GOOOH NOW!

GOOOH NOW!
GOOOH Mock Session in Houston, TX

Monday, November 22, 2010

How to Climb Mt. Everest

                                     
House Incumbents win reelection 85 to 98% from 1964 thru 2010.

What is it about sitting members of Congress that makes them so hard to beat? Are incumbents just better candidates (on average) or is the deck somehow stacked against challengers?

Let’s look at what has been identified by political scientists as the “incumbent advantage” in congressional elections. Incumbency itself, financial advantage, the “Perks” of Office, Visibility, Television, Campaign Organization, Time and Pork barrel spending.

There are advantages that come with being an incumbent (in addition to being, for example, the representative from the majority party in the district, or having greater access to campaign finances). Being an incumbent lends both greater name recognition and attracts votes that would not be gained by a challenger or running in an open seat race.
Many that study the science of politics are in agreement that since the mid-1960s, the advantage of incumbency has grown significantly. Estimates have indicated that it has increased to roughly 7 to 10 percentage points of the vote. This indicates that the advantage of incumbency has close to quadrupled while competition and seat changes have sharply decreased. Districts have been made safer for incumbents.

Campaign contributions are recognized as the most significant advantage enjoyed by sitting members of Congress. It is the large amounts of campaign contributions they are able to raise, especially in comparison to those who run against them, that gives them an indisputable predominance.
In the elections from 1992 to 2000, there were 1,643 contested House seats in which there was a challenged incumbent. In 905 of these (55 percent of the total), the incumbents spent 84% or more of the total spending. These elections resulted in 904 victories for the incumbents, and one loss. On average, a candidate challenging an incumbent House member was outspent by nearly $565,000 and Senate challengers were outspent by an average of $3.13 million.

Each member of Congress has an office budget allotment which provides enough money to hire a sizable staff both in Washington, D.C. and back home in their states or districts. These staffers assist members in their efforts to be effective, well-liked representatives. In addition to money for staff, members of Congress also have travel allowances for trips between Washington and their constituencies as well as for trips inside their states or districts. One of the most widely recognized "perks" of House members and Senators is the “franking privilege” allowing members of Congress to send informational letters or announcements to their constituents on a regular basis. The franking privilege, which gives lawmakers millions in tax dollars to create a favorable public image, is viewed by experts across the political spectrum as an unfair electioneering tool. In past election cycles, Congressional incumbents have spent as much on franking alone as challengers have spent on their entire campaigns.

Sitting members of Congress are almost universally recognized in their districts. Having waged at least one previous campaign, and a successful one at that, and then serving in Congress for two years (House members), makes a sitting member of Congress something of a household name among his or her constituents. Moreover, members of the U.S. House have easy and ready access to the news media and make regular appearances on television and radio programs and are frequently mentioned in newspaper articles and editorials.
In general, incumbents receive more media coverage than their opponents.
Respondents who recognize a candidate are more likely to vote for that candidate.  Campaign managers evidently believe that television is the single most important communication medium, and incumbents typically are able to spend much more on television than challengers.

Every member of Congress has run at least one successful election campaign for the seat he or she holds. This means, among other things, that a sitting House member or has invaluable experience with creating and managing a campaign organization. It also means that incumbents generally have an effective volunteer organization, that have received rewards for their previous endeavors, in place and ready go when it is time to campaign.

Sitting members of Congress are on the job full-time--that is what they are paid to do. In fact, many of the things a candidate would do to win an election, such as meeting and talking with voters, attending special events, appearing on television or radio talk shows, etc., are part of the job description of a member of Congress. In contrast, a challenger to an incumbent must generally figure out how to pay for everything while running for office. Many candidates are forced to go into debt, especially in the early stages of a campaign before he or she has raised much money.

Pork barrel spending is a term in American politics used to refer to Congressmen or who use their position on Committees in the House to appropriate federal money to their own district and therefore bring increased business and investment to their home area. This process is referred to as "bringing home the pork." This can be used to build up a stronger base of support, thereby solidifying their hold on the sensibilities of their constituents, and thereby using their job, to secure their job.

Taking into account all the above advantages that a setting member of the house has makes it difficult for a challenger to win. But, the most difficult challenge of all is the American voter and the way many vote.

First and foremost is the voter turnout. There has never been a voter turnout greater than 63.1% after1960. John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy defeated then Vice President and Republican candidate Richard Nixon in the 1960 U.S. Presidential election.
The percentage of voter turnout typically runs 15% to 20% more during a presidential election year. In 2008 a presidential year the turnout was 56.8%

A number of states say they are trying to make voting a little easier by allowing voters to choose all the candidates from a single party with a single vote. The process is known as straight-party or straight-ticket voting. Voters do have the choice of voting for each individual candidate. This gives party candidates a distinct advantage over non party candidates.  

Challenging is what comes to mind when you group all the above. Not unsurmountable, as one person attempting to climb Mt Everest. Only people joining together with one purpose in mind will ever reach the pinnacle of success.

The thousands of patriots that marched on Washington D.C., this past November, to demonstrate their displeasure with Washington established that we as groups are learning to work together. What we hope is the leaders of the many diverse groups that attended realized they were not alone and made many friends. Communication between friends will keep us dedicated and strong. We all need encouragement, a big hug or a pat on the back when we do something good.

To overcome the obstacles in our path we will need all our strength and all of our friends.
We need to increase our numbers not by thousands but by ten’s of thousands, not to march on Washington but to march to the polling booth all across America.
We did well at the polls in 2010 as we were able to replace a few carrier politicians not only at the National level but also at the local and state level. 

It does no good to replace one career politician with another that is like replacing a bad apple with one that has a worm in side of it. There is a way to find a person with integrity, a person you will want to represent your district in Congress. But first you must decide, climb the mountain alone or with the help of many others.

The base camp is established and waiting for you to join. Over 85,000 people have committed and believe in the Go – GOOOH process. We need you to join with us to increase membership to such a vigors mass of patriots that when we push out from the base camp in 2012 nothing will be able to impede our path to victory.

Joining is easy and cost nothing. Go to www.goooh.com


Don Alexander
donmalex@aol.com
83-443-5108
  
Reference:




Saturday, November 20, 2010

Date: November 18, 2010

To: Concerned American Patriots

From: Ed Stanley – GOOOH – Georgia’s 7th District

Re: Every Other Thursday Memo Issue #8 – The results are in

We have all committed much time and effort in getting us to and through the mid-term elections in 2010. The EOTM took a breather 11/04/10 and now the results are here for your reference. The numbers are one thing. Results are quite another. Time to get caught up….

RE-ELECTION RATE 2010 – As we have been predicting, the United States voters (42% turn out, by the way) RE-elected 88% of the incumbents. According to a comprehensive tally by Fox News, there were 435 seats up for election, 338 incumbents were RE-elected, and 49 seats had no incumbent (due to death, retirement, or resignation). There are 97 “new,” non-incumbent people in The House. However, considering that there were no incumbents in 49 seats, the RE-election rate was 87.6% (435 seats less the 49 non-incumbent seats = 386 incumbents. 338 seats won by incumbents is 87.6% of the 386 incumbent seats). Before we are accused of spinning the results into a bigger number than is reality, let us understand that unless they were an incumbent, they couldn’t get RE-elected, of course. So the true RE-election rate is only for incumbents (338 of the 386 incumbents were RE-elected); an 87.6% RE-election rate. The gross figures are 338 of the 435 seats were won by incumbents (78% of the entire House). While these are historic numbers – and they are – please note that about 4 out of 5 of the yahoos that occupied the House BEFORE the election got voted back in. The “results” are not as impressive as one would think listening to the media. The approval rating for Congress was an “F” (about 12%) going into the election. Yet The House pulled out a passing grade of a “C+” (78% of The House was allowed to stay) once the election was tallied. If 4 out of 5 career politicians continue to occupy The House, how much REAL reform can be expected? –YOU do the math.

WHAT ELSE? – The turn over of power (the largest shift from one party to another since 1938 when the Republicans picked up 80 seats on the heels of the New Deal) went well beyond the U.S. Congress. Even though the likes of Rangel (with 80%), Pelosi (80%), Frank (54%) and Hoyer (64%) kept their seats, some less publicized results are worth mentioning. At the state level, there are 7 more Republican governors than there were and Republicans took over the majority in 20 state legislative chambers across America. That is big. For example, for the first time since 1870, the North Carolina state legislature is in the hands of the Republicans. It has been 90 years since the Republicans have had this much power at the state level. These numbers show a more profound change of the political winds than the mid-terms of 1994 when Republican gains were mostly limited to the national stage. But the Republicans did not win and the Democrats did not lose because the Republicans showed up and the Democrats didn’t. No no no. Take for example in the 2006 (the last mid-term) the voters were 36% R / 38% D. In 2010 it was 36% R / 36% D; not enough to cause the dramatic shift we just saw to the Republicans. The real movement makers were the Independent voters favoring Republicans by a margin of 55-40%. Compare this to President Obama’s win in 2008 that show the independents favoring him by 8 points (52 to 44%). Now that is a swing of 23 points – a dramatic shift.

SO WHAT CAN WE EXPECT? – With these shifts in majority what can we expect? Does this “fresh start” for the Republicans translate into real reform in our government? There are no guarantees one way or the other for sure. But imagine – of the 97 “new” members of the House of Representatives being sworn into office in January, how many are party loyal? How many took special interest money? How many are career politicians? The answer to all of these questions is “most if not all of them.” Check them out yourself using the website and let me know if there are any that can honestly say “Not me!” to ALL of those questions. A retraction will be issued promptly.

Our country has “bet it all” once again on the broken party system. As Boortz wrote right after the election, “What if it is governance as usual with a Republican house?.. Where do we turn then?” Good question Neal. Good question. We believe that people didn’t necessarily vote for Republicans but voted against Democrats. We certainly wish the newbies in The House well. But just in case they assimilate too well to the D.C. environs, let’s get busy NOW and give America real reform with 435 GOOOH candidates in 2012. Come get involved NOW, for soon, I fear, it will be too late.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

HILL RATS

November 2nd came and went and the steady flow of grief counselors into the Capitol Hill offices of FORMER representatives is a wonder to behold. What we have not yet beheld is how the NEW folks will perform in the toxic environment of Washington. We shall soon know if they are strong and principled enough to resist the onslaught of K Street influence peddlers arriving bearing “gifts” of cash, assorted goodies and pledges of well-laundered campaign contributions in 2012, not to mention “…to infinity and beyond” (assuming, of course, they vote “right”).

As you contemplate THAT problem, there’s another – one I broached in a comment I recently posted here on the GOOOH blog -- that begs to be addressed. And that is “What is to be done about the HILL RATS?”

Hill Rats (HR for brevity) are the allegedly “professional” staffers who inhabit Capitol Hill. That appellation is one they often use humorously among themselves. It flows from their penchant to scurry like rats to a new member – frequently ANY MEMBER -- after their current boss gets a pink slip from the folks back home. Because they have an overwhelming need to remain close to Henry Kissinger’s “ultimate aphrodisiac” of political power, the politics of the prospective new boss often don’t matter.

A disturbing number of HRs are “progressives” whose years on the Hill have convinced them that government can solve any and all problems. Fortunately for the rest of us, many of them wind up in the offices of equally “progressive” members. Some do not -- and therein lies the danger.

What the HR brings to the table -- the “official,” decades-old rulebook of how to play the Capitol Hill “game” of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” – is his or her appeal to the newbie. If hired -- and after the HR shows his new boss where the john is --far too many of these new bosses rely too heavily on the HR for how to “go along to get along” in the thoroughly corrupt system that has caused the mess in which we now find ourselves.

With an apology to the memory of the late Billy Mays, “Wait, there’s more”!

Let’s say the newbie needs an “expert” on tax policy. Well, son-of-a-gun, the HR just happens to have an equally big government progressive college chum who works at the IRS! Need an “expert” on education policy. Darned if that other HR he hired doesn’t have an old teacher friend who “works”– and I use that term very loosely -- over at the Department of Education! You now know why the more things change, the more they stay the same – especially in Malfunction Junction. In addition to Term Limits, it appears we will also need TENURE LIMITS on the Hill Rats with stiff penalties for breaking the rules!

I recently heard Newt Gingrich confirm what I’ve suspected for a couple of decades. He said that— horrors -- the Obamacare Bill was almost certainly written at 3 am by bleary-eyed 25 year-old HRs groggy on beer and pizza. I’m not sure why that was so shocking as it is how nearly ALL so-called legislation has been cobbled together up there for far too long. It’s why Otto von Bismarck cautioned that there are two things one should never watch being made: SAUSAGE AND LAWS.

It is also why the late Georgia Representative Larry McDonald repeatedly lamented that around 85% of the bills to make it to a vote failed his first and most important test: “IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL?” (#2 was “Do we need it” and #3 was “Can we afford it?”)

One of the things we all need to do BEFORE we get behind new candidates to replace the 8 term retreads who have grown wealthy selling us out at nearly every turn is to insist that they draw their key staffers from folks in the district who may still have a grip on reality out here in flyover country -- then hold their feet to the fire on that pledge -- or replace them next time!

GOOOH offers an exciting alternative to the current system by opening it up to honest-to-goodness NEW candidates for those offices. GOOOH has been holding and will continue to hold candidate selection sessions around the country where regular citizens come together and choose one of their number to enter what has customarily been a controlled and closed party candidate selection process.

Where the current party system too often selects candidates based on who they know or how many favors they have done for other members, GOOOH candidates will be chosen on the basis of their answers to a rather detailed survey on the Constitution, our founding principles and how well they are able to articulates those beliefs. All of it is an effort to determine how tightly the prospective candidate will hold to those core beliefs in the face of the “go along to get along” modus operandi now the norm in Washington.

If you want to join with your neighbors in continuing the effort to restore common sense and sanity to government, please visit the GOOOH website at
http://goooh-now.blogspot.com/

Dick Bachert
Atlanta, GeorgiaRichard.Bachert@comcast.net