Scene from movie Dazed & confused of students standing, sitting, and laying on and inside an orange convertible car

April 19, 2023

We Should Hang Out More

Movies often serve as perfect time capsules, offering snapshots of what life was like in an earlier time. Take Dazed and Confused. The movie is set in late seventies Texas and focuses on groups of ... Read Now >

News

11/8: Governor Cuomo: Take Two

November 8, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

It’s Election Night in New York State. The winds of change are strong as the Attorney General has just been elected governor by a wide margin. The promise: shake up the system and clean up the government. Of course, the year was 2006 and the newly elected governor was Eliot Spitzer.

But, the 2006 vote also represented the improbable first step in the political resurrection of Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo came off the canvass that night, following his political debacle of 2002, and was elected to replace Spitzer as New York’s Attorney General.

Following Spitzer’s abrupt exit in 2008, slightly more than one year into his term, then Lieutenant Governor David Paterson assumed the top position. But, Paterson’s messy appointment of Kirsten Gillibrand to fill the unexpired term of Senator Hilary Clinton, while the economy teetered and the budget gap widened, made his stay in the governor’s mansion short-lived, as well.

How low is low? Paterson’s approval rating during his time as governor even fell below what Spitzer received during that troubled, sex scandal plagued week that ended in his resignation. So, Paterson declined to run sparing New Yorkers and Cuomo the unpleasant prospect of a primary.

If ever there was an opportunity for the GOP to make inroads statewide in New York, 2010 was the year. The winds of change were still blowing strong but, with the Democrats nationally and in New York State as the party in power, the gusts were swirling in the opposite direction. Voters in New York were experiencing a dual nightmare. Not only was the economy in dire straits but the state government, often characterized as a circus, was viewed by voters as totally dysfunctional. Approximately 3 in 4 New York voters thought the state was headed in the wrong direction. A similar number proclaimed major changes were needed.

Demands for change in New York ironically echoed 1994 when three-term Governor Mario Cuomo was defeated. It’s easy to see why Andrew Cuomo, despite being the most popular elected statewide official in New York, might have been concerned. The national GOP tidal wave trickled down to the congressional level in New York but statewide the water still had a decidedly blue tint.

Then, there’s round 3. Enter Carl Paladino, the baseball bat swinging businessman from upstate. Imagine, the GOP nominated a candidate who was even less shy than Andrew Cuomo. Voters quickly found this candidate from Erie County to be, well, let’s say it, eerie. The emails, the tussle with New York Post legend Fred Dicker, the off-the-cuff and often offensive comments all contributed to voters concluding that Paladino was not fit for state office.

The voters had had enough… a TKO after three rounds. The winner: Andrew Cuomo.

This is not to take away from the practically errorless campaign Cuomo ran this election cycle. As is said, you need to be prepared for luck. To his credit, Cuomo earned the title of, “The Great, Political Comeback Story of 2010.”

Still, New York voters are dismayed over the condition of the state and its government. The tasks Cuomo faces as governor are daunting. Will voters find Andrew Cuomo a tough guy who matches their desire for tough leadership? Will the direction of the state, long a source of voter angst, reverse itself under Governor Cuomo? Will Andrew Cuomo reach the levels of popularity enjoyed by his father for much of his years as governor?

Although premature for this “The Son Also Rises” governor, there’s already talk between Albany exits 23 and 24 on the thruway of a possible presidential bid down the road… or, if history beckons this time, down the tarmac.

10/28: The Ramifications of the Midterm Elections

October 28, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

Will the GOP retake the House? Will the Senate be gridlocked? And, what are the lasting effects of Tuesday’s midterm elections? The Marist Poll’s John Sparks speaks with Marist Poll Analyst and syndicated political columnist Carl Leubsdorf who writes a weekly column for The Dallas Morning News.

Carl Leubsdorf

John Sparks
Carl, we’re right on top of the midterm elections. I read an estimate that said in the House, about 168 seats are solidly Republican, 155 solidly Democrat, about 112 seats in play. Do you think that the Republicans have a chance to retake the House?

Carl Leubsdorf
Oh, I think most people think that the Republicans are going to retake the House, and the only real question is by how much they take it. All signs are, and I’ve been just looking at a lot of polls of House Democratic incumbents, and there’s so many districts in which the Democratic incumbents are polling in the low 40’s, some that are ahead by a couple of points, some that are behind by a couple of points. An an incumbent who’s in his low 40’s at this time, two weeks out from the election, is in very deep trouble, and undecided vote is unlikely to go with the incumbent. So if the national polling on intent and Congressional elections is anywhere close to correct and you’re seeing those have anywhere from a five to a 10-point Republican lead, the Republicans are going to gain between 50 and 60 seats, and they need to get 39 to take the House.

John Sparks
You know, we’ve both seen polls that indicate that voters are angry. They say, “Throw the bums out regardless of the party.” They want change which is kind of ironic since President Obama campaigned on change just two short years ago. But, do you really think that incumbents are in trouble?

Carl Leubsdorf
Oh yeah, I think they are, but they’re mostly Democratic incumbents who are in trouble. One reason for that is there are many more Democrats who represent swing districts. As a result of the 2006 and the 2008 elections, the Republican representation in the House was reduced substantially, and most of those districts are pretty safe Republican districts, but, for example, you have 48 or 49 Democrats who represent House districts that John McCain carried in the presidential election. That kind of a district can go either way and has in different years, so the Democrats have to defend an awful lot plus, they’ve been running the government for the last two years, so they’re the — any anti-incumbent wave is going to strike them and inordinately high.

John Sparks
Do you think that we could wake up on November 3rd to see a repeat of say, what we saw in 1994 with the Contract with America when the Republicans won in droves?

Carl Leubsdorf
Well, the Republican… The difference between this and 1994 is that in 1994 most of us thought that the Republicans would win the Senate, which they did, and we had that pretty much pegged because there were so many open Democratic seats in the Senate. But in the House, most of us were quite surprised by the Republican landslide in the House. It broke very late. A lot of Democrats were quite unprepared for what happened. There’s no surprise this time. For the last year or more than a year, some analysts have been saying that the Democratic hold on the House is in trouble, that many Democratic freshmen and sophomores in districts that are not particularly Democratic would have a tough time. So, we won’t be surprised at all. I mean, we’ll be surprised by two things. We’ll be surprised if the Democrats keep the House, and we’ll surprised — be surprised if the Republicans win a majority, win 70 or 80 Democratic seats as opposed to more like 50.

John Sparks
Let’s take a look over at the Senate side of things. What do you think is going to happen?

Carl Leubsdorf
Well, that’s interesting because it looks at this point like the Democrats have a pretty good shot of holding the Senate. Now some analysts have pointed out that there has been no election in modern time where the House has switched parties where the Senate has not switched parties, and yet it looks at this point like the Republicans are likely to fall a seat or two short in the Senate. Not only that, but a couple of races where the Republicans have had fairly comfortable leads, the polling shows they’ve tightened up a lot. For example, in Pennsylvania where Arlen Specter, the incumbent, was beaten in the Democratic primary by Joe Sestak, a congressman. Ever since then, the polls have showed that Pat Toomey, the conservative Republican challenger, has been ahead of Sestak by anywhere from 7 to 10 points. In the last two or three days, we’ve had a couple of polls showing Sestak pulling ahead by 3 points. In the primary, he came on very late, and it’s always possible that that will happen here again, and what makes the polls somewhat credible is they continue to show a comfortable Republican lead in the governor’s race there. So we’ve seen that there. We even saw a poll in Wisconsin where, I think, most many Democrats gave Senator Russ Feingold up for as a loser this year, that someone came out with a poll this week that showed him a couple of points ahead. So, we’ve got half a dozen at least very close Senate races, and there is some history that in a wave election where there’s a big swing to one party, all of those close races go one direction, and that’s certainly possible that at the end all these close Senate races will go Republican along with the House, and the Republicans will win the Senate. One other thing about the Senate, whichever party wins the numerical majority in the Senate, whether it’s 50/51/52 seats, it’s going to be a very small majority, and given the fact that the Senate has decided you need 60 votes to do almost anything, the Senate is certainly headed for gridlock city.

John Sparks
Carl, you know we’ve been talking about the immediate election, but there are some down ballot races, state results that are going to have an impact on the makeup of the Congress, and I talk about redistricting.

Carl Leubsdorf
I think there is a real danger for the Democrats of what I call a double whammy in this election that not only will they lose the House and possibly the Senate, but certainly a lot of their Senate seats, but that what’s happened in some of those down ballot races, especially legislative and gubernatorial races, will set the Democrats up for another defeat in two years, and let me explain what I mean. As you know, every 10 years, legislative and congressional seats are — the boundaries are redrawn according to population changes. Some states gain Congressional seats, some lose Congressional seats, and in other cases, the population is shifted within the state, so the boundaries get redrawn. And, it looks like that because this is going to be such a Republican election, and that’s going to carry through into state legislative races, that the Republicans will have a real advantage in redrawing the district lines. For example, in Texas, which will probably gain four seats, and Florida, which will be probably gain two seats, the Republicans will probably control the legislature in both. Probably win the governorship in Texas. Florida is closer. They might not win there. But a couple of Northern states like Michigan and Ohio, which are losing seats in Congress, the Republicans are doing well there, too. So, if they redraw the lines in these states to favor the Republicans, it could make it that much harder for the Democrats to rebound in two years, even if the economy improves and President Obama gets re-elected. There’s another factor in this. The Senate seats, of course, come up every six years, and the Senate seats that are going to be up for election in 2012 are the ones that were elected in 2006. Well, 2006 was a big Democratic year so as a result of the 33 Senate seats up next time, only 10 are Republican seats, and most of them are pretty safe. So this is why Republican leaders are talking about, even if they don’t win the Senate this time, they think they can win it next time. And, if it’ll rebound, then the House would be very difficult for the Democrats. So, they may be in the minority for more than two years here.

John Sparks
You know, the president and first lady are traveling now stumping on behalf of Democratic candidates. Former President Clinton has been out on the campaign trail too I understand. What will it be like for the president and the — his administration with Republican control of the Congress? What can we look for in the way of running the government for the next two years?

Carl Leubsdorf
Of course, the president will continue to run the government in terms of the executive branch, and it’s going to be very difficult for the Republicans, even if they win the House and even if they get a small majority in the Senate to be able to follow through on some of their promises to basically stop what Obama has done and, for example, repeal and replace major parts of the health reform bill. The president will still have the veto. He certainly will be using it, and that requires a two-thirds vote in either — in both houses to override him, and that will be very difficult. For example, if the Republicans try to deny funding to carry out the health bill when the appropriation bill is up for the Department of Health and Human Services, the result of that will be that it’ll be very hard to pass an appropriations bill for those departments. Even if they get it through both houses, again, the President will be in a position to block it, so I think there’s going to be a lot of — they’re going to be at each other’s throats a lot, and unless they can find some areas to do some cooperating, you’re not going to see much of that. Now, the other thing that will happen with a Republican Congress and especially Republican House is, we’ve seen this before, that when the other branch has the control of the Congress, they have control of the committees, and they can conduct investigations. And Darrell Issa of California, Republican congressman who’s due to the head the committee that the government — used to call it Government Operations Committee, has already said that he’s going to hire a lot of FBI agents, and he’s going to conduct a whole series of investigations of the way the Obama administration has done its business. So, the administration, if that happens, can expect to have its top officials spending a lot of time testifying on Capitol Hill as the Republicans try to poke holes in its record in advance of the presidential election. So, the administration will have to do the best it can with this. It’s not a unique situation obviously. President Clinton faced it after the 1994 election. He really stood tough on budget issues, but — and in the end forced a confrontation which rebounded in his favor. So, I think we’re in for a lot of acrimony and not much cooperation.

John Sparks
When I think back about a Democratic president losing popularity, I think back to Jimmy Carter and the scenario that we were in prior to the election of 1980 where we had a Democratic president who was slipping, who was hurt. He was stymied by the Iran hostage crisis, but at that time the Republicans had Ronald Reagan who came in waiting in the wings and took the election of 1980. When I think about our present times, I see Obama losing the confidence of the American people, but I see the Republican Party this time in much of a disarray. Would you agree?

Carl Leubsdorf
Well, I think two things to that. First is for all the talk about how badly Obama’s doing and all of his problems, his job approval isn’t that bad. There was a new poll today, I think he was — his job approval was 47%. It’s never gone below the low 40’s, and it sort of stabilized in the mid to upper 40’s, so it’s not like he’s in the high 20’s, which is where former President Bush ended up, and Carter ended up pretty low too at the end. So that’s one thing. He’s not as unpopular as people think, and the electorate and presidential elections is very different from Congressional elections. Young people vote more. Minorities vote more, and things that help the — those help the Democrats.

As for the disarray in the Republican Party, the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, and I mean that’s really what it is, it’s the right side of the Republican Party, is really feeling its oats after having won a bunch of primary fights with establishment Republicans. Now, ironically some of those primary fights may be the reason that the Republicans don’t win the Senate, that there are a couple of Senate seats that they probably would’ve won with the establishment candidates and might not win with the Tea Party candidates. But in any case, it’s clear that the Tea Party group has a lot of support in the Republican rank and file, and you can see a really bitter fight developing for the Republican presidential nomination in which one or another or several candidates backed by various Tea Party groups and bowing to really shake up the Republican Party take on the more established wing. For example, if former Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska runs against — as a Tea Party candidate against Mitt Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts, who’s more of the establishment type, you can see a really divisive primary fight and possibly the nomination of someone who’s not electable. I mean, we’ve seen that before. The Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater in 1964. He was not electable and lost to President Johnson. The Democrats nominated George McGovern in 1972. He was not electable. In both cases, they would more acted the swing of the party forced the nomination on the establishment wing, and they took a licking in the election. So, so much is going to depend on the economy and how things go in the next couple of years. If unemployment is still near 10% in the spring of 2012, President Obama is going to be in trouble no matter who the opponent is, but if unemployment drops to say the 8% level, which these days would look pretty good, and put people in much more optimistic about the trend, it’s going to be much harder for the Republicans. Elected presidents tend to get re-elected in this country. Jimmy Carter did not, and he was — that was an unusual situation. He had regained the White House for his party in the 1976 election and lost four years later. The other incumbents who’ve been beaten were President Bush who was beaten in 1992, but that was the third Republican term after the two Reagan terms, and same thing is true many years ago President Hoover in 1932. So someone who brought his party back in to then lose in four years, that would be unusual, but of course, nothing’s impossible in politics.

John Sparks
Carl, the mention of acrimony a moment ago certainly resonated with me. I am very concerned about that. It seems like to me that the bitterness has been responsible for the lack of productivity on the Hilltop, and now we see polls where voters are angry…throw the bums out… what in the world would it take to get folks on both sides of the aisle to work together, to have logrolling, to do deals, to live to fight another day?

Carl Leubsdorf
Well, you know logrolling has been made a dirty word, too. It’s one of the problems. We used to say, and that it would be good if the parties, if the all liberals were on one side and all the conservatives were on the other side. I’ve just been reading a book about the 1938 Congressional election where President Roosevelt tried to defeat several conservative senators in the Democratic Party so that the Democratic Party would more reflect his liberal progressive point of view. And what’s happened is that with one party — instead of two parties that are coalitions where there’s sort of a natural effort in the middle to work together, we have one on one side and one on the other, and it’s not only personal acrimony, they — there’re two things. They act… They really disagree with each other on the approaches. You see that in this debate about taxes where the Democrats want to increase the taxes on those over a certain income level, and the Republicans don’t. You see it on the role of the government in the stimulus bill that has become such a controversial issue. That was one of the first things that passed after President Obama came in. By all independent analyses, the stimulus bill really saved the economy from going off the cliff even worse than it was. It saved about 3 million jobs, and it got some things going that really were helpful to the economy. But, all you hear from the opponents of Obama and most of the Republicans saying that they wasted $800 billion. Well, no… independent analysts don’t think it was wasted. The bank bailout, the bank bailouts have had a terrible press, but the fact is that they stabilized the banking system. So, it seems like as soon as one side gets in, the other side is determined to prove what a bunch of failures there are. You would’ve thought with a big economic crisis two years ago and Obama having won by a fairly considerable majority, that there was a basis for the parties cooperating more, but that didn’t happen, and I’m not sure now what it would take to have that happen.

John Sparks
Anything you’d like to add before we call it a day?

Carl Leubsdorf
No, I mean I think one thing that’ll happen of course is there always are some surprises on Election Day. Some people we thought we were going to lose are going to win. Some people who were going to win going to lose. But, I think everyone in the political world would be shocked if, for example, the Democrats retained control of the House of Representatives, or something like that happened or if some of the candidates on the Republican side, like you know, some of the more conservative candidates if they won, but some of them probably are going to win, and it’s going to be interesting to see how the Republicans deal with that. But, there will be some surprises. Something will happen that we didn’t expect. But, with — modern polling has gotten very sophisticated. There’s an awful lot of it being done. There is a lot of comparing of apples and oranges in different polls, but the polls this time are so consistent and so uniform both on the district and state level and on national level, that it’s hard to see the major result of the election being a surprise.

10/28: Too Little Too Late?

| by Marist Poll

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

The latest national poll numbers from McClatchy-Marist point to some late movement for Team Obama and the Democrats. But, if you’re Speaker Pelosi, you’re still likely to lose your day job.

The president’s approval rating is up to 48% from 43% earlier this month. This is nothing exactly to write home about, but an improvement nonetheless. The so-called “enthusiasm gap” which has been the center point of much political discussion this election cycle has also narrowed. Among those who say they are “very enthusiastic” about voting next Tuesday, the GOP advantage over the Democrats has decreased from 23 percentage points to 14 percentage points.

On the economic front, there has been a five percentage point swing in the number of voters who think the economic glass is half full and that we’ve turned the economic corner. Another good sign for the Democrats.

But, before the White House breaks out the champagne, the pre-election poll numbers for the Democrats still look pretty bleak. Most telling is the question on the generic vote for Congress. Here, the Democratic advantage of 6 percentage points among the entire potential electorate melts away as consideration is first given to likely voters and, than dramatically, to those who are most likely to vote. It is with this group of definite voters that the GOP enjoys a 6 percentage point lead over the Democrats.

Then, there’s the enthusiasm question. The GOP continues, despite the narrowing gap, to have a double digit advantage over the Democrats. More than half of those voters who identify as politically conservative are “very enthusiastic” about voting next Tuesday compared with only about one in three political liberals. And, 44% of those most likely to vote self-identify as conservative. Only 20% sees themselves as liberal. And, perhaps, most telling is the weakest group on the enthusiasm question is those under 30 years old. What a difference two years has made.

The wrong direction numbers, also a sign that the party in power has some explaining to do, dwarfs the right direction numbers by 52% to 38%.

So, we head into the final few days of campaign 2010. But, this time it’s the elephant herd that’s fired up and ready to go.

Perri Peltz

October 27, 2010 | by Marist Poll

Perri Peltz is a distinguished television news journalist and public health advocate. Perri currently hosts, “Dr. Radio Reports”, a one hour weekly program about public health issues for the Sirius-XM Network.

Perri Peltz

Prior to that, she served as an anchor and reporter for WNBC-TV and NBC News where she focused on issues relating to poverty and health. Perri first joined WNBC in 1987, serving as a reporter, then as a co-anchor, of the weekend editions of “Today in New York” and the evening newscasts. She went on to serve as a contributor for NBC’s “Dateline” and as one of the first anchors at MSNBC.

A news correspondent for ABC’s “20/20” from 1998-2000, Perri won numerous awards including several for her reporting on the misdiagnosis of melanoma. She also worked at CNN as a reporter and anchored the award-winning show “CNN.com.” While at CNN, she reported a story about a chess team from a public school in the South Bronx that became national chess champions. Inspired by their story, Perri produced the feature film, The Knights of the South Bronx, starring Ted Danson, based on their improbable accomplishment.

Both in and outside journalism, Perri has pursued her passion for public health and medicine. Working at the Robin Hood Foundation, she developed volunteer programs to assist organizations in their fight against poverty. Her contributions to public health advocacy were honored by the Mount Sinai Adolescent Health Center, and she continues to serve on the boards of the Medicare Rights Center and Singlestop USA.

Perri holds a Master’s Degree in Public Health from Columbia University where she is presently a Doctoral Candidate. Her most recent project, a documentary about breast cancer and disparities in care, is scheduled to air on HBO in 2011. A life-long New Yorker, Perri resides in New York City with her husband and three sons.

10/27: Cross-Cultural Research

| by Marist Poll

There has been a growing interest among our U.S. clients to compare the opinions and perceptions of Americans to residents in other countries. This prompted me to recount some methodological issues discussed at a workshop I attended last spring in Switzerland.

The Workshop on Comparative Survey Design and Implementation (CSDI) was a small, international conference of survey methodologists who share a strong interest in cross-cultural, multi-national, and multi-regional research. Gathering at the University of Lausanne, the attendees were as diverse as the populations we study. Yet as we discussed the current literature and measurement issues of our global research, the cultural differences blurred while we convened to answer the same question: What are the best methods, tools, strategies, and protocols that help maximize comparability across countries, languages, and cultures?

Like nearly all fields, survey research certainly has its fair share of challenges…only to be exacerbated when conducted globally since much can be “lost in translation.” One presenter reminded us of the Chevy Nova story: a lovely car of the 60’s and 70’s that, reportedly, lacked sales in Spanish-speaking countries. Well, ‘no va’ in Spanish translates to ‘no go’ – not exactly a good marketing campaign for a car. And then, there was NASA’s $125 million orbiter that crashed into Mars when one engineering team used metric units while another used English units to estimate the distance from Earth.

No, we’re not launching rockets, but survey methodologists struggle with similar issues in international research. How do we design a question that precisely translates into multiple languages while adhering to various social norms? For example, does the term “strongly agree” elicit the same interpretation and emotion for the Chinese as it does to Americans? Well, research shows it doesn’t. How do we construct a representative sample when the accessibility, availability, and cultural expectations vary drastically across regions? A telephone survey in the United States is quite easy but definitely not as straightforward in many African…or even European countries. Given the mode of data collection affects survey data, how do we ensure that everything is comparable? And, how do we conduct sound research within reasonable costs and timeframes?

During the three day workshop, we discussed ways to test equivalence across multi-national survey instruments. In other words, methods to ensure that questions and response options, once translated, are understood and interpreted in the same way by all global survey respondents. Since quality control is challenged by the de-centralized nature of global data collection, we investigated innovative ways to implement quality assurance steps through interviewer management and monitoring, as well as strategic review of respondent data. Workshop participants also sought to better understand differential non-response across countries – that is, why survey participation and response rates may be higher in one country than in another and what can be done to increase cooperation without compromising data. We certainly didn’t solve all of the cross-cultural methodological challenges but strides were made…as were global connections and friendships.

Related Link:
https://www.csdiworkshop.org/

10/25: The Youth Vote 2010

October 25, 2010 | by Mary Griffith

Their passion is still evident. In Marist’s Political Communication and Politics course which I co-teach, a small group of students and I recently discussed Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. While addressing Obama’s use of new media, at least half of the students mentioned that they either contributed financially to Obama’s campaign or were on his mailing list. Plus, one of our students did not hesitate to share how she was a foot soldier in Obama’s grassroots army. But, can lightning strike twice? Can that exuberance carry over into this year’s midterm elections?

According to the Pew Research Center’s 2008 post-election analysis, younger voters backed the Democratic Party in the 2004, 2006, and 2008 elections. 66% of voters under age 30 supported Obama in 2008, according to the exit polls. The result was the largest age gap among voters since 1972.

Now, in a midterm election year when Democrats and Republicans are looking for any competitive edge and with the White House trying to reignite that spark, will it work? The clock is ticking and there are few signs that the youth is in a voting mood. According to the latest national McClatchy-Marist Poll, just 11% of registered voters under the age of 30 are very enthusiastic about voting in November while 48% of voters 60 an older have the same level of enthusiasm. Plus, the nation’s youngest voters have been disappointed with the president. In Marist’s September 22nd survey, 59% said the president was not meeting their expectations.

So, what are candidates, and the president, to do? As Heather Smith, President of Rock the Vote, points out in a recent U.S. News and World Report article, all hope is not lost. Campaigns just need to get moving and talk the talk young America wants to hear – focus on issues closest to them, issues like the economy.

10/22: Countdown to Election Day in NY

October 22, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

With less than two weeks until Election Day, will the Republicans take control of the New York State Senate? Can we expect any surprises in New York, and what will turnout be like? The Marist Poll’s John Sparks speaks with Political Analyst Jay DeDapper about this and more.

Jay DeDapper

John Sparks
Jay, Election Day is approaching. The last time we spoke about the New York Governor’s race, you told me it’s Andrew Cuomo’s to lose. Now there’s been this debate, just curious, have things changed, or is the race tightening up any?

Jay DeDapper
If anything, it’s changed in Andrew Cuomo’s favor. Carl Paladino, the Republican candidate, has stuck his foot in his mouth so many times that he’s run out of mouth space. He has gotten into so much trouble with so many comments and so many things he said and done that even in this Republican year, this very Republican year, this race… I don’t think you can even say, “It’s Andrew Cuomo’s to lose anymore.” I don’t… there’s really no conceivable way short of some unbelievable disaster on Andrew Cuomo’s part that he will not win this race.

John Sparks
You know, Jay, Andrew Cuomo isn’t the only one who has a stake in the governor’s election. Control of the Senate is also at stake. I believe Republicans need to pick up two seats in the Senate to regain control of the majority if Cuomo is elected and only one if a Republican is elected governor. Do you see a change in the control of the New York Senate?

Jay DeDapper
Well, the New York State Senate has been controlled by Republicans, had been controlled by Republicans, basically from the beginning of the century, the last century, the 20th Century, until two years ago. So, there’s a lot of reason to believe that Democrats’ hold on it is tenuous. Add to that the fact that the Democrats basically came into office taking over the state Senate for the first time and proceeded to commit fratricide by not being able to decide on a majority leader, having a war over the majority leader, when it’s finally appointing a different majority leader than the one who they thought they were going to have and then failing to accomplish much of anything. It seems very unlikely at this point the Democrats will be able to retain control of the state Senate. That probably doesn’t mean anything at all for the way the government works because let’s face it, government in Albany doesn’t work no matter who’s in charge, and it’s going to be a tall task for Andrew Cuomo to change what three governors before him have all said they would change and failed to do. What is at stake, though, is that the state Senate controls to some degree redistricting for congressional seats. New York has only one Republican congressperson left. If the state Senate is controlled by Republicans, they will be able to redraw the congressional lines because New York is probably going to lose some congressional seats because of population decline, vis-à-vis other parts of the country. It looks like if Republicans were to regain control of the state Senate, which seems fairly likely, they will be able to redraw those lines to the benefit of Republicans who will likely be able to gain a couple of congressional seats and tilt the balance a little bit more towards them from a huge, huge underdog status they now face.

John Sparks
And, I believe Malcolm Smith was quoted as saying that if the Democrats retain a majority, that he would see that they would gerrymander those districts so that Republicans will be in oblivion in New York for the next 20 years.

Jay DeDapper
Yeah, I mean if the Democrats can regain or excuse me, can control the state Senate, can hold onto control, there’s no reason to believe that they would not be able to draw the districts in such a way that there would be no Republican, safe Republican congressional seats. That basically has to do with political affiliation in this state. There are very few Republicans compared to Democrats and independents. It’s five to three to one. And, so finding a Republican seat, even upstate, requires some very special work with the pen. The Republicans have been able to do that. Democrats won’t need a whole lot of effort to draw a Republican district out of existence.

John Sparks
Do you still feel that New York voters are rather lukewarm about these upcoming races. Say like in the comptroller’s race?

Jay DeDapper
Yeah, the comptroller’s race is an interesting one because there hasn’t been any significant polling on it. It is the second most powerful seat or the attorney general. Depending on how you look at it, the second or third most powerful statewide elected official, and it can be a very important role, especially if the comptroller is of the opposite party or is in a war with the governor. The comptroller, he or she, can be a real thorn in the side of the governor, and sometimes maybe that’s a good thing. This race has not gotten very much attention. It has a name on the Republican line that people are going to recognize because John Faso ran for governor before, and it’s got a name on the Democratic side of a guy who’s been comptroller for the last few years but hasn’t made a whole lot of noise. He… I’m sure he thinks he has, but it’s tough to get through the — to clear the chatter when David Paterson is your meltdown governor, and Andrew Cuomo is your attorney general hard charging on all the banks and consumer frauds and all that. I think that the DiNapoli race, the comptroller race could be a surprise. That could be where a fairly low turnout, the fairly low interest among Democrats plays for the benefit of much more excited Republicans.

John Sparks
Do you think there will be a low turnout?

Jay DeDapper
You know, I hate predicting turnout. You know we’ve worked together a long time and seen a lot of elections, and turnout predictions almost invariably proved to be untrue. I don’t think turnout in a year where even though we have two Senate seats up, which is a historical anomaly, we’ve got a big governor’s race with a big name, and we’ve got the control of the Senate and Congress in Washington at stake, I don’t get the sense from the people in New York, from talking to people, from overhearing conversations, from seeing the buzz, I don’t get the sense that this is an energized political state right now. So, I would guess if I had to be a betting person and guess, I would put my chips down on not a very large turnout.

John Sparks
We’ve seen polls, and we hear that voters are angry, they’re ready to turn everyone out. They’re really unhappy. I talked to one of our former colleagues, Gabe Pressman, earlier this morning. He has been in Utica, and he said that was the sentiment in Utica. And, yet, despite all this that we hear about people not being satisfied, it does not seem like that they’re going to take the time or the energy to go to the polls to make a change.

Jay DeDapper
I mean, I don’t … when I say “low turnout,” I don’t mean that it’s going to be like primary low turnout, like in primaries where 4% or 6% of the people turn out. I just don’t think this is going to be anywhere near obviously a presidential year, and I kind of doubt that in New York it’s going to be as big as 2006, which was a very large off-year election in terms of turnout. I think what Gabe found in Utica is probably right. Upstate, as you know, Upstate New York has been economically depressed and down at the heels for the most part, not every city, but for the most part for decades. I don’t think you could go up there even in best of times and find people that are particularly happy with government, whether it be in Albany or in Washington, and I think that those folks — I think they are motivated to vote to some degree, although no more or less motivated than they are in any other year when they’re particularly upset. I do think that it’s worth remembering that Upstate New York is an increasingly small part of the electorate of New York State. You only have to win New York City and either Long Island or Westchester County, and you can’t be beat. You just can’t be beat in this state. There’s just not enough people upstate to make a difference, and I’m not sure that activated, energized, mobilized feeling is as strong in the suburbs here or in the city. Part of that has to do with the economy. New York’s economy has weathered this recession better than almost any major city other than Pittsburgh and a couple of bright spots, and the suburbs, while being hit somewhat hard, it’s nothing like Arizona or California or Florida or Nevada or many of these other places where real estate has just sucked the life out of people in the economy. It hasn’t happened here and there may be anger, but it’s not the visceral anger that you see out West and in the South.

John Sparks
I’d like to take a quick look at some other races. Andrew Cuomo of course will be leaving the attorney general’s position one way one or another. Any contest in the race for attorney general?

Jay DeDapper
It’s possible. Eric Schneiderman has certainly won over Democrats. He’s fairly popular among the Democratic clubs and the folks that can get the vote out if it’s a lowish turnout. He is popular in the suburbs. He’s a Manhattan guy, but he’s popular enough in the suburbs, and his Republican opponent doesn’t have enough of a name or, I think, a widespread name recognition and so far not enough money to cut through the clutter. I think that there’s always a chance that after you get past Andrew Cuomo and maybe Chuck Schumer on the ticket, I think there’s always a chance you’re going to see ticket splitters and people saying, “Screw it — throw the bums out,” and voting for Republicans. I wouldn’t think it’s going to happen in the attorney general race, but it’s always a chance.

John Sparks
Glad you mentioned Schumer. I was about to ask you, the president’s popularity has been on quite a slide. Will that translate into a problem for Schumer or Kirsten Gillibrand?

Jay DeDapper
Both Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand have anemic, and that’s putting it kindly, anemic Republican opposition. I think this is a year that if Republicans in New York State had gotten their act together and put up a really strong candidate, especially against Kirsten Gillibrand, they might have a seat in the Northeast to win. Chuck Schumer, that’s a harder nut to crack. Schumer’s got a lot of money. He’s got a lot of popularity. He’s a campaigner. As you know, he works harder than anybody you’ve ever seen campaigning and governing and being on the job. He will be a tough person to beat even when Republicans manage to put up a Grade A candidate. This year they have not. Both of those seats are very safely Democratic.

John Sparks
You know I mentioned a minute ago about the possibility of gerrymandering and redrawing congressional districts. I’m just curious about the congressional seats in New York at this time. Any that might change hands?

Jay DeDapper
Oh yeah. I mean, two years ago when Democrats almost swept, they almost took every seat from Republicans, and this would’ve been an entirely Democratic state as represented in Congress, That was the high water mark. Maybe people didn’t recognize that at the time that that was the high water mark. This year there are numerous seats that were — that are already kind of 50/50 seats. In other words, half of the people are Democratic, half are Republicans, or better put a third are Democrats, about a third are Republicans, about a third are independents. There are actually a number of districts that way throughout the state which have elected only in the last two or four years, only in the last two cycles Democrats for the first time in many cases in decades. I think many of those seats are vulnerable. John Hall in the Hudson Valley I think is vulnerable. That’s a seat that was Republican historically. There’s a seat outside of Albany, historically forever a Republican seat. Since the Civil War, it was a Republican seat until a couple of terms ago. I think that’s at risk. Tim Bishop out of the end of Long Island, Suffolk County, probably not in a huge amount of trouble, but facing an extremely wealthy self-financed candidate, and if voters in Suffolk County are angry enough, Tim Bishop could be another victim. I think New York wakes up the day after the election with at least a couple of more Republican members of the House.

John Sparks
We’re right on top of it. Do you see anything taking place between now and Election Day? Politics is dynamic. Any surprises? Anything you’ve heard of that might change your opinion about what we talked about today?

Jay DeDapper
Nothing that you can see, but that’s the nature and the excitement of politics is that you never know what’s going to happen in the final two weeks of the campaign. Typically, if it’s going to be something that another campaign, an opposing campaign knows about, you actually don’t save it till the final weekend. You start to roll it out about now because it takes a couple of weeks to take hold and to have its effect. We saw that with Chuck Schumer and Al D’Amato when Al D’Amato back in 1992 — 1998, excuse me, called Schumer a putzhead on the radio. That took a few days, about four/five days for Schumer to kind of traction on it, to work it up, that was two weeks out from the election and that was the end of D’Amato. So, if there’s a surprise out there, if there’s somebody that’s going to screw up, this is the time they’re going to have to do it. You get too close to Election Day and those kinds of things don’t generally happen and they don’t generally work. I don’t see anything on the horizon, but who knows? That’s the fun of politics.

10/21: All About (Election) Eve

October 21, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

As Margo Channing (aka Bette Davis) in the 1950 award winning All About Eve, snarled, “Fasten your Seat Belts. It’s going to be a bumpy night.” The Democrats may not be into classics but, in this era of change, election night may indeed be one for the ages.

Right now, you’d be hard-pressed to find a pundit who thinks the Democrats are likely to hold the House. But, what about the Senate? Here, things are more complicated. So, let me offer my estimates for the likely body count for the upper chamber.

Let’s start with the base numbers. The Democrats currently have 57 seats, plus two independents, for a total of 59. That means the GOP must pick up a net 10 seats to take control. (The tie goes to the Democrats with VP Biden as the tie-breaker). Acquiring a ten-spot is no small potatoes but seems to be more in reach as Election Day nears than at any other time this fall.

First off, the Democrats’ hope of offsetting losses elsewhere by picking up a seat currently held by the GOP (Missouri, Kentucky, New Hampshire) doesn’t seem to be materializing.

Now, the GOP starts off with a quick two-spot with Democrats retiring in Indiana (Bayh) and North Dakota (Dorgan). And, trouble is brewing for many incumbent Democrats trying to hold on against the potential Republican tidal wave.

Democrats in trouble are in Arkansas (Lincoln) and Wisconsin (Feingold). That would the net GOP gain to +4.

There is a group of toss-up states including California (Boxer), Colorado (Bennett, the Salazar seat), Illinois (Giannoulias, the Burris/Obama seat), Nevada (Reid), Pennsylvania (Sestak) (the Specter seat), Washington State (Murray), and West Virginia (Manchin, the Byrd seat). The Republicans would have to win six of these seats to bring the total to +10. With the exception of West Virginia, these were all Obama friendly states in 2008.

If this election is about a sleepy Democratic base, then the best thing the Democrats have going for them, as they try to salvage this fall’s election, is the fracturing of the GOP. The tea party giveth and the tea party taketh away. In this instance, Delaware (Coons, the Kaufman/ Biden seat) once a likely steal for the GOP is now solidly in the Democratic column thanks to Palin look-alike Christine O’Donnell. And, in Connecticut, the Democrat Blumenthal (the Dodd seat) seems to be holding off a strong challenge from tea party supported Linda McMahon.

The bottom line: In this election cycle, voters are clearly saying “no” to politics as usual, but they also are questioning politics of the very unusual.

So, the odds still favor the Democrats holding the Senate, even if there margin is slim. In fact, the GOP goal of achieving a ten seat pickup has only happened twice in many decades, 1958 and 1980.

10/21: Any Way You Slice It…

| by Marist Poll

By Barbara Carvalho

If you are a devotee of politics or just a casual observer, you’ve been hearing a whole lot this election cycle about the enthusiasm gap strongly favoring the GOP and destined to send the Democrats scurrying for cover.

The case for a GOP rout goes something like this. According to the latest McClatchy- Marist Poll, 51% of Republican voters around the nation tell us they are “very enthusiastic” about voting this November compared to a paltry 28% for the Democrats.

Turnout is tied to motivation. The Democrats who this time represent the incumbent party no longer have the winds of change at their backs. Instead, they must navigate powerful head winds.

Drilling down into the numbers, the potential for a Democratic disaster is even more apparent. Younger voters (those under 30) clock in at 11% on the” very enthusiastic” scale. Their older counterparts (those over 60) are a far more robust 48% on this question. By political ideology, 27% of liberals are eagerly counting down the days to November 2nd, whereas 53% of conservative self-identifiers are so inclined. The electorate that ushered in Barack Obama to the White House two years ago is now on the sidelines suggesting turnout won’t resemble 2008.

Swing voters may opt out of the electorate, not uncommon in off year elections. No wonder team Obama is trying everything possible at this late date to re-enthuse his core supporters.

Of course, all of these poll numbers are aimed at a moving target. Campaign dynamics often create late action as voters focus their sights on an approaching election. Certainly, the White House has its electoral game face on. And, Democratic candidates are aware of the uphill fight they face. But, so far the tea leaves are mostly pointing the GOP’s way.

10/21: On-Demand TV: What’s the Story?

| by Marist Poll

A recent Marist poll suggests our TV viewing habits are undergoing massive changes. 16% of U.S. residents are watching most TV shows using their DVRs, while another 9% are watching most shows on the Web. If demographics are any indication, it won’t be long before these numbers climb even higher: only 56% of people under 45 watch most TV shows in real time compared with 77% of their elders. The implications are straightforward: many of us are enjoying the flexibility of the digital age, which doesn’t require us to be in our living rooms on a certain day at a certain time to catch our favorite programs.

A more intriguing question might have to do with what we’re watching rather than how we’re watching. Our evolving habits could alter (and may have already altered) the structure and content of television shows.

It’s not hard to imagine possible changes in structure. Freed from strict programming schedules, shows needn’t be edited into to half-hour and hour-long blocks that alternate between content and ads. Distributors can also be more creative with ad placement. Hulu.com, which offers TV shows in full, sometimes allows users to choose to view a long advertisement before their show starts instead of experiencing the traditional interruptions. Many shows resort to narrative devices that pump up suspense prior to commercials — what better way to make viewers sit through the beer and insurance ads? — and on-demand formats may give writers the confidence to ditch these tired conventions.

On-demand technology also allows us to start at the beginning of each series. Traditional TV shows, eager to pick up viewers in the first season, the third season, or whatever season, usually aren’t structured so that knowledge of past episodes are crucial to understanding the show. Instead, mainstream programs are designed to deliver their thrills or laughs in a short period of time, followed by satisfying closure. Conflict is established in the first minute and resolved prior to the end of the half-hour or hour. Law & Order has mastered this form, hooking us before the credits with a crime scene, often drenched in blood, and then rewarding us one hour later by bringing the depraved perp to justice. House thrives on the same trick, although the mystery is medical rather than criminal (the amount of blood being roughly the same). In both shows, the characters have histories, but knowing their back stories aren’t essential to following the action.

I’m sure there will always be a place for such tactics, but I also hope the new technology could spur writers to be more inventive when organizing plots. Individual episodes should still be self-contained, but they can also expand the less obvious narrative threads planted in earlier shows, as well as continue thematic and visual motifs. One of the common compliments lavished on shows such as The Wire and The Sopranos was that they told stories with novelistic complexity; each episode functioned as a book chapter, not only advancing another increment of plot, but also contributing, in a less linear way, to the narrative whole that stretched from the first episode to the last, many seasons later.

This could all be wishful thinking; the money-making requirements of on-demand content could shape our new media stories in ways that aren’t especially respectful of narrative integrity. I’ve encountered plenty of three-minute comedy and sports highlight clips that start off with pre-roll ads, boasting a content-to-commercial ratio that traditional TV advertisers could only dream of. But, here’s hoping that advances in technology will promote advances in TV shows.

One final thought — to the 7% of U.S. residents who don’t watch TV at all, I say … wow. I’m not sure what you’re doing with your free time, but I have a feeling it’s more productive than watching TV, no matter what format.