Making Sense of 2010,
Preparing for 2012
January 18, 2011
Two months after the historical 2010 mid-term election that considerably altered the American political landscape along multiple lines, the 112th U.S. Congress has convened with the following changes:
—U.S. Senate: A decrease from 56 to 51 Democrats, an increase from 42 to 47 Republicans, 2 Independents caucusing with Democrats. Democrat-controlled.
—U.S. House of Representatives: A decrease from 255 to 193 Democrats, an increase from 179 to 242 Republicans. Republican-controlled.
The 2008 election was equally dramatic in the Congressional changes it effected:
—U.S. Senate: An increase from 48 to 57 Democrats, a decrease from 49 to 41 Republicans, 2 Independents caucusing with Democrats. Democrat-controlled.
—U.S. House of Representatives: An increase from 235 to 255 Democrats and a decrease from 198 to 179 Republicans, with 2 vacancies filled. Democrat-controlled.
Maps on sites such as WashingtonPost.com illustrate the impact of the 2010 election nationwide as well as state-by-state in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, with light and dark shades of color reflecting narrow and wide margins of victory, respectively.
Perhaps an even more significant result of the 2010 election was the grassroots (a.k.a. Main Street vs. Wall Street) impact of what happened at the state legislative level. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the 2010 mid-term election was the largest Republican win since 1966; put Republicans in control of the most state legislative chambers since 1952; and put Republicans in control of the most state legislative seats since 1928.
Just two years ago, the Obama administration and the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress came into office on a wave of enthusiasm fueled by hopes for significant change from Bush policies that had promoted big money and strengthened ties between Washington and Wall Street…and left Americans with fewer opportunities, less take-home pay, higher costs of living on every level from healthcare to education to food to gasoline, tragic foreclosures, and piles of debt.
Did American voters suddenly decide Republicans had been right all along and deserved to win in 2010, or did they simply disagree once again with the party in power (Democrats this time around) because, once again, it had opted for big-money interests over the interests of the people? We assert the latter was true and the only option available to American voters dissatisfied with the status quo was to vote against the party in power.
Big Money Impact
Here at Imagine A Great Election, we intend to follow the big money. For Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and all the other big-money players, a politician’s party affiliation does not matter. The only thing that matters is the protection of big-money interests. The influence of big-money interests on American politics is immense, and a general statement of its power to control the votes of elected officials, while true, fails to impress voters. For this reason, Imagine A Great Election will track big money and national politics on an on-going basis. By studying big-money donors to winning campaigns in both parties as well as the votes cast by winning candidates throughout 2011 and into 2012, we hope to determine what, if anything, big money buys, and why so many candidates accept donations from the same interests they criticize while on the campaign trail. Do such donations result not only in more votes from the voting public for certain candidates, but in more votes on both sides of the aisle in favor of big-money interests?
Stay tuned. We believe our long-term study of where the money comes from and how candidates respond while in office will drive home the day-to-day realities of power in this country, and how our leaders are controlled by those who literally pay their way…regardless what they said, or will say, during an election cycle when all eyes are on them and so much is at stake.
Current Financials and What They Reveal
At the end of this month, the Federal Election Commission will post financial statements that will reveal total amounts raised by 2010 candidates. We will begin our coverage with two Senators who were elected in 2010: Michael Bennet of Colorado, a self-declared Blue Dog Democrat appointed to fill Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s seat in 2009, and Florida Republican Marco Rubio. Current statements of fundraising totals through late November already show that Bennet raised more than $13 million but beat Republican opponent Ken Buck—who raised $5 million—by a margin of less than one percent. Meanwhile Rubio, now the second-youngest U.S. Senator, raised a remarkable $21 million during his first campaign for federal office, even as he ran against former Florida governor Charlie Crist, a former Republican turned Independent who raised $13 million but lost to Rubio by nearly 20 percentage points.
Since Bennet had a voting record and committee assignments as an appointed Senator, his positions on various bills and their connections, if any, to his campaign contributors can be readily examined for the two years he has already served. As for Senator Rubio, it will be interesting to see if he can continue to garner such strong public support, or whether he falls into the category of politicians who promise change but do not deliver to the people who put him in office.
Colorado and Florida were considered swing states in the 2008 presidential election. Bennet’s slim win and Rubio’s runaway victory may very well cause concern among Obama supporters that the sitting president might not carry these states in 2012. However, Republican and Democrat strategists are quite happy with the midterm election results because they can return to the old lesser-of-two-evils campaigns that have dominated and undermined our democracy far too long. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Imagine a Great Election will endeavor to explode the myths of such politics.
—Sherry Seiber
|