Who do elections help?

Elections in the United States were created with the idea ff giving even the littlest citizen a voice as equal to those around him. But is that really the case today? With the number of incumbents that regained their seats in the recent elections, and the big name contributors, it is obvious that today our country is run by an elite group of Americans, with little room for anyone else. Paul Herreson argues in his book Congressional Elections that new campaign reform laws will help to “increase the number of citizens who participate in them, both as voters and as financial contributors”(308). Campaign reform laws are suppose to help limit the amount of time that candidates spend focusing on earning money, so they can focus on the real issue. Because most candidates raised over a million dollars during the 2010 campaign, it’s hard to believe that that is truly where the focus is. 

Another major issue that Herreson discusses is the lack of voters that turn out in Congressional elections. He believes that elections are “the most important avenues of political influence that are afforded to the citizens of a representative democracy”, yet so man Americans today still either decide not to, or forget to, vote. With extremely low voter turnout in most districts in 2010, it is clear that the Congressional election system needs to make some radical changes to increase the number of voters.

Smith wins 70% of votes

As the polls came to a close in the fourth district of New Jersey late last night, no one was too surprised by the outcome. Incumbent Republican Chris Smith soundly beat his challenger Howard Kleinhendler, in fact he tromped him. Smith won 125,360 votes, about 70%, while Kleinhendler only got 50,225 votes, or a measly 30%.

This is not the first time that Smith dominated his opponent in an election. In 2008 Smith won by nearly 66%, even during a highly Democratic push in Congress.

"I'm humbled by those numbers," Smith told NJ.com. "Nationwide, it really shows that people are making a serious course correction. There have been so many excesses, particularly in the spending area."

It seems that Smith is happy that a number of important seats in the House have been won by a Republican challenger.

Klienhendler may not have overthrown Smith but he doesn't think his campaign was a complete waste of time. He hopes that some of the issues that got brought up concerning Smith, will continue to be in the spotlight.

"I still think I raised a lot of important issues, and I think Congressman Smith started paying attention," Kleinhendler also told NJ.com. "I hope he got the message that Congress isn't just about human rights, it's also about your district, about creating jobs, and bringing in federal money for infrastructure improvements, in particular trains to New York, which I think is critical for the district to prosper."

The bottom line is that Smith will be representing the 4^th district of New Jersey for another two years.

An impossible task

 

I've said it for weeks now, but as the congressional elections loom just a few days away, it seems worth repeating-- beating incumbent Chris Smith is an impossible task.

With just under a week left to elections, the campaign in the 4^th district of New Jersey has the same atmosphere it did since the primary in early June. Unlike most states, advertisements aren't splashed all over the television and campaign signs don't litter front lawns. It appears that Howard Kleinhendler never threw himself whole heartedly in to this race, he ran uncontested in the primary and probably would have lost if he had a challenger.

Paul S. Herrnson talks about election success in the ninth chapter of his book, Congressional Elections, and how difficult it is for a challenger to beat out an incumbent.

"The typical House challenger is in a position similar to that of a novice athlete pitted against a world-class sprinter." This metaphor seems written specifically for the race between Smith and Kleinhendler. While Smith has around 20 years of experience in office, Kleinhendler is essentially a nobody, with consequently no chance of winning.

"Most challengers begin the general election at a disadvantage. Lacking a broad base of support, these candidates must build one. Challengers need to mount aggressive campaigns to become visible, build name recognition, give voters reasons to support them, and overcome the initial advantages of their opponents," Herrnson said. But Kleinhendler never did this; most voters don't even his name, let alone a good reason to vote for him.

That's not to say that Kleinhendler isn't a skilled politician that could do some good if he was ever elected to office, but as Herrnson said, "… most House challengers lose because the odds are so heavily stacked against them" not because they aren't qualified.

.

 

 

 

.

 

 

The Countdown to Elections

   I recently stumbled upon a youtube video of a political campaign ad that Howard Kleinhendler created. I couldn't help but be struck by how low budget it looked, but I shouldn't have been surprised given the fact that Kleinhendler raised about only $93,000 during the 2010, and reportedly only has around $7,000 left for use. Kleinhendler is a long shot in this election and this advertisement shows that he does not have the political savvy of other candidates, such as Chris Smith.

    Kleinhendler start's out his video by going over who he is and three main points that would be the primary focus of his agenda if elected. Although this seems good in theory, in reality, Kleinhendler should be focused on destroying Smith's reputation than building his own. Paul S. Herrnson points out in Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington that negative advertising is a key component in the success of challengers against incumbents because it helps voters think twice about casting a vote for their incumbent.

    After introducing himself, Kleinhendler than turns to Smith. The only negative thing that he can say is that Smith has lost it after spending so much time in Congress. The video is not effective in hurting Smith in any way- it's rather confusing and the viewer is not quiet sure what to take away from it.

    Kleinhendler should take some points from other candidates negative ads and make something with a little punch next time if he wants to steal a few votes away from Smith.

Who votes and why?

In the 7^th edition of The Politics of Congressional Elections, by Gary C. Jacobson, the issue of congressional voters is discussed. This chapter primarily focuses on why some people vote in elections and why others don’t. It than shifts to why people vote the way they do; what candidates do or what social norms causes them to sway one way or the other.

Jacobson thinks that voter turnout correlates to wealth and education. In New Jersey the average income is estimated at around $50,000, while the national income is estimated at a lower average of $46,323. Despite the fact that the 4^th district is comprised of some of the wealthiest counties in New Jersey, congressional election voter turnout has been traditionally low.

This would without a doubt be attributed to the fact that for the last several years, the congressional election between Smith and whoever his opponent is during the time, has been highly uncompetitive. Because Smith usually wins by the overwhelming majority, voters believe that their vote will not make a difference one way or another.

Jacobson would say that Smith wins by such a majority because he is the incumbent. In this chapter he says that the incumbent is more likely to be favored mainly because of name recognition. 

Besides the fact the Smith is an incumbent, his opponent Howard Kleinhendler, has a lot of demographical obstacles standing in his way. For one, Fort Dix, Lakehurst Naval Base, and McGuire Air Station are all located within the 4^th district. Although not always the case, military members, and family members and friends of military tend to be more conservative and lean towards Republican views.

This could prove to be a main reason why a Republican has been in office for the past 30 years.

All of these things, income, location and name recognition, play a large roll in who gets elected. 

The question is...

How much do you really know about Chris Smith. Yes, he has been representing the 4^th Congressional District of New Jersey for the past 30 years, but do you really know what he stands for, what he believes?

That seems to be Smith’s opponent, Howard Kleinhendler’s goal as the November elections near- expose some of Smith’s opinions that will make almost anybody shake their head in disbelief.

In an interview with New Jersey Jewish News back in September, Kleinhendler discussed Smith’s controversial opinion that any kind of birth control (including the pill) should be illegal. He told NJ Jewish News that Smith was “totally off-the-charts in trying to criminalize birth control, so much so that even in his human rights work he has opposed HIV/AIDS programs in Africa because they include distribution of condoms. That is a terrible mistake.”

After reading that (and doing a little research of my own just to make sure this was accurate) I regret every interning for Christopher Smith.

As someone who recently visited several countries in Africa and seen first hand the destruction that HIV/AIDS has caused, it’s disgusting to me that Smith would argue that condom use is not affective or moral.

But what does that say about me that I didn’t know, despite interning for him, that this is the way Smith thought, until after I read the article in NJ Jewish News? How many other people in the district don’t know this about the man they have continued to vote into office?

Kleinhendler’s chance of defeating Smith may be slim, but his campaign strategy is on point- make Smith look bad. And at least for one voter come November, he did a good job.

What PACs Support Smith?

Political Action Committees are private groups that donate over $1,000 to help get certain politicians elected or to advance certain issues. Congressman Chris Smith knows all about PACs.

According to Opensecrets.org, Smith has received nearly $169,125 in contributions from PACs. That is nearly 31% of his funds.

The biggest PAC contribution came from Right to Life, a pro-life organization who aims to stop abortion. OpenSecrets reports that they contributed $11,700 to Smith for the 2010 campaign.

Given Smith’s extreme anti-abortion, pro-life agenda, it does not really come as a surprise that he is supported by Right to Life. In fact, it seems that for the past 7 elections, Right to Life has been one of the major contributors to Smith’s campaigns.

Smith also has received expenditures from several smaller organizations aimed around the Judeo-Christian view. Family Research Council is one of them. They donated $3,000 to Smith’s 2010 campaign.

The rest of the top five contributors according to OpenSecrets are Operating Engineering Union at $10,000, Teamsters Union at $10,000, Laborers Union at $10,000, and finally the Carpenters & Joiners Union also at $10,000.

One of the most pressing issues in New Jersey is the educational system and teaching benefits and jobs. I found it interesting that the Teachers Union PAC, which is over 200,000 members strong, refused to endorse either Smith, or his opponent Howard Kleinhendler.

Smith's overall campaign funds are almost half of the average of other incumbents. Smith is a dominate candidate, and doesn't seem to think that he has much competition in the 2010 election. But if Smith is destined for an easy win, why do PACs still donate upwards of $10,000?

I think that the endorsement of a PAC, or the lack of an endorsement of a PAC, speaks volumes about a candidate and what they stand for.

What will a candidate say to win?

Campaign finances are crucial to any politician running for election. According to Opensecrets.org, over the last few years, the average campaign committee for most members of Congress raised nearly a million dollars- Chris Smith is way below that. Opensecrets.org reports that Smith raised $549,472 during the 2009-2010 fundraising cycle, spent $377,319 and has roughly $246,962 on hand.

According to the site around $364,602 came from individual contributors, while most of the remaining money, $169,125, came from Political Action Committees(PACs).

Smith may not have raised a lot of money compared to other incumbents, but when put up against his Democratic opponent, Howard Kleinhendler, he’s rich.

Opensecrets.org reports that Kleinhendler has only raised $64,555, eighty percent of that coming from individual contributions and the remaining twenty percent from self-financing.

Project Vote Smart is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that collects information on political candidates concerning a number of issues to provide to the public. The run something called the “Political Courage Test” which asks candidates to provide their stances on key issues. While most candidates refuse to participate because of fear of being attacked by opponents, Kleinhendler didn’t.

He was willing to address directly almost every issue (except “Legislative Priorities”), scored a “92%” on the test and some of his answers were surprising.

 Like Smith, Kleinhendler is Pro-Life, supports restrictions on the purchasing and possession of hand guns, and most of the Health Care Reform. Kleinhendler also states in the test that he believes marriage should only “be between one man and one woman” and that the United States should continue to “strike suspected terrorist targets in Pakistan”.

If you ask me, Kleinhendler isn’t courageous but rather fake. It appears that he is dramatically shifting his views and standpoints to compete against a Republican, in a district that has been considered conservative for the last 3 decades. Does Kleinhendler really think we need to attack Pakistan, or that abortion is wrong, or does he think that’s what will get him elected?

30 years and counting?

            Because I go to school out-of-state I usually fall behind on the political happenings in New Jersey. When I returned home in May, I asked my mother who was running against Chris Smith in the primary. She didn’t know. I asked my grandmother and she didn’t know. This seemed to be the answer I got, no matter who I asked.

            Election signs usually litter the streets of my town before an election, but despite driving around for nearly two months before the primary on June 8^th, I didn’t see one promoting Smith or his opponent, who I finally found out was Alan Bateman. (Check out the video to learn more about Bateman)

            Smith has been the Congressman of the 4^th district of New Jersey since 1980- that’s just under 30 years. When you see and hear someone’s name for thirty years it seems to get stuck in your head. That’s one of the biggest advantages of being the incumbent. All of us in Smith’s district have watched as he represented us for the past thirty years without any major problems. The old saying goes, “if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it”, so why would we vote out Smith?

            This proved true in the Primary election at least, where Smith dominated the polls. According to FOXNews.com Smith received 21,598 votes, while Bateman got only 9,779.  This earned Smith the votes needed to make it back on the ballot this coming November to represent the Republican Party, where he will face-off against Howard Kleinhendler.

            Kleinhendler ran uncontested in his primary election, so it’s hard to gauge his overall support. But no matter how popular Kleinhendler is, Smith has continually proved that its hard to beat a popular incumbent.

Conservative or Liberal? Who knows?

Almost four years ago I began a small internship in the Whiting, New Jersey office of Congressman Christopher H. Smith. Although I did mostly boring clerical work, I got the opportunity to help with some small campaign projects, and consequently helped get Smith re-elected in the 2006. But looking back, is that such a good thing?

 My internship with Smith left me confused, standing in the no-man-land of two parties. I agreed with Smith on some things, but on others, he missed the mark completely. To this day, I can’t decide my stance on this candidate.

But if you ask me, it looks like Smith isn’t waving his Republican red flag too highly these days. Smith recently voted in favor of Cap and Trade and cosponsored a Statehood bill for Puerto Rico. All these things don’t scream conservative and the infamous Tea Party has taken notice.


Smith is however, favored to win over his current opponent Howard Kleinhendler- even with his lack of support from the Tea Party.


Abortion is one thing that Smith agrees with his party on. He is an intense supporter of pro-life and hates the birth control pill. His 2008 political opponent even said Smith tried to make the pill illegal (?!).

On the outside Smith seems like a moderate Republican, someone that can satisfy both parties needs, but then he talks about abortion and birth control and it all goes down hill.

After doing a little more research on Smith, I found a 1991 New York Times article entitled, Decade of Rep. Smith: Fluke to Tactician. It may have been written nearly 20 years ago, but it seems right on the money. Les AuCoin, a Democratic Representative from Oregon, described Smith in the article.

"He's almost a Jekyll and Hyde: a fairly tolerant guy, compassionate, open minded on almost any front. But suddenly when it comes to choice, it's something else. A look comes in his eye. He almost looks like he's been electrocuted. His eyes bulge and the rhetoric changes," AuCoin told the New York Times.

Mark Setaro, a former opponent of Smith, said in the same article, "He's the mistake that will be there for the next 20 years."

Well 20 years later, here we are, and the big question remains- is the re-election of Smith a mistake?