious to me are Senator Clinton's vote for cloture on reauthorizing the USA Patriot act (Vote 23, 2005) which went against her party. On the other hand, Senator Obama seemed slightly more willing then Senator Clinton to confirm President Bush's nominations. He voted to confirm 4 nominees which she rejected, and for 2 of those nominees Obama went against the Democratic consensus. Much of the rest of their disagreement appears to be on the issues of energy, government transparency, homeland security and immigration. I will try to discern any substantive differences in their positions by looking at the motions and votes in more detail.

Superdelegate Roundup Update

The Superdelegate Roundup Spreadsheet has been updated with the primary results from Wisconsin and Hawaii, as well as delegate pledges from Democratic Convention Watch.

Clinton Area Superdelegates: 208
Clinton Affirmers: 104 (50%)
Clinton Defectors: 34 (16.3%)
Clinton Undeciders: 70 (33.7%)

Obama Area Superdelegates: 303
Obama Affirmers: 95 (31.4%)
Obama Defectors: 77 (25.4%)
Obama Undeciders: 131 (43.2%)

Pre-Vote Area Superdelegates: 212
Early Clinton Committers: 58 (27.4%)
Early Obama Committers: 41 (19.3%)
Early Undeciders: 113 (53.3%)

The only noticeable change in the numbers is that the percentage of "undeciders" in the pre-vote areas has continued to decline, falling another 4.6% since Sunday. The number of committed superdelegates in pre-vote areas has remained the same since then, but the total number of superdelegates in pre-vote areas fell by 23 with the results from Wisconsin and Hawaii.

On the pledge update front, DNC superdelegates John Rednour from Illinois and Dana Redd from New Jersey switched their allegiance from Clinton to Obama. Rednour is now an affirmer while Redd is a defector.

Superdelegates and Campaign Donations

Last night, I found an article on Capital Eye which investigated the contributions made by Senator Clinton's and Senator Obama's PACs to the campaigns of various superdelegates since 2006.  The article finds that the donations made by the candidates to superdelegates provide a good indicator of who the superdelegate has committed to:

Yet the Center for Responsive Politics has found that campaign contributions have been a generally reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take. In cases where superdelegates had received contributions from both Clinton and Obama, seven out of eight elected officials who received more money from Clinton have committed to her. The one exception: Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, whose endorsement of Obama was highly publicized, received more from Clinton than from the Illinois senator--$10,000 compared to $4,200. Thirty-four of the 43 superdelegates who received more money from Obama, or 79 percent, are backing him. In every case the Center found in which superdelegates received money from one candidate but not the other, the superdelegate is backing the candidate who gave them money.

I added the campaign contribution data to the Superdelegate Roundup Spreadsheet to see if the donations affected whether the superdelegates were following the will of the voters.  I also added contribution data for Hillary's PAC going back to 2002, which I found on OpenSecrets.org.  

I was pleasantly surprised to find that the donations do not seem to be having nearly as much impact as implied by the Capital Eye article. Out of the 105 total defectors identified by my spreadsheet, only 3 have defected to a candidate that gave them the most donations.  I have highlighted these superdelegates in red, 2 are pledged to Obama and 1 to Clinton.  Next, I looked at superdelegates from areas which have not yet voted.  Out of the 235 superdelegates from these areas, only 11 have pledged to the candidate who provided them with the most funds.  I have highlighted these in orange, 8 are pledged to Obama, 3 to Clinton.  Finally, I looked at the uncommitted superdelegates from areas where primaries or caucuses have already been held.  Out of the 189 of these "undeciders", only 9 received greater donations from the candidate who lost the election in the superdelegate's state or district.  These are highlighted in yellow, 6 are witholding support from Clinton, comapred to 3 witholding support from Obama.

If we view a "normal" superdelegate vote as being one that conforms to primary or caucus results for the superdelegate's state or congressional district, then the campaign donations from the candidates to the superdelegates (as has been uncovered so far by public records) can only be said to cause 23 "deviations" from this norm, out of 768 superdelegates (3%).  Out of these 23 "deviations", 16 are in favor of Obama and 7 are in favor of Clinton.  I will continue to monitor these numbers to see if the impact of contributions increases or decreases as election results and delegate pledges are reported.