You Cannot Stop the Spending!

     This is the time when the radicals scream the loudest. The midterm elections have just concluded but the campaign reformers have just begun. Campaign Reformers are people who are frustrated with Congress and seek to change it. These people criticize Congress for its lack of problem solving abilities, scandals, and what I will be focusing on, excessive spending. Campaign Reformers have recently called for financial reform. These reformers would be looking at the massive war chest of Rosa DeLauro as motivation to get the system reformed. Her finances allow her to have a large advantage over her opponents. As seen in the way she utterly destroyed her opponent Jerry Labriola. However, all of these suggestions and actions toward reform ultimately fail because legislators like Rosa DeLauro with money to spend will always seek a way around it.
                        Rosa DeLauro raised about $898,214 for her campaign and spent over ninety percent of it. While her opponent Jerry Labriola only managed to raise $108,344 and spent only about half of it. It is obvious who had the advantage. Reformers criticize those wealthy incumbents who are able to ensure their victory by spending an excessive amount of money on their campaign because they do not give qualified opponents a fighting chance.

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?id=CT03&cycle=2010

                       In response, Campaign Reformers have proposed a number of ideas to reform the system, but I believe this will do nothing but encourage offsetting behavior. For example, they advocated a balanced budget amendment to prevent “pork barrel” spending by the legislators who only seek to strengthen their chances of reelection. However, critics believe this will only encourage people to think of new ways of accounting and cause other major setbacks (Herrnson 243). There was even a bill known as the Bi-partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (McCain and Feingald) ; that was passed to regulate campaign spending but this ultimately failed because people found ways around it such as creating “527 groups” (groups that spend a massive amount of money towards the elections) and taking their grievances to court (claiming their financial freedom was protected by the first amendment).
                    So the Campaign Reformers can kick and scream all they like but I do not see it resulting in change any time soon.

Is American really crying for a Political Realignment?

   “…we are clearly still in the public-strutting stage of this historic political realignment in the Capitol, with the Ohio leader of the House GOP majority showing that he heard that anti-establishment-campaign warning from voters and constituents alike.”(http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/11/john-boehner-obama-fox-news.html)  Although the Republicans ability to gain control of congress was the largest party shift in the House since 1948, I refuse to characterize it as a political realignment. A political realignment takes place when there is a great issue plaguing the country that results in a change in the majority party or a newly formed party takes control (Brady 14). The Republican’s ability to gain so many seats may leave some to believe that it was a “historic realignment” but in reality what was seen was the normal continuation of local politics that just so happened to result in the Republicans gaining control of the House. The fact of the matter, despite popular belief, there is no intense national crisis that is tearing the country apart nor did many people voting pattern behavior (Connecticut is still voting democrat and Texas is still republican) even though they claimed they were frustrated with the current condition of the country. The outcome of the congressional elections was nothing but the continuation of the norm just with the Republicans in the majority instead of the Democrats.

According to Fox news and House Speaker-elect John Boehner, (“obviously both intellect and un bias sources of information”) the recent GOP victory was a cry from the people for help because they were fed up with the establishment. Supposedly, the American people wanted to extend tax cuts for all, cease excessive spending, and create jobs so badly that they went out in droves to vote republican to stop the country from collapsing (refer to the link posted above) . However this was not the case. Even though these are among the few major issuing that influenced the outcome of the elections, currently there is no issue so great, so destructive that if there was not a change the people would be furious.

Also many voters continued to vote within party lines. There was no great flow of Democrats now voting Republican. NO! Most Democrats voted Democrat and most Republicans voted Republican. The reason why the Republicans were able to take control was because they were able to gain the vote of the Independents.

          In summary, there was no political realignment. America did not desperately cry for help.        

Will this be Rosa DeLauro's Last Victory in Congress?

DeLauro has won back the third district of Connecticut fairly easy (No Surprise!). However, I believe this victory is bitter sweet. Even though she successfully secured her seat many other Democrats were not so lucky. Tuesday November 2nd was sorrowful day for the Democrats as the Republicans took control of the House (187 Democrats and 239 Republican). Now Rosa DeLauro is in the minority. How is she going to push her agendas through Congress when she has lost many of her friends and supporters including Nancy Pelosi who will no longer be speaker of the House?

On Tuesday night after DeLauro secured her seat as Representative of the third district of Connecticut she expressed great joy and apprehensions for her new term. Her worries are more than justified. Since the Republicans have gained control of Congress they now have the power to determine the legislative agenda, and control House committees. So nothing goes through Congress without going through the Republicans first. Also Nancy Pelosi was a close friend of Rosa DeLauro. With Pelosi’s support DeLauro has been able to push some of her agendas’ through Congress there is not much DeLuaro can do without her.  How is DeLauro going to please her constituents if she has no power?

Although things are looking quite grave from my point of view DeLauro remains optimistic that not all the Republicans will be bent on opposing the Democrats at every turn. She has hope that there are still “level headed” Republican that believe in the art of compromise.

http://newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/delauro_heads_back_to_a_house_transformed/id_30931

Your No Challenge for the Champ!

Most incumbents have an overwhelming advantage against their opponents. This is because incumbents tend to have greater name recognition, more money, campaign organization, voter support, experience, resources, and “friends in high places” (Herrnson 206). Consequently, challengers struggle to compete. Although, challengers are at a disadvantage that does not mean there is no chance at victory. A strong challenger who knows how to campaign correctly has the opportunity to win if the incumbent makes a mistake or the national conditions are in the challenger’s favor. However, Jerry Labriola is not a strong challenger (Herrnson 211). He does not have the political experience, voter support or campaign organization needed to come close to incumbent Rosa DeLauro.

It is no surprise that a Republican challenger running against a Democratic incumbent would be at a disadvantage; however being the underdog does not mean victory is impossible. A strong challenger who knows how to campaign can increase his or her chances at keeping up with the incumbent. Challenger Jerry Labriola does not fit the profile of a strong opponent. Although Labriola has professional experience in law, he greatly lacks any political experience. Most challengers with political experience have the ability to think strategically. Thinking strategically means using political information and data to make critical campaigning decisions. I believe that Labriola’s lack of political knowledge has greatly prevented him from making wise choices (Herrnson 34). Another more devastating strike against Labriola is his lack of voter support. The majority of the voters in the third district of Connecticut supports Rosa DeLauro and lacks any strong knowledge of Labriola. “Familiarity breeds content”, the voters are familiar with DeLauro so they are content and do not have any need to replace her. Finally, the greatest disadvantage that prevents Labriola from being a strong challenger is his inability to raise enough funds. Labriola has failed to gather a significant amount of funds. As stated in my previous blog, “Financing a Political Campaign”, Labriola has only managed to raise $108,344 compared to DeLauro’s $898,214. DeLauro has managed to gather a great amount of wealth over the years; something Labriola has not had the privilege of doing.

Also if Jerry Labriola was a better challenger he would have taken advantage of the current national conditions. Right now the economy is making little progress; many people have been laid off from their jobs; and we are in the middle of what some believe is an unwinnable war against terrorism. And who is blame? According to many Republicans that would be the Democrats. Consequently, it would be beneficial if Republican Jerry Labriola took advantage of this idea and blame Rosa DeLauro for helping the Democrats cause many of the problems the country is facing. Although I still do not believe Labriola would have a fight chance against the undefeatable incumbent, I do believe that he could have at least caused her popularity to decline slightly. Maybe instead of having a 99.9% chance at victory, DeLauro’s chances at victory can decrease to 97% (FiveThirtyEight.com).

All in all, Labriola is not a strong enough challenger for DeLauro.

A Desperate Attempt By A Desperate Man

Negative campaigning has become the weapon of choice for challengers’ facing an established incumbent. Challengers use negative advertisement to disrupt the tendency of voters to for the incumbents. The challenger must be able to convince the voters that the incumbent is unfit to hold their position. Although incumbents also resort to negative campaigning many times they only do so when they are faced with potential threat.  In the third congressional race, Jerry Labriola is determined to break to bond between the voter’s and the Rosa DeLauro.

According to Herrnson’s Congressional Elections, negative campaigning is a legitimate form of campaign communications that has the potential to enhance the electoral process (Herrnson 176). Negative campaigning is used to illuminate the unflattering and scandalous attributes and a practice of the competing candidates which is said to forces them to be held accountable for their actions. Although I disagree with this justification for dirty mudslinging, negative campaigning is a very popular practice especially among challengers facing an otherwise untouchable opponent. Republican Jerry Labriola has come to depend on this tactic to combat the Democratic incumbent Rosa DeLauro. Currently, Labriola has released campaign commercials that question DeLauro’s pervious actions and beliefs. He makes it seem as if the voters will be in serious trouble if they re-elect DeLauro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1abxwBUzB4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXx2aADmYHw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z2b0GExBk8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEgCz10YsVg

However, Rosa DeLauro has not resort to this type of negative campaigning. I have yet to discover any negative campaign ads released by DeLauro against her opponent.  The reason maybe that she does not feel threaten. She has been able to consolidate her lead so there is really no reason to go negative like Labriola. I do not believe that his approach will help him win the election but it may make a few people reconsider voting for her.

Ignorance is Bliss; Especially For Rosa DeLauro

During elections it is essential for Congressional Candidates to understand that the average voter does not know much about political affairs. The majority of voters are rationally ignorant, which means they do not want to waste or energy researching the candidates because the cost of doing so outweighs the benefits. This is considered rational because one should not do anything where the bad outweighs the good.  Instead voter may rely on contact with the candidates, recall and familiarity, and Partisanship to help guide their decision. The candidate who is more capable to take advantage of this trend among voters will increase his or her chances at victory. It looks like in the congressional race between Rosa DeLauro and Jerry Labriola; DeLauro is the one with the most knowledge of voter behavior.

It seems as if Rosa DeLauro has benefited the most from the voters reluctance to research political affairs while her opponent voters Jerry Labriola has drastically lagged behind. According to The Politics of Congressional Elections by Gary C. Jacobson, Voters like candidates who attempt to make contact with them. This can be through mail, a telephone call, or personal contact. DeLauro is better known than Labriola because over the years she has made the effort make contact with all the voters either one way or another. Also because Rosa DeLauro has managed to avoid any major scandals she has not attracted much attention from the popular media so any information the voters get about her comes directly from her office. So the only negative information that voters have about DeLauro must come from the Labriola campaign.

Recall and familiarity is also a prime factor at the polls. Voters need to be able recall the candidates and also become familiar with them. The more familiar the voters are with candidates the more likely they are to determine what they think about the candidate. DeLauro is also privileged in this category because the people are more familiar with her. Also they are more likely to recall what they like about her rather than what they like about Labriola. Lastly the major factor that is going to put DeLauro over the top is partisanship. It is no secret that Connecticut is a Democratic State. Most of the people never vote against the party consequently, I do not see Republican Jerry Labriola getting close to the number of supporters DeLauro has gained through just party affiliation.

Vote For Me! Vote For Me!

“Successful candidates craft a message with broad appeal, set the political agendas that defines voters, and get their supporters to the polls on election day” (Herrnson 156). Candidates need to know their voters in order to create a successful campaign strategy. This includes knowing what motivates people to vote and what influences them to vote the way they do. There are three major assumptions that candidates make about voters before formulating a campaign strategy; first, the majority of voters do not know much about the candidates or what they support; second, voters are more likely to vote for the candidate whose name they recognize; and third, voters have a tendency to vote for those affiliated with their political parties (Herrnson 160). Taking these factors into account, candidates need to focus on their targeting, communications, and messaging.

When campaigning, candidates know that they do not have a chance at reaching all of the voters so instead they target specific groups. Candidates target the possible voters then determine their political preferences, and based on this information they attempt to formulate the best plan of action to reach these groups. Many factors come in to play when creating a strategy but the one that will be the most significant in the race between Democrat Rosa DeLauro and Jerry Labriola will be candidate loyalty and party affiliation. The residents of the third district of Connecticut have been very loyal to incumbent Rosa DeLauro in previous elections (she has never won by less than sixty-six percent of the vote) as well as the Democratic Party. As the unfavorable challenger, Jerry Labriola needs to focus on not only getting vote from the few Republican Party loyalists but also he needs to target supporters from members of the Democratic party as well.

Communication with the voters is very crucial for the candidates. Through outlets such as television, newspaper, direct-mail, and radio advertisements, candidates are able to increase name recognition, attack the credibility of their opponents, and defend themselves from their opponents. Today, candidates are using computerized social networking sites such as Twitter, Facebook and Youtube to reach the younger voters. Both Rosa DeLauro and Jerry Labriola can be found using at least one of these networking sites.  

http://www.wikio.com/video/jerry-labriola-spice-ad-politician-delauro-4151139

http://www.facebook.com/RosaDelauro

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jerry-Labriola-for-Congress-2010/116701135037253?ref=ts

http://twitter.com/jerrylabriola

            Throughout the campaign it is important for candidates to create a message about themselves that “gives substance to a campaign and helps to shape the political agenda, mobilize backers, and win votes” (Herrnson 168). Rosa DeLauro's message includes her affiliation with the Democratic Party, “fighting for people” slogan, her twenty year reign, and her leadership positions as co-chair of the House Steering and Policy Committee, and chairs the Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee. Jerry Labriola's message on the other hand down plays his affiliation with the Republican Party, exalts his slogan calling for the retirement of Rosa DeLauro (“20 Years is Enough”), and calls for the end of big government spending. DeLauro and Labriola are going do whatever they can to create a campaign strategy that will reach the voters.