ChrisWeigant.com

Coyly Campaigning In Kansas

[ Posted Monday, September 8th, 2014 – 16:39 UTC ]

[Note: You'll have to forgive my somewhat-belated commentary on the shakeup in the Kansas Senate race, but I was on vacation all of last week.]

Last week, a political tornado of sorts happened in Kansas (of all places), raising the possibility of this Senate race becoming the tipping point which could decide partisan control of the Senate for the next two years. Democratic candidate Chad Taylor attempted to drop out of the race completely, clearing the field for Independent Greg Orman to take on sitting Senator Pat Roberts. Orman, however, is being coy by refusing to announce which party he'll caucus with on the all-important vote for Senate Majority Leader, should Orman win his race. If he does beat Roberts, Orman will become the third sitting Independent in the Senate.

While Democrats are usually said to have a 55-45 advantage in the current Senate, their actual number is technically "53+2," since both Vermont's Bernie Sanders and Maine's Angus King do not call themselves Democrats, while generally caucusing with Democrats (at least, for leadership votes). In addition, before he retired, Connecticut's Joe Lieberman was forced to run as an Independent when he lost his Democratic primary. Added together, that would be four senators in the past few years who were (or are) not formally members of the Democratic or Republican parties. That's not an overwhelming amount of senators, so it'd be premature to declare it any sort of general trend, but it is nonetheless interesting in a wonky sort of way. Added to the mix was the recent news from the Alaska governor's race, where the Democratic candidate formed a fusion ticket with the Independent in the race (putting the Independent on top of the ticket, with the Democrat running for lieutenant governor).

Each case is different, of course, but the political tactic of clearing the field for the strongest non-Republican candidate seems to be a new one in this election cycle. It seems downright bizarre for the Democratic Party to "win" elections by withdrawing from them, but if it means not splitting the non-Republican vote, it could actually work to the Democrats' advantage. Roberts was the strongest candidate in a three-way race, but his poll numbers were well below 50 percent. The Democrat and Independent were both polling around 25 percent, so the tactic may indeed work, assuming all the Democratic voters pull the lever for the Independent.

This will be complicated by the fact that Chad Taylor's name will still be on the ballot. The state elections official is a Republican, and has ruled that Taylor is not allowed to withdraw his name from the ballot, by state law. So there will likely be a lot of low-information voters who vote the straight Democratic ticket -- which could rob Orman of the crucial votes he needs to beat Roberts. In other words, the tactic may fail due to Taylor's name still being on the ballot.

The bigger picture of this race (and the earlier Angus King race in Maine) gets a bit unseemly, however. King ran and (so far) Orman is running on what could be called the "coy platform" -- refusing to state which party they'll caucus with if elected. This particular tactic is meant to appeal to independent voters, who are looking for a candidate that won't be totally beholden to either party. It worked for King (who had previously been governor of Maine as an Independent), and it could also work for Orman. But the unseemly bit is what happens after the election, which could become very big news indeed if Orman becomes the pivotal vote.

You can't really call it bribery, and you can't really call it selling political influence, because no money will change hands. But what King did (and Orman will do) after being elected can be called the crassest sort of political horse-trading. The Senate, much more than the House of Representatives, is mostly run by seniority. In short: the longer you've been there, the more power you accumulate. The most visible aspect of this power is what committee assignments you get. There are many committees and subcommittees in the Senate, but not all committees are created equally. Some deal with the power of the purse, some have oversight powers, and some deal with writing arcane legislation for giant industries. Others deal with much lesser subjects, and are not seen as being nearly as powerful as taxing or spending committees (for instance). Normally, a junior senator arrives in Washington and has to be content with whatever committee assignments are doled out by the party leadership. Sometimes geography or demographics can play a role, as when a senator from a very agricultural state gets on a farm committee. But for the most part, new senators have to take what they're offered, and pay their dues in the minor committees before acquiring enough seniority to move up to the more plum assignments. Independents, however, can essentially sell their party loyalty to the highest bidder.

By not saying which party they'll caucus with, Independents leave themselves open to both parties, which can depend on which committee assignments they would like. They can jump over senators with more seniority to gain a seat on a committee that they'd normally have to wait years to attain. The voters who elect them aren't put off by this horse-trading, for the most part, because it means that their state will have more influence in the Senate than normal.

But while this leapfrogging into powerful committees could be seen as a desirable thing for a Senate candidate, it probably won't lead to a wave of candidates declaring themselves Independents in the near future. The circumstances have to be right for such a thing to successfully happen. In the first place, a state's voters have to be open to the concept of an Independent officeholder. To put this another way, the state's identity (as seen by the citizens) usually has to include a large degree of political independence. Maine and Kansas both qualify. Other states also embrace what could be called a maverick nature, as when Lisa Murkowski won a Senate seat in Alaska as a write-in candidate. But not every state truly sees itself in this manner -- Lieberman's win in Connecticut doesn't really qualify, it would seem. It also helps to be a small state (demographically), because senators from larger states already have an advantage in Washington (although not as obviously in the Senate). The upshot is that a successful Independent campaign couldn't happen everywhere, even with one of the major party candidates bowing out of the race to clear the field.

But while the citizens of Maine are already benefiting from Angus King's committee assignments (offered to him to secure his vote for Harry Reid), and while the citizens of Kansas may also benefit soon from the same dynamic, to me the horse-trading still seems more than a little opportunistic, instead of following the rules and traditions everyone else must play by. Seniority may not be the best system of apportioning power in the Senate, but it is the system that is in place for all the other senators. As I said, it's not bribery or influence-peddling, but it is definitely jumping the line. Imagine how you'd feel if you were waiting in a queue and saw someone cut the line in front of you, to put it on a very pedestrian level.

Of course, this is going to be an enormous political story if Republicans win 50 Senate seats in November, and Orman wins in Kansas. In this scenario, Democrats will be one vote short of keeping Harry Reid as the Senate's leader. If Orman caucuses with Democrats, it will give them a majority (50 votes plus Vice President Joe Biden's tie-breaking vote). If he throws in with the Republicans, it'll mean Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (assuming he survives his own race, of course). That is when the horse-trading is going to get fierce indeed. Assumably, if Democrats manage to hold onto control without the Kansas race, Orman will not be offered as powerful positions as if he is the deciding vote. If this does come to pass, it's hard to see Orman caucusing with Republicans, for two reasons: he knows his victory was made possible by the Democrat clearing the field for him; and why would he want to join the minority party rather than the majority?

This brings up a second scenario, in which the Republicans win control of the chamber without the Kansas seat. This would put both King and Orman (again, assuming he wins) in an interesting position. Would they both switch over to caucusing with Republicans, to gain seats on more-powerful committees? For instance, if Republicans win 51 seats, could they suddenly gain two more? Would we have to start reporting the Senate's makeup with an algebraic equation: 51+2 to 46+1? I should note that this assumes Bernie Sanders would still caucus with Democrats, which I feel is a pretty safe assumption.

What it all boils down to is that we may not know which party controls the Senate when the votes are all in on election night. It may be days before anyone knows whether Democrats or Republicans will control the chamber. And the decision may come down to which party offers better goodies to Greg Orman. By playing it coy throughout the campaign, he will leave himself open to all offers if he wins -- and especially if he becomes the deciding vote. While some may see this as nothing more than political hardball and successfully empowering his own state's voters, at the end of the day it still seems to me to be nothing more than selling your vote out to the highest bidder. If I were voting for some Senate candidate, I think I'd want to know which party they're going to effectively join before I cast my vote. Perhaps I'm alone in seeing it this way, but voting for such rank opportunism wouldn't really have much appeal to me.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

18 Comments on “Coyly Campaigning In Kansas”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    My Vacation Report

    I spent last week on vacation, which included being on vacation from all things political. Which is why I am writing this as a comment, because there was simply no way to justify it as a column. My blog has seldom been a "here's what I've been doing" sort of blog, so this'll have to do.

    My wife had an off-site three-day organizational meeting in Irvine, which is a suburb in Orange County, down in Southern California (to set the scene, I thought the hotel was hosting some sort of Republican convention, but it turned out to just be a bridge tournament -- which pretty much sums up Orange County). Being a Northern Californian means dismissing all of the greater Los Angeles area as "La-La Land," of course, and I have to admit I've never really done any touristy things in L.A. before last week. I've only ever been to Southern California three times previously, and I never stopped to sightsee, so this was the first time I have ever done so. At the same time, my wife was busy all day so I limited my sightseeing to things she wouldn't have really been interested in anyway (I would still like to see the La Brea Tar Pits, for instance, but I'd want her to be able to be with me).

    Before I get to my two mini-adventures, a word about the Los Angeles freeways. Actually, two words: terrifyingly stupendous. That about sums it up. The freeways in L.A. are awesome, in the literal sense of the word. They inspire awe (or at least they did in me). Driving freeways elsewhere (even elsewhere in California) is only a precursor to the L.A. freeway experience. Pretty much anywhere you want to travel in the entire megalopolis of L.A. is reachable by freeway -- often, by two or three different routes. All the freeways (or at least the ones I traveled) dwarf other American freeways. Four lanes of traffic heading in the same direction is simply not enough. Why not have five, six, seven, even eight lanes?

    Driving such enormous roads is a bit terrifying, especially when you move all the way over to the carpool lane (the "HOV lane," for you East-Coasters) -- because most of them have been squeezed in by eliminating the breakdown lane or shoulder. This leaves you traveling at high speeds right next to a retaining wall -- which, as I said, can be pretty terrifying. But I have to say, I didn't experience a whole lot of traffic jams -- in most of the freeway driving I did it was possible to move at the speed limit (or above, should you so choose). In any case, if you've never been to L.A., then you haven't really had the full freeway experience -- I'll leave it at that.

    Driving adventures aside, I spent my first vacation day doing a quintessential Los Angeles touristy activity -- I attended the taping of a television show. If you saw last Wednesday's Late Late Show With Craig Ferguson, and if you knew exactly where to look in the split second crowd pan shot, it is possible to positively identify the back of my head. The friend I went with (who is temporarily stationed down in Southern California) is more visible, as you can see the side of his face. Television immortality!

    I went to see Craig Ferguson because he won't be around for much longer -- he loses his hosting position in December. As I've stated many times on this blog, I love Ferguson's humor and think it's a shame he won't be on the airwaves next year. Because his taping schedule and my vacation schedule overlapped, I had to go and be part of his show before it ends. The show was funny, and you can likely find a video of it online by searching for "Craig Ferguson sex turtle show." No, seriously!

    The second touristy thing I did will likely make some of you laugh, since what passes for "history" in Los Angeles is indeed somewhat of a joke -- I drove 45 minutes on the freeways to go to a McDonald's. In Downey, California. I did this not because there is a shortage of McDonald's restaurants elsewhere in the area, but because the Downey McDonald's is the oldest one that is still in business. It is the third McDonald's ever built (they've since torn down numbers one and two), and it existed even before Ray Kroc bought the chain and invented international fast-food branding as an industry. For those of you who are old enough to remember, it is a "golden arches" hamburger stand, with no indoor seating at all. You go up to the window and order, and then you sit at a table out front. Here's the Wikipedia entry if you don't know what I'm referring to.

    I fully admit this was a cheesy (pun intended) and kitschy thing to do, but I only had a couple hours to kill that day, and it seemed like a perfect way to fill the time (it was around lunchtime anyway...). So now I can say "been there, done that, bought an awesome T-shirt."

    That's pretty much it for my L.A. adventures. I had some meaningless fun for a few days, that's about all you can say. Now you can see why this didn't rise to the level of me posting it as a column, can't you?

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    I know of small towns and villages in southern Ontario that are more exciting than that!

    I was in LA once, just passing through on my way to Hawai'i. I'm very pleased to know that I didn't miss anything. Heh.

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Sounds like a fun week. :D

    Speaking of McDonalds...

    Where is the only McDonalds that doesn't have Golden Arches???

    http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/6241

    Sedona, AZ Home of the Teal Arches... :D

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    So there will likely be a lot of low-information voters who vote the straight Democratic ticket --

    The bane of my existence.. :D

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "it was around lunchtime anyway"

    That sounds like you ate there. Between the HOV lane and McDonald's, you were living dangerously on vacation.

    There were six kids in my family and my father worked two jobs, so there wasn't a lot of money for eating out. It was a big deal when we would go to the McDonald's in Beaver Falls (about 10-15 miles away) for dinner. It was the closest one. One with no indoor seating. Now fast food is everywhere and people who can't afford to eat out do so anyway.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:
  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay CW,

    What did you think about Chuck Todd's debut on MTP??

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-6

    I'd say the polling consensus has shifted over the summer a bit from "slight advantage" Republicans towards "advantage" Republicans" at roughly 60:40.

    My own quick 'n' dirty approach calls it 55:45,using the NYT odds table, NYT says 61:39.

    I haven't run Nate's latest odds table through my q 'n' d model, 538 has changed format, making the tabulation much slower for me. Kansas didn't affect my overall calculus, but Kansas looks close enough to be a weak spot in Republican hopes.

    WAPO is still an outlier, but it's flipped recently from an 80% chance of Republican takeover to a mere 52%. More emphasis on "fundamentals."

    The "Prognosticator Cloud" seems to feel polling data is a bit more unreliable this cycle than last and is putting more weight in those "fundamentals" = historical trends and/or wishful thinking/guessing.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/us/politics/a-president-whose-assurances-have-come-back-to-haunt-him.html?_r=0

    Let's face it, people. Obama is in WAY over his head...

    TS,

    I haven't run Nate's latest odds table through my q 'n' d model, 538 has changed format, making the tabulation much slower for me. Kansas didn't affect my overall calculus, but Kansas looks close enough to be a weak spot in Republican hopes.

    Perhaps.. But the Left has pretty much resigned itself to the fact that the GOP is going to own Congress..

    What's your take on Obama punting Illegal Immigrant Amnesty???

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's your take on Obama punting Illegal Immigrant Amnesty???

    By that, I mean do you think the purely crass political maneuver helped or Hurt Democrats in the upcoming mid-terms??

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.”
    -President Barack Obama, referring to ISIS..

    The scope and depth of this President's misguided view of the world is honestly and truly breathtaking..

    I have said it before and this is just another manifestation of it..

    He operates as if the world is what he WANTS it to be not as the world really is...

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    that times article is a pretty good read. i'm not sure i agree with everything baker writes, but it's pretty hard to combat the assertion that the president has a tendency to promise more than he can deliver.

    perhaps unlike baker, i strongly disagree with aaron miller's assertion that america doesn't want or need a great president. the people in general, and especially those people in the lower 99 percent of income brackets, both want and need the greatest of presidents. in my view, the reason we don't get one is because our ability to elect the executives and legislators we want and need, perhaps even moreso than during the gilded age, is hopelessly corrupted under the influence of large amounts of money.

    JL

  13. [13] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Craig Ferguson ... very cool!

  14. [14] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    cw, my last comment pertaining to the nytimes article seems to have fallen into the void - a little help please?

  15. [15] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Well, there are a few better touristy things to see in LA (one or two at least) but I was saving the good parts to see with the wife...

    :-)

    Michale [3] -

    I've been to Sedona, must have driven right by it. If I had known it was special, I would have stopped and snapped a photo!

    The first MickeyD's I noticed which had been forced by local building codes to "blend in" was this one, in Half Moon Bay, CA. (If that link doesn't work exactly right, look at picture #4)

    John From Censornati -

    I remember my Dad taking me to one of the original "golden arches through the roof" McD's when I was a kid (early 1970s), but I forget where it was -- maybe Ohio, maybe Indiana?

    I read the wiki page, and it seems the corporation forced them all to upgrade so they're almost all gone now. The #3 one in Downey wasn't actually a corporate McDonald's franchise, they were an original McDonald franchise (pre-Kroc), so they were never subject to the corporate rules, which is how they were allowed to stay as they were.

    Yes, I did eat lunch. They have a sign over the order window which points out what things cost in the 1950s (hamburger 15 cents) and what they cost now, and how much (percent) they've gone up. I forgot to take a photo of the sign, but it was pretty cool.

    This is the only fast food restaurant ever invited to be on the National Historic Register, but they turned it down because it would have meant too many red tape hassles if they ever wanted to make any changes to the site.

    Fun fact: the land is actually owned by the three Pep Boys, and there was indeed a Pep Boys in the same parking area.

    :-)

    Hey, it's kitschy history, but then hey, it's California, what do you expect?

    akadjain -

    Yep, it was indeed pretty cool! The back of my head is now part of TV history! Heh.

    nypoet22 -

    Fixed, and sorry. To others: please post a comment like this if the autofilter eats your comments, as it means I will fix the problem faster. Just FYI...

    -CW

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fixed, and sorry. To others: please post a comment like this if the autofilter eats your comments, as it means I will fix the problem faster. Just FYI...

    Any idea why it's happening???

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I haven't gone into a McDonald's for probably more than 25 years, so it's weird that I have such vivid memories of that place. It was a big deal when they tore it down.

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19851221&id=FxwhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jWIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3845,2377789

  18. [18] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [7] -

    Wanted to answer your Chuck Todd question separately.

    I saw it, but was only kinda paying attention (burnt after roadtrip). My initial thoughts, fuzzy though they may be:

    What a score, first interview with POTUS! Nice job, whoever booked him...

    Starting the show with a roundtable was a bit much, I thought. Let Todd have some solo screen time!

    Joe Scarborough? Meh.

    I liked Todd's interview, for the most part. Intelligent questions, especially the one about "we have given the Saudis trillions in military aid over the years, shouldn't we expect them to fight in their region occasionally?" A question I hadn't exactly thought of before, but a damn fine point to make, I thought.

    Wasn't too impressed (again, I was only half-paying attention, so this might not be fair) with Todd's followup questions, but it was his first interview (and a BIG one) so he might have been a bit nervous. We'll see how he does once he settles down in a few weeks.

    So, an incomplete set of reactions, at best. Give me a chance to really pay attention to a MTP show, and I'll give you a better response, how's that? The fault is mine, for not watching it more closely, in other words.

    -CW

Comments for this article are closed.