The Case for a Democratic Senate, Keeping Cartwright, and Electing Wolf and Cipriani

(PHOTO from yours truly: Tom Wolf, the Democratic nominee for governor in Pennsylvania, and President Obama at Temple University in Philadelphia on Sunday).

It's Election Day so let's just cut to the chase so you can get out there and VOTE.

Here's why it's crucial to keep the Senate in Democratic hands:

1) FEDERAL JUDICIARY 

Since filibuster reform was implemented last year, the pace of confirmation of judicial appointments has expedited significantly. President Obama's nominees for federal judgeships have been confirmed at a much higher rate in recent years. The pace of confirmation of his nominees has outstripped that of George W. Bush's nominees and Democratic-appointed judges make up an increasingly large proportion of the federal judiciary. These Obama nominees are an incredibly diverse set and they're supremely qualified.

If the GOP retakes the Senate, the pace of these confirmations is sure to slow. They could even come to a grinding halt. If anything, it could mean that President Obama will have to appoint individuals friendly to GOP senators -- like Michael Boggs -- and those candidates usually are not terrific, to say the least. Republicans have campaigned on restoring the 60-vote rule for judicial confirmations. As Brian Beutler noted at The New Republic, it's very likely the GOP might keep the vote threshold there. It makes sense because if they kept it at 51, it would be far easier for the president to find a handful of GOP senators, combined with all of the Democrats, than it would be for him to find roughly 11-12 Republicans for a 60-vote confirmation. If the Democrats kept control of the Senate, the process of getting solid, progressive judicial nominees confirmed would be much easier.

2) EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENTS 

In the federal government, various executive agencies still have vacancies. The most glaring include the fact that there is no Surgeon General, no chief of the civil rights division of the DOJ, and nobody in several top-level positions at the DHS. It's true that these vacancies have persisted in recent months in a Democratic Senate. However, the number of vacancies would certainly either grow, or be filled by less progressive nominees, if the Republicans regained control of the Senate. Further, there are looming fights like the one for who will be President Obama's next Attorney General and, certainly for getting someone akin to Eric Holder confirmed, it's crucial that Democrats keep control of the Senate.

3) LEGISLATION 

If the GOP retakes the Senate, they will be tempted to take up legislation that could do great harm to the country and could pass the House. This legislation would include measures to try to gut entitlements, repeal elements of (or all of) the Affordable Care Act, gut the CFPB or deregulate sectors of the financial industry. It's true that President Obama would veto much of this legislation but as one top Democratic strategist told The Atlantic recently, "it's what Obama will agree to that scares me." Though Obama is notably less friendly to GOP policy aims than former President Bill Clinton was during his tenure, President Obama has still indicated openness to some bad Republican-endorsed policy ideas. He could feel the pressure to compromise and accept some of those ideas if a GOP Senate and GOP House passed them in the form of legislation.

These ideas include chained CPI (a Social Security benefit cut) and, for a fleeting moment in the summer of 2011, he flirted with raising the retirement age for Medicare -- both of which are measures that would financially hurt millions of seniors who are reliant on these programs to stay above the poverty line or make ends meet. One could foresee a scenario in which the Republican-held Congress - helped by conservative Democrats in both chambers - puts pressure on Obama to act on measures like these. A strong majority in both chambers could even vote for more benign but still consequential policy changes that, while ostensibly centrist, would do great harm. These policies could include weakening elements of Dodd-Frank to please the interests of Wall Street, enacting sanctions on Iran at the wrong time like the moment of the success of a deal and against the advice of foreign policy experts and diplomats, and repealing the reliable revenue source that is the medical device tax of Obamacare. If a GOP Congress were to pass these policies by large majorities, they could either overcome a veto or Obama would feel pressure to potentially sign some of them. These are risks progressives ought not to take so it's critical to keep the Democrats in charge of the Senate.


Here's why it's critical to reelect Congressman Cartwright:

FULL DISCLOSURE: I interned for Rep. Cartwright in his congressional office in Washington, D.C. from January-May 2013. This endorsement is not intended to speak on his behalf or on behalf of his campaign. These are my own views and mine entirely.

In his first two years in Congress, Matt Cartwright has notably distinguished himself as an influential, impressive, and ingenious member of the U.S. House of Representatives. He has risen above and beyond the call of duty in his service and has been an exceptional leader on the Hill. That's why Govtrack identified Cartwright as a leading House freshman on various measures including cosponsors for his bills, his efforts to cosponsor other members' legislation, and for his lengthy array of introduced legislation. Amid the gridlock and unproductive nature of the GOP House, Cartwright has made a name for himself as a legislator who proposes sensible legislation and who can accomplish tangible results.

In fact, his efforts even secured wage increases for federal workers, including those at Tobyhanna Army Depot, through the bipartisan budget deal signed into law by President Obama. Further, his lobbying for stronger regulations on the trucking industry, as a means to prevent trucking accidents, led to an executive branch decision to strengthen rules for the industry. On the whole, Cartwright has stood out in Congress as a productive workhorse, no small feat given the multitude of showmen in the House, and one who has stood by his progressive principles but worked across the aisle when necessary on common-sense bills. With regards to his future plans, Cartwright intends to continue advocacy for reforms to strengthen the VA and he indicates he'll continue to help spur economic development in NEPA through the federal grant process and through his efforts to secure passenger rail in Scranton. In his first term, Mr. Cartwright showed he has the capacity and willingness to do good work of that nature so far. He deserves a second term.

Here's why it's crucial to elect Tom Wolf governor:

In his four-year term as governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett has been a spectacular failure. At the outset, Corbett made a fateful decision that ultimately may have determined his fate on this election day: a choice to cut education spending. Governor Corbett likes to hide behind the expiration of federal stimulus funding, from President Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, to explain the overall cut to aid to education. The fact of the matter is that Corbett made up for the expiration of federal stimulus money in other state agencies, he made a choice that same year to cut business taxes, he firmly decided against an extraction tax on drilling or any other tax for that matter, and he ran on opposing former Governor Rendell's use of Recovery Act money anyway. What is also true is that Pennsylvania had a massive rainy day fund, available for Governor Corbett to utilize to make up for the expiration of stimulus funds, but Corbett ignored it. As state Rep. Phyllis Mundy, D-Kingston, said on the House floor at the time, it is the equivalent of "telling a starving child, 'we have milk and cereal to feed you but we're just going to let you starve instead.'" Education is not the only arena in which Corbett has stumbled. On a range of issues -- from women's rights ("close your eyes," he said on transvaginal ultrasounds) to gay marriage ("it's like brother and sister") to voter ID ("it will allow Romney to win PA," said the GOP House leader) to unemployment (suggesting the jobless are on drugs) to lottery privatization (struck down by the attorney general) and Penn State (accusations of being soft as AG on Sandusky) -- Corbett has been wildly offensive, off base, and out of tune with Pennsylvanians.

This important policy issue is probably the most important reason to vote for Tom Wolf. He's vowed to undo Corbett's cuts to education. The financing mechanisms his proposal relies upon to undo those cuts include an extraction tax, which could even pass the GOP-controlled state legislature, and a progressive income tax that would bring tax relief to middle-income and low-income Pennsylvanians but ask wealthier Pennsylvanians to pay more. Beyond the issue of education, Wolf has vowed to repeal Corbett's horrid cuts to state anti-poverty programs; those cuts have financially pulled the rug out from under thousands of Pennsylvanians struggling in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Wolf has also pledged to fight for the expansion of Medicaid, increasing the minimum wage, and strengthening environmental policy to tackle climate change. These are issues Gov. Corbett has either ignored or been subpar on in his time in office. I voted for Tom Wolf because he would represent a fresh change from Corbett's failed policies and his policies would be sound, progressive, and impressive. He deserves to win.

Here's why it's critical to elect Eileen Cipriani state representative: 

FULL DISCLOSURE: I've volunteered for Eileen throughout this election year. I also worked with her in various capacities for State Rep. Phyllis Mundy. This post is not intended to speak on Eileen's behalf or on behalf of her campaign.

Throughout her admirable career in public service in NEPA, Eileen Cipriani has demonstrated a thorough understanding of public policy issues, a strong work ethic, and a genuine concern for the interests of middle-income and low-income citizens of the region. These aspects of Eileen's career are evident in her work as president of the West Wyoming borough council, where she tackled corruption and pulled the borough out of a financial crisis, and in her capacity as a legislative aide to Rep. Mundy. This experience has culminated in the crafting of a solid policy platform for her campaign for state representative. She's running on making sure we raise the minimum wage, expand Medicaid, repeal property taxes, enact an extraction tax, and undo Governor Corbett's cuts to education and various vital state agencies. I voted for Eileen because her wealth of knowledge of and experience with tackling important policy issues, combined with her strong policy prescriptions, make her the obvious choice. She would be an excellent successor to the impeccable retiring incumbent, Rep. Mundy, who has endorsed Eileen.

The Long and Proud Tradition of the Politics of Fear

(LEFT: Screen-grab of a GOP ad run against Democratic Sen. Max Cleland in the 2002 midterm elections; Cleland, of Georgia, lost his seat that year to Saxby Chambliss, whose victory gave the GOP control of the Senate).

From coast to coast, GOP candidates are capitalizing on public fear, more than anything else, in this cycle. Whether it is ISIS or Ebola or ISIS armed with Ebola-fueled weaponry, the subject matter of GOP candidates' pitches centers on one core message: there is much to fear in the world and we, the Republicans, are best equipped to protect you from these threats. The reasoning behind this strategy is clear and rational. The GOP is in a strong position to recapture control of the Senate this fall; it is no mistake that they are relying on fear to catapult them to victory. On the one hand, it's true that positive campaigns typically win in presidential elections and the evidence supports this hypothesis. For instance, President Obama famously campaigned on "hope and change" in 2008 and was elected overwhelmingly. On the other hand, as has been thoroughly demonstrated, in presidential elections but also more consistently in midterm congressional campaigns, fear-exploiting campaigns are strikingly effective. For the Republican Party, fear has been central to their victories, or at least to increasing their margins of victory, in many past elections but the Democratic Party is, by no means, innocent in this realm either. Perhaps unsurprisingly, campaign history further shows that threats are only exaggerated for fear when it is convenient for a party.

In terms of this election, it is convenient for Republicans to exploit fear as they are running against a sitting Democratic president who is currently unpopular, particularly in public appraisal of his handling of foreign policy. Their behavior is predictable and could be dangerously effective. Terror Post 9/11 and the Media author David Altheide told the Scientific American in 2010 that his analysis found that "if public support for a program is necessary, then one of the things you can count on is fear." In a 2012 RealClearScience article, author Ross Pomeroy similarly argued that fear is particularly effective in part because "when afraid, we quickly grew more attentive." In presidential races, fear has proven to be effective. Lyndon B. Johnson probably would have been reelected in 1964 regardless of whether he ran the Daisy ad but the advertisement was widely judged as being effective in aiding LBJ's campaign. George H.W. Bush was favored to win in 1988 thanks to Ronald Reagan's popularity and a growing economy but analyses found the Willie Horton ad to be effective in helping his cause. Most notably, in 2004, George W. Bush's utilization of fear of terrorism, in the first presidential race since 9/11, helped catapult him to a narrow reelection win. However, in midterm campaigns, fear can be even more effective. Therefore, it is clear the 2014 GOP strategy makes sense.

Fear is likely more effective in midterm campaigns for one key reason: the electorate in these elections is considerably older, on average, than the electorate in presidential elections. Statistical evidence shows that elderly citizens are more prone to fear than younger citizens -- and this is particularly true in terms of fear of crime, a broad ranging category that include anything from local bank robberies to the criminal acts of terrorist groups like ISIS. This is not to say that increased fear on the part of senior citizens is unwarranted. Nevertheless, the fact is that it exists and politicians have successfully exploited this fear in midterm campaigns. It should be noted the party that is running against the tide of fear could possibly win if it has demonstrable successes to counter the other party's claims. For example, in 1962, John F. Kennedy's handling of the Cuban missile crisis effectively squashed Republican efforts to exploit fear of Communism and to portray him as "soft." Similarly, in this cycle, Vanderbilt public policy professor John Geer asserts that GOP attempts to exploit fear of ISIS may not be effective because "Obama did make the decision to take Osama bin Laden out and has made strong moves with ISIS." Usually though, fear can work to a party's advantage in the midterms. In 1966, the Republican strategy of focusing on fear of crime - undeniably racially tinged - worked to their advantage as they had a successful election. In 1970, Richard Nixon played on the politics of racial fears successfully enough that his party gained Senate seats that year. In 1994, the fear of crime, despite Bill Clinton signing into law a major crime bill, was one of the various reasons for the GOP's massive gains in their retaking of both houses of Congress. In 2002, sperheaded by George W. Bush's campaign efforts, the Republican Party capitalized on fear of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, in the aftermath of 9/11 when Bush enjoyed sky-high approval ratings, to ride a wave that culminated in the GOP retaking the Senate.

It is notable that only when it is convenient for a party to exploit fear do they actually do it, even if the threat is not as significant as the party claims, and sometimes, when there is a real threat emerging and it does not benefit a party to discuss that threat, the party will not do so. In the 1998 midterm elections, for instance, some Republican members of Congress criticized Bill Clinton for focusing too much on al-Qaeda and bin Laden, even though those threats were very real and dangerous (as we all unfortunately saw), as he was ordering missile strikes against them. The GOP would have much rather focused on the Lewinsky scandal and indeed, GOP politicians claimed Clinton was using the missile strikes to distract the country from Lewinskygate. In 1960, John F. Kennedy campaigned on the idea that there was a "missile gap," playing on fears of the Soviet Union, but JFK's assertions were incorrect. Kennedy was able to use the missile gap to distract voters from other issues that might imperil him like his personal history.

All of this is not to suggest that there are not real threats, problems, and issues that should grab our attention and press us to take decisive action to resolve those matters. Certainly, it is in the public interest for the CDC to have a strong response on Ebola; it is important and necessary for us to take action against ISIS to prevent them from killing Americans here at home. It is critical for us to go after al-Qaeda terrorists who actively plot against our country. It was worthwhile to undertake some policies like stricter gun laws and increased funding for police across the country, in 1968 and in 1994, to counter crime. The underlying point here instead is these threats are sometimes wildly exaggerated by political candidates, predictably so, to exploit fear to win campaigns and this kind of campaigning is understandable, even if despicable at times, given that fear is an effective tool. If the Republicans regain control of the Senate this November, analyses of their victory ought to take into account what role their exploitation of public fears played in helping make this possible. It may very well work. (PS: Hopefully, it doesn't!)

Who's the Worst Democratic President?

A few weeks ago, a few of my friends and I were discussing the rankings of various Democratic presidents. A point of contention arose regarding whether Andrew Jackson could be considered a great president. Jackson, familiar to many Americans as the face of the $20 bill, is widely viewed, by an array of presidential historians, as belonging to the exclusive pantheon of great presidents. Jackson facilitated a strengthening of executive power, firmly defended the Union against efforts at nullification, and portrayed himself as a populist. These elements of his legacy largely influence his high rankings in the lists of great presidents. However, Jackson's legacy is marred by the Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears, his politically motivated push to destroy the National Bank, and truly bizarre episodes like the Peggy Eaton affair. Let's not mince words: some of the most consequential Jackson decision were enormously destructive for many, many people. His treatment of Natives tops the list. How would any of that make him a "great" president? Some of my progressive friends and I firmly believe that when a president's policies indisputably lead to real, large-scale destruction of many real people's lives - with no discernible positive effect for society - those factors ought to lower the respective president's ranking. Nevertheless, with respect to President Jackson, presidential historians, by and large, seem to disagree and instead value other factors more strongly in their rankings.

This conversation does make way for an interesting political discussion though: who is actually the worst Democratic president? I'm (obviously) a proud Democrat but, certainly before the 20th century, we had some pretty awful Democratic -- and Republican -- presidents. The aforementioned historians have settled on one particular candidate for that unfortunate distinction: James Buchanan. There is no doubt that Buchanan belongs at or near the bottom of the list. The failure to tackle the slavery issue as the Civil War loomed was inexcusable. Buchanan is arguably faulted more so for what he did not do then what he did do (which is not much); being the immediate predecessor to Abraham Lincoln does not help him either. In my humble opinion, there are two Democratic presidents who deserve to rank even lower than Buchanan though historians do not usually see it this way. Those two are Grover Cleveland and Andrew Johnson. Cleveland, despite ranking relatively around the middle in most lists, deserves to have an even lower ranking than he does in most surveys. He stubbornly stuck by the horrid idea of retaining the gold standard, normalized an anti-labor strain in federal policy for the next several decades through his militaristic response to the Pullman Strike, and divided the Democratic Party in such a way that his presidency culminated in the 1896 realigning election that catapulted the Republicans to dominant status in national politics. For these reasons, Cleveland was a consequentially bad president, in my view. With regards to Andrew Johnson, he was also both significant in his impact and unfortunately, his influence was not for good. The consequence of Lincoln's assassination meant that Lincoln's plan for Reconstruction and his strong leadership style would not come to fruition in the aftermath of the Civil War. Therefore, the task of uniting the country would be left to Johnson and his handling of it was disastrous. His overt racism, active opposition to the constitutional amendments that banned slavery and ensured equal protection, and his facilitation of the very first post-Civil War Southern efforts to discriminate against blacks set the tone for a string of subpar presidencies and, ultimately, for a century of unfulfilled promises for the disenfranchised. Andrew Jackson may belong lower than he does and James Buchanan certainly belongs near the bottom but Cleveland and Johnson, in my humble opinion, probably belong even nearer to the bottom than they do now for being so consequentially horrible.

Are Presidential Delays of Action the Right Call?

For as long as there has been public opinion polling, presidents have been influenced by the opinions of the electorate. For as long as presidents have been influenced by public opinion, they have virulently and invariably claimed that they are not influenced by politics and don't really care about polls. It's true that many of the most significant decisions that modern presidents have made were unpopular judgment calls that, in their estimations, were the right thing to do on policy grounds despite the political implications. Often, these presidents are rewarded by history for making such decisions. In many cases, these decisions are warranted because the consequences of not acting at that time would cause significant damage for the parties and interests involved or, most importantly, for the country's sake at large. However, what is also true is that there are certain consequential policy decisions that, for various reasons, are better left for implementation until after the next election campaign season has subsided. This reality exists because throwing a wrench like a major policy factor into a campaign season could mean that that decision is improperly influenced by politics in that it is watered down or adjusted in a way that properly adapts to the politics of the moment or this decision could harm key congressional allies of the President's in swing races that affect larger party control of a chamber and if that party loses such control, broader policy implications on an array of important fronts are negatively affected. Given such conflicting issues, it is difficult to ascertain, for me personally, whether presidential delays of action until after the elections are the right call. On the one hand, negative policy consequences and suffering for real people affected by the delays persist. On the other hand, there could be a greater political acceptance and ease and comfort in the Washington landscape in implementation if such a decision is carried out after the elections. On the whole, I tend to think President Obama's decision to delay implementation of his impending executive actions to provide broad deportation relief until after the midterm election is a good call. There are not many Latino voters in the southern states in which vulnerable Democratic senators are up for reelection, such action could harm their campaigns as they are seeking distance with the President who is very unpopular in those places, and the fact of the matter is that he and his administration could, in the mean time (before they announce their changes after the midterms) use their prosecutorial discretion to ease deportations or prioritize deportations to focus on individuals at the border or those in the interior who have committed very serious crimes and there's some evidence that lately, under Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, this has happened. Further, if the President is delaying action, it means that after the election, he has more leeway politically to "go bold" and "go big," as immigration reform advocates have been pressing him to do, and provide more large-scale relief to undocumented immigrants, as he will not be constrained by the politics. However, maybe I am wrong and if I am wrong on this issue, on which I am still open to persuasion, please let me know. In terms of historical precedent, by the way, it's worth noting President Bush delayed announcing the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld until after the 2006 midterms justifying his decision by saying in a press conference the day after the midterms that he did not want to insert a major decision like that into the political landscape before the elections. Was he right? Is Obama right here? Let me know your thoughts.

Midterm Profiles 2014: Iowa - U.S. Senate Race

IOWA: U.S. SENATE RACE

(Photo from Omaha.com)

Who's running? 
Democratic Congressman Bruce Braley is running against Republican state senator Joni Ernst for an open seat vacated by retiring longtime Democratic Senator Tom Harkin.

What do the polls show?
The RealClearPolitics.com polling average shows Ms. Ernst with an 0.2 percent lead.

What are the political prognosticators saying? 
RealClearPolitics.com rates the race as a "toss up." In early August, Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com  listed Iowa as a race where "Republicans chances have improved" while Silver wrote in the same article: "our model will view the fundamentals of the race as slightly favoring Braley...[because of] being slightly closer to the center...than Ernst, he's been elected to a higher office, and he's raised...more money." National Journal wrote in late July that "over the past several months, the Iowa Senate race...[has] turned from a long sho[t] to a promising Republican pickup opportunit[y]." Professor John Sides, my teacher for Campaigns and Elections class right now at GW, has Ernst at a 66 percent chance of winning, per his Election Lab model. Sides noted to me at the American Association of Political Scientists that that is "considered a toss-up."

What are the central policy differences? 
On FiveThirtyEight.com, Nate Silver ranks Iowa as the second most ideologically diverse divide in a swing Senate race this cycle. "Ernst is in the ideological middle of the GOP candidates this year," Silver writes, "[while] Braley is among the most liberal Democrats vying for a competitive Senate seat."

Congressman Braley is largely embracing the core elements of the national Democratic Party's policy agenda. He is strongly emphasizing his support for raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10, his support for strengthening equal pay laws, his backing of further government spending to create jobs, and for Senator Elizabeth Warren's effort to allow students to refinance their student loans. However, at the same time, he underscores on his website the fact that he "voted to prohibit the EPA from regulating Farm Dust" - a politically potent issue in Iowa.

Senator Ernst is portraying herself as a business-friendly Republican who supports lowering corporate taxes, is endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce, and has called for repeal of the Affordable Care Act. While national GOP figures like Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have endorsed measures like chained CPI to reduce Social Security benefits, Ernst has tried to walk a fine line in which she claims she supports protecting these benefits but vaguely endorses "reforms" to the program. She is also pro-life, a vocal opponent of gun control laws, and, as a Lt. Colonel and battalion commander in the Iowa National Army Guard, she has been emphasizing reforming programs to aid veterans.

What are Braley and Ernst's biggest strengths and weaknesses? 
Braley Strength: Per Professor Sides, Braley has a "very good ground game" that's a result of two excellent Obama campaign ground games, dating back to 2007 when the President was running in the Iowa caucus in which he won first place, and the establishment that Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin has coalesced, as Sides alluded to in his remarks. Further, I personally know that my friends Juliana Amin and Spencer Dixon are working on the Iowa Senate race there as field organizers for Mr. Braley and given their skill, talent, and determination and the impressive effort they've put into this race, and knowing what I know about their tremendous organizing efforts in past races, their involvement speaks well of Braley's campaign. Further, this is a state that has been slightly trending Democratic in recent years: Al Gore won the state in 2000 and Barack Obama comfortably won twice here. Beyond that, Braley's fundraising is extremely impressive in part thanks to the fact that, as a former trial lawyer, he has earned considerable financial backing from trial lawyers across the U.S. and the American Association for Justice which represents trial lawyers' interests.

Braley Weakness: Braley called Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley "just an Iowa farmer who never went to law school." Since these remarks, Braley's polling has weakened. Braley is also dragged down by national conditions as public opinion polling shows President Obama at a 34 percent approval rating in this state. Also: this story does not help Braley in terms of any perceptions of him as a frivolous trial lawyer.


Ernst Strength: "She's a really good candidate," Sides said at the American Association of Political Scientists conference this past weekend. Ernst reminds me a lot of Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania in 2010: a candidate who is to the right of the state but is a very appealing, strong political force there. She has walked a fine line on gay rights issues, for example, much like Senator Toomey, who said he would have voted for the repeal of Don't Ask/Don't Tell and who voted for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, has done too. The national conditions benefit her at this time as well, especially on matters like veterans' issues, where the Obama administration has come under fire amid the VA waiting list scandal, where she trumpets her own credentials as a vet and utilizes that background to play up her support for veterans' law reforms. Lastly, she is also incredibly adept at revving up the GOP base in this state without alienating moderate voters thus far, as evidenced by the fact that she's taken unusual positions such as advocating for Obamacare's repeal while also sort of praising the Medicaid expansion, a specific element of the law which may be popular among low-income GOP voters who benefit from that but nevertheless support her and is popular among centrist voters.

Ernst Weakness: Her fundraising lags behind that of Bruce Braley's by a considerable degree. Her association with big business interests also threatens to undermine her efforts to appeal to middle-class Iowans. This potentiality is highlighted by her recent praise of the Koch brothers at a closed-door event and by this.

How can you help Bruce Braley? 
You can sign up to donate or volunteer to Rep. Braley's campaign here: http://www.brucebraley.com/join-team/.

Dispatches from the Summer of Discipline

I thought to myself last spring that I have had enough fun in my life for now. It was a great ride eating Taylor Gourmet, Chiptole, Capriotti's, Chinese food, pizza, and Subway, among other salivating foods, in regular rotation - and barely exercising. I could never say I was deprived...though you could argue I was deprived of those famous cookie jars that kids desperately reach for at the top of the kitchen cabinet. I don't really remember such jars in my childhood. Well, I guess my mom made me plenty of Jello, cinnamon buns, and Persian kabob to make up for it -- and not in that order but that'd be a hell of a meal, I think.

If you can't decipher it by now, I really love food. It got the best of me though. I was noticeably much heavier than I was in my early high school years and unhealthily so. If you calculated my BMI, it was up there though maybe not as dire as Mike Huckabee's situation back in the day. Perhaps that's what TGI Friday's will do to you? Disclaimer: I still love TGIF and couldn't resist at least one visit with a few friends in July for Endless Appetizers for only $10! Anyway, time was running out to reverse this image before college ends because oh yeah, there was only one more year of college left! So the summer of 2014 would become the self-imposed "Summer of Discipline" (#SummerofDiscipline). The discipline in aiming to lose weight though would extend further to include LSAT studying too since I am taking the LSAT on September 27 so I can maybe eventually become a civil rights attorney, constitutional law professor, Senator, and....well, you get the drift. As the summer nears its end, I can celebrate a record of real results (yes, that is the same exact tagline I crafted when I managed Phyllis Mundy's 2010 reelection campaign and I have no regrets about using it here). Since the spring, I am down 17 pounds, my LSAT score has improved, and, despite my thought that I had enough fun in my life, I still had a lot of fun this summer too. Here's what I learned along the way:

Coaches help - a lot. Be thankful for their presence.

Though the summer of discipline is ostensibly supposed to be about discipling yourself, it doesn't hurt to have the help of others. In fact, it is enormously beneficial because it gives you the motivation, the stamina, and the desire to impress, to work harder, and to keep up with an established, scheduled regimen. That's why I am grateful to my personal trainer, Emily Willhoft, and to my LSAT course instructor, Palmer Heenan. The impact personal training courses and LSAT prep classes have had in improving the summer of discipline is immense. These teachers help give you the willpower, the tools, and the resources to stay strong. If you are trying to lose weight or studying for the LSAT or doing both at the same time, and you can afford to do this, get a personal trainer and sign up for an LSAT class. There are exercises that I know how to do and have a real impact on weight loss and there are questions I know how to answer on LSAT practice tests because of my personal trainer and my LSAT class, respectively. 

Summer is the best time to do this kind of thing.

For two simple reasons: 1) you spend more time outside and 2) frankly, you see so many good looking folks enjoying life in the summer, and clearly in full knowledge that they are indeed very good looking, that you think, you know what I got more work to do. 

I'm pretty lucky to have plenty in resources but once you get going, it's easier than you think. 

I want to emphasize: I was able to succeed in this effort so far in no small part because I am lucky and privileged enough to have the resources to do so, namely: a financially stable household, free (for me) access to two gyms, and caring and generous parents. Obviously, that is a massive help. However, it should also be noted that once you have the momentum instilled in you, you keep going and it is easier than you think. As my friend Jack Cartwright advised me, every single time I would look at food or drinks that looked appealing but was really not good for me, I would think to myself, what would I rather, that I eat this and ultimately gain weight or that I not eat this and ultimately lose weight. The answer was obvious each time. Further, once you get in a routine of exercising daily and eating right and studying at least an hour a day, there's no stopping for you, especially as there are constant reminders around you of what the product of success looks like.

News flash: Positive reinforcement > Shaming. 

You guessed it: fat-shaming people who are overweight is -- spoiler alert -- not a great idea! Aside from being straight up bullying and mean and rude, it is also not effective at actually motivating people to lose weight. What I found was most helpful to me in terms of other people's interactions was that words of encouragement, support, and positive reinforcement were incredibly uplifting. When friends and family cheer you on, insist to you that you are capable of something despite your skepticism, and when they applaud you along the way for the progress you've made, it makes a real difference. Nevertheless, it is crucial to note that honesty is really the best policy and it is especially useful in this circumstance because it's the sober assessments of friends and family, who tell you when they think you've gone wrong or taken a step backwards, that can make you also jolt yourself back into the swing of things. 

What's the secret formula? None! Sorry, Plankton. 

No secret and no magic and nothing complex. Eat right (I basically, with some variation of course given vacations and 4th of July weekend): special K with skim milk for breakfast, turkey on whole wheat sandwich for lunch, and chicken with salad for dinner. As for LSAT: study...a lot. Practice makes perfect. Take as many practice tests as you can, do the homework of your prep course, and utilize any and all online resources you can -- and hope that you have a great fraternity brother like Ryan Jerome who leaves behind for you all of his LSAT prep books he doesn't need anymore because he is going to Fordham Law. 

There are very few blog posts that I do without mentioning something political so, in my parting words here, can we all do a summer of discipline if we put our minds to it? YES WE CAN! 

Midterm Profiles 2014: Pennsylvania - Governor's Race

During this midterm election season, I am starting a new component of this blog: profiles of various contested, closely watched races across the country for governors' mansions, the U.S. House, and, most importantly, the U.S. Senate. These profiles will be based on a variety of sources including on the ground accounts, what the central policy differences are, what polling averages indicate, and the broader importance of each race. Since I am also a proud Democrat though, I will unashamedly include information on how you can help the Democratic candidates in each of these races too. We will begin in my backyard, in the great state of Pennsylvania...

PENNSYLVANIA: GOVERNOR'S RACE

Who's running? 
Incumbent Republican Governor Tom Corbett is running for a second term in office. Democratic gubernatorial nominee Tom Wolf, the revenue secretary under former Governor Edward G. Rendell, is running to unseat Governor Corbett.

What do the polls show?
The RealClearPolitics.com polling average shows Mr. Wolf leading by 21.7 points.

What are the political prognosticators saying?
RealClearPolitics.com rates the race as "likely Dem." The Cook Political Report says it's a "toss up." Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com says, "to come back from this deficit, Corbett probably needs Wolf to say something outlandish." National Journal recently said that Corbett is "dead man walking" and compared his situation to that of Rick Santorum's in 2006 when the then-Pennsylvania Senator lost reelection to now-Senator Bob Casey by 18 points.

What are the central policy differences? 
Governor Corbett is strongly emphasizing his support for pension reform, indicating that he wishes to see that "new employees would receive a defined pension benefit based on their average salary, years of service capped at 25 years, and a multiplier...[while] employees and the state would contribute to the plan, as would school districts for their workers," per the Hazleton Standard-Speaker. Corbett appears to be making this pitch central to his proposed second-term agenda as he promoted it in a stop in Sugarloaf, a town not too far from my neighborhood, earlier this week. The governor is also framing his support for natural gas drilling - which has expanded on his watch - as a job-creating economic boon.

Tom Wolf is decrying Governor Corbett's large cuts in education spending in his first year, promising instead to amend the funding formula for education in the state so as to allow for great education spending. In terms of the Marcellus Shale drilling issue, Mr. Wolf is heavily underscoring his backing of a severance tax on drilling -- something the governor has strenuously opposed -- and highlighting his support for stricter rules and regulations on drilling to, as he sees it, ensure it is done safely. Wolf is also highlighting his support for economic development projects and investments in manufacturing after Corbett cut economic grant programs championed by former governors Bob Casey, Sr. and Ed Rendell.

What's Corbett's and Wolf's biggest strengths/weaknesses? 

Corbett Strength: Well, there's not really much here. Corbett is extremely unpopular (more on that later) but his biggest strength, if anything, is that he can claim he's moved to the center on some issues lately. He signed a large bipartisan transportation funding bill last year, has sought to restore education funding in the last year, stopped the state's appeal of the gay marriage ban (thus ensuring gay marriages would continue after a federal judge's decision legalized it), sort-of endorsed banning employment discrimination of LGBT Pennsylvanians, and became the only GOP governor in the country to utilize a loophole in the new federal farm/food stamp law that avoids a cut to SNAP recipients' benefits.

This effort to shift to the center -- almost certainly politically motivated -- though has failed to move Corbett's numbers. Corbett is doing quite well in fundraising though, per FEC reports analyzed by PoliticsPa.com which says "Corbett is fundraising like an incumbent", as he rakes in big money from influential businessmen across the commonwealth. In a race where Corbett is running against an extremely wealthy man like Wolf, all of the fundraising that Corbett can do only helps him.

Corbett Weakness: Where to begin? Ever since his first year in office, Corbett has been an enormously unpopular incumbent. It began with the 2011 education cuts - and of those voters who say education is the number one issue for them in this election, they break heavily for Wolf - and only went downhill from there. Corbett became embroiled in controversy in 2011-2012 as a result of the Jerry Sandusky scandal as accusations were made that the governor, when he was attorney general, stalled on investigating Sandusky (AG Kathleen Kane has cleared Corbett of wrongdoing). Further, Corbett's remarks that women should just "close their eyes" when being subject to a fetal ultrasound - which is what one anti-abortion bill in the legislature sought to do - attracted considerable negative national attention for him.

Beyond that, Corbett's controversial plans to privatize the Pennsylvania Lottery (for which he was scolded by Attorney General Kane, who called it "unconstitutional"), his budget cuts to various social services and programs for the poor, and his refusal to support a severance tax for gas drilling have created for him not only many political enemies but also a large swath of the electorate that truly dislikes him. A majority of Pennsylvanians told Franklin and Marshall pollsters at the beginning of this year that Governor Corbett does not "care" about the problems of people like them.

Wolf Strength: Mr. Wolf's biggest strength is actually Mr. Corbett's biggest weakness: running in a climate in which the Republican incumbent is deeply unpopular. However, on a personal level, Mr. Wolf proved immensely appealing to voters in the Democratic primary. His ads, in which he demonstrates that he's ostensibly a common-sense businessman who shares much of his profit with his workers and is depicted as a regular guy riding a Jeep, resonated in the primary. He is broadly perceived as likable, relatable, and easygoing. It also does not hurt that Mr. Wolf is extremely wealthy. His wealth permitted him to self-fund much of his campaign in the primary and that ability is critical in a race in which Governor Corbett is raising much money himself too from sources like the Comcast hierarchy (based in Philadelphia).

Wolf also has a fine ground game that will be of help to him. Cassandra Coleman-Corcoran, the mayor of Exeter and Senator Casey's deputy finance director, has done an excellent job in her campaigns in northeastern Pennsylvania and in her fundraising for Casey and her talent and skill in her effort for Mr. Wolf's campaign has already proven crucial and will continue to be a key factor in his success. Bill Vinsko, a Wilkes-Barre attorney who is a former congressional candidate, has also been able to utilize his extensive network of friends and supporters locally to rally support. At the legislative level, Democratic candidates for the state legislature, including incumbent Democrats running for reelection, have done all they can to mercilessly criticize Governor Corbett and to tie themselves to Mr. Wolf, which can only help Wolf's cause. In our region, state Rep. Phyllis Mundy and state Rep. Eddie Day Pashinski, both very popular in their districts, endorsed Wolf in the primary thus signaling to their constituents that he was someone who shares their values. Further aiding Mr. Wolf is that quickly after the primary ended, Wolf was readily publicly embraced by Senator Casey - who is the most popular elected figure in the state - on Hardball on election night and his former primary rival Katie McGinty formed a PAC, "Fresh Start PA," that's aimed at assisting Wolf and Democrats across the state in this fall's elections. All in all, these developments indicate that Wolf has a strong backing behind him beyond merely Corbett's unpopularity and his own wealth.

Wolf Weakness: To whatever extent the national political climate has an effect in Pennsylvania, it would hurt Mr. Wolf. President Obama, despite comfortably winning Pennsylvania twice, is not very popular here anymore, nor is he popular nationally. His approval rating has dipped into the low 40s both nationwide and in Pennsylvania. Governor Corbett's website already features a photoshopped picture of Mr. Wolf's head next to the President's head. Further, Governor Corbett is portraying Mr. Wolf as the "millionaire Revenue Secretary," indicating that Wolf's massive wealth -- an issue that, in part, helped sink Mitt Romney here in 2012  -- could be a liability.


How can you help Tom Wolf? 
You can sign up to volunteer for Mr. Wolf's campaign here (where you can also find a link to donate): http://action.wolfforpa.com/page/s/volunteer.