Tag Archives: Rascovar

Emily’s Mistake?

By Barry Rascovar

Dec. 7, 2015 – What in the world was Emily’ List thinking when it threw $1 million into the Maryland Senate primary race for a candidate who could be an easy mark for Republicans next November?

Why would the women’s political empowerment group try to defeat a much stronger Democratic candidate who has an unblemished pro-choice record and strong support from elected female leaders in Maryland and women’s rights advocates?Emily's Mistake

It’s a baffling call, especially in an election season where a $1 million advertising blitz could make a huge difference in a number of pivotal general election Senate races around the country involving other Democratic, pro-choice, female candidates.

Emily’s List early on endorsed Rep. Donna Edwards of Prince George’s County for the Senate seat held by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, who is retiring after next year’s election.

Edwards is running against Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Montgomery County, who has a big lead in the most recent poll, the vast majority of endorsements from elected Democratic officials and a solid corps of female supporters, including the former national board chair of NARAL, a leading pro-choice advocacy group.

Million Dollar Blitz

Yet Emily’s List insisted not only on snubbing Van Hollen’s two decades of solid pro-choice support but then decided to become an issue in the Democratic primary race with its $1 million Edwards ad campaign.

It’s an independent expenditure committee ad campaign, which by law means Emily’s List cannot coordinate its activities with the Edwards camp. But the obvious similarities of Edwards’ campaign pitch and the Emily’s List ad is striking and raises concerns.

Even more troubling is Emily’s List’s attempt to target its ad to an African-American audience, with an obvious African-American narrator proclaiming Edwards will “work for us.”

If the same language had been used in support of a white candidate, there would be hell to pay – and rightly so.

What’s so odd about Emily’s List’s love affair with Edwards is that her victory in the April 26 Democratic primary would be a gift from heaven for Republicans.

While Edwards has a legitimate shot at winning on April 26, in the general election she might not be the favorite, even in heavily Democratic Maryland.

Wider Support

That’s not the case with Van Hollen, who enjoys far broader statewide support than Edwards.

Republicans are hoping for a repeat of Larry Hogan’s upset win in the governor’s race last year. He defeated Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, who lacked broad statewide support among Democrats, independents and elected officials.

If either of the two GOP front-runners, Del. Kathy Szeliga or Harford County Executive Barry Glassman is nominated, they could duplicate Hogan’s success if Edwards is the Senate opponent.

Both are good campaigners who want to come across as smiling, Hogan-esque figures.

Edwards, on the other hand, is a lightning rod for controversy. Her hard-edge political approach is far to the left of the Democratic center, she does not work well with her fellow politicians and she often has forgotten to tend to the services demanded by constituents.

In contrast, Van Hollen has spent two decades networking within Maryland’s political establishment. He’s popular with his colleagues and has worked relentlessly to pass meaningful legislation rather than showboat on behalf of liberal causes.

Choice Supporters

The ultimate irony is that Van Hollen and Edwards are on the same page when it comes to defending abortion rights. There’s no difference in their level of support.

That’s why Emily’s List’s $1 million worth of aid for Edwards is so puzzling.

It may not have much of an impact, though.

Far more valuable may be Van Hollen’s endorsement by a key labor union, SEIU, which redrew its prior support for Edwards in previous elections.

One SEIU official said Edwards had turned her back on the labor movement after SEIU helped get her elected in 2008.

Union Strength

SEIU brings considerable on-the-ground organizational muscle to Van Hollen’s campaign.

The labor union works hard to get out the vote for its endorsed candidates. Moreover, the core of SEIU’s 40,000 members live in areas of the state Edwards needs to win big-time: Baltimore City, Baltimore County and Prince George’s County.

That’s one reason SEIU’s endorsement of Van Hollen is so meaningful.

It’s surprising that Emily’s List didn’t look at the bigger picture, both in Maryland and nationally, before tossing $1 million into its Edwards advertising effort.

The group’s decision could turn out to be a very costly Pyrrhic victory.

###

Refugee Politics

By Barry Rascovar

Nov. 30, 2015 – Playing to the public’s worst fears is the thing to do if you’re a Republican politician these days, be it Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan Jr., Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Sen. Marco Rubio or Sen. Ted Cruz. It boosts your poll ratings.

Panic-mongering is in vogue inside the GOP.

Refugee Politics

Trump approves of beating up dissenters at his events, torturing Muslim terrorists, barring all Syrian refugees from this country, making U.S. Syrians register (but no yellow badge sewn to their clothing) and closing U.S. mosques.

Carson also wants to look at closing mosques, forcing Muslims to register and carry a special ID that notes their religion. He suggests suspected Muslim bad guys deserve the same fate as “a rabid dog.”

Rubio wants to shut down any place where Muslims might conspire – mosques, cafes, diners and internet sites. No Syrian refugees would be allowed in the U.S. He even invented a new adjective to describe our dire situation: “civilizational struggle.”

Cruz wants to bar Middle Eastern Muslims, especially Syrian Muslims (97 percent of the country’s population) but he’d let the U.S. take in Christian Syrians because “Christians are being crucified right now.”

Anti-Refugee Governors

Xenophobia and Islamophobia dominate GOP rhetoric – even on the state level. Hogan joined fellow Republican governors in announcing he’d refuse to accept Syrian refugees in Maryland who are fleeing the ISIS-Assad violence for fear they’d be terrorists.

He and the other GOP governors politicized the issue by asserting the Obama administration does a slipshod job vetting these refugees.

It would have helped if Hogan first had checked his facts. The vetting process is rigorous and takes 12 to 24 months.

But Hogan and the other GOP governors don’t care about facts. They’d rather put out false allegations and keep saying they’re true.

Hogan also decided to ignore another simple fact: He has no power to stop the president from re-locating Syrian refugees in Maryland. He can’t close Maryland’s borders.

Democrats Respond

Indeed, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake quickly announced she wants the president to bring refugees to Baltimore. Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett and the entire County Council did the same thing. Sure, these were political slaps at Hogan, but it served to illustrate the widely divergent views on refugee politics between Democrats and Republicans.

A total of 43 Syrian refugees have previously re-settled in Baltimore. Not one has been revealed as a terrorist. They have been assimilated into the community without problems.

Should they be deported for their religious beliefs or where they come from?

Hogan needs to clarify his position and explain precisely why this new batch of refugees, most of them women and children fleeing ISIS-Assad violence, are so dangerous to the welfare of Maryland citizens.

While Hogan’s anti-refugee stance puts him in lockstep with his fellow Republican governors, it is hardly what one would expect from the husband of a Korean immigrant.

Immigrants are especially sensitive to the plight of other people fleeing violence and religious oppression who see America as a safe harbor where their children can have a better life.

Hogan would do well to read carefully a letter he received from state Del. Kirill Reznik of Montgomery County on this topic.

Fleeing Oppression

Here’s what Reznik wrote in his pre-Thanksgiving Day letter:

“In the late 1970s, my family was granted refugee status to come to the United States from the country I was born in, the Soviet Union. You might recall it was the height of the Cold War and the Soviet Union was our mortal enemy.

“History tells us that the Soviets had over 40,000 nuclear warheads pointed at the United States, a far deadlier prospect than anything [ISIS] can offer. And yet, we came. Maybe it helped that our skin was white and our religion was Judaism. Nevertheless, the suspicion leveled at us when we arrived – our motivations for coming, our loyalties to our former country – was something that even a 5-year old boy clutching his mother’s skirt as she went for job interviews at the local diner could feel.

“History also teaches us that this is not the first time that we, as Americans, have betrayed our promise to the world when we accepted the Statue of Liberty as a gift from our French friends. We told the world to ‘give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.’ I guess we added the asterisks later. . . .

“Since September 11, 2001, the United States has accepted over 700,000 refugees from the Middle East and South and Central Asia. Yet, the most acts of terror have come from home grown evil. People like Wade Michael Page who opened fire on a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin because he thought they were Muslim; Jim David Adkisson who shot up a Unitarian Church in Knoxville because they supported marriage equality; Joseph Stack who flew a plane into the IRS building in Austin; and, most recently, Dylann Roof who shot up an AME Church in Charleston, and on and on. Not to mention the countless terrorists who walk armed and unimpeded onto schools and university campuses on what feels like a weekly basis.

“The people running to Europe and the United States are begging for refuge, hence the term, refugees. I remember what that was like. So, as we all sit down to eat turkey and watch football in a couple of weeks, maybe we can do something truly thankful and help our global community. Since your powers as Governor do not actually include stopping refugees at the Maryland border, let’s try some compassion instead.”

###

Barry Rascovar’s blog is www.politicalmaryland.com. He can be reached at brascovar@hotmail.com.

 

Transparent Political Ploy on Surplus

By Barry Rascovar

Nov. 9, 2015 – When Democratic legislators announced last week that a huge budget surplus would make it possible for Republican Gov. Larry Hogan, Jr. to reverse his earlier decision to cut $68 million in school aid, it was the equivalent of beating a dead horse to death.

(That’s an idiom occasionally used by unlettered Maryland politicians.)

Transparent Political Ploy on Surplus

Asking a politician of the opposite party to recant his prior action is a waste of time and energy. It’s not going to happen.

Democrats are doing it only to gain propaganda points. “Look! See! Larry Hogan is such a meanie he won’t use surplus funds to educate our children!”

Instead of trying to embarrass the governor, Democrats should have suggested practical ways for Hogan to spend this money wisely. That, at least, would be within the realm of possibilities.

Big Bucks?

The surplus could top $700 million. That sounds like a lot of money but it is a one-time happening. It can’t support a major tax cut, or any other tax reduction – Hogan’s prime objective.

It would be a horrific mistake if Hogan sought tax relief based on a one-year surplus.

Maryland’s budget is precariously balanced. Another dip in the nation’s economy would send the state back into the red.

Sharply reducing taxes on the basis of one good fiscal year isn’t sound fiscal policy.

So how should the governor spend this extra cash?

Thoughtful Democrats and Republicans understand these one-time dollars are best used to pay for one-time spending projects – primarily purchases of badly needed equipment and construction projects.

Bonds, Bonds, Bonds

Maryland has a long-range financial crisis because the state overspent over the past 15 years by  issuing too many construction bonds. Under Governors Bob Ehrlich and Martin O’Malley, the amount of new bonds issued each year jumped from $400 million to $1 billion.

Each of those bonds must be paid off, with interest, over 15 years. The compounding effect of issuing more and more bonds each year is staggering.

Two years from now, Maryland will max out its bonding capacity. Meanwhile, state taxpayers are spending in excess of $1.1 billion this fiscal year to pay the principal and interest on that growing mountain of bonds.

Hogan has a rare opportunity to make significant headway in turning around this out-of-control borrowing situation.

He might, for instance, use most of that surplus on a giant pay-as-you-go school construction program instead of issuing bonds. Thus, he’d be using only surplus dollars to fund Maryland’s school-building efforts.

And if he’s smart, he’d also use surplus dollars on another important school need: air-conditioning every single classroom in Maryland. It is shocking how many classrooms statewide lack even a window air-conditioner, not to mention central A/C.

Fewer IOUs

By using cash for these projects, Hogan would lower Maryland’s future bond obligations and the state’s future interest payments. A $400 million pay-go program for school buildings (including an A/C funding provision) would be a bold and sensible way to get a major fiscal problem under control.

Hogan also could use a portion of the state’s one-time surplus for other important construction activities.

He has the chance to set up a win-win situation at the old Bethlehem Steel plant at Sparrows Point by dedicating surplus dollars to bridge and interstate access improvements.

Those would be critical steps in jump-starting what could become Maryland’s largest and potentially most successful economic development initiative.

Additionally, the state’s current surplus could let Hogan set aside a substantial pot of funds to accelerate Baltimore’s vacant housing demolition program and help build safe, green neighborhoods in Maryland’s most troubled and largest city.

Democrats were foolish to try to politicize the announcement of a large state surplus. They sought to create conflict instead of an atmosphere of cooperation and mutual decision-making.

Hogan is right to ignore this transparent political ploy.

Instead, he should distribute those surplus dollars to one-time projects that are fiscally conservative and beneficial in the long run for Maryland.

###

Hogan’s Curious Facebook Blasts

By Barry Rascovar

Nov. 2, 2015 – Like every politician these days, Gov. Larry Hogan, Jr. has a Facebook page. His political organization, Change Maryland, is on Facebook, too. The comments on the two blogs often are identical.Hogan's Curious Facebook Blasts

Hogan’s Facebook blogs tend to be powder-puff, good-news summaries of visits and actions by the governor. That is par for the course.

It’s pretty much what his predecessor, Martin O’Malley, put out on his Facebook page – at least until O’Malley started planning his run for president. Then his Facebook musings turned heavily partisan and highly politicized.

That doesn’t work as well, though.

Social networking websites are ideal for promoting ideas and policies, of telling the world about your successes and new programs and ideas. It’s perfect for promoting all the good deeds and heart-warming things you do every day.

Facebook isn’t the best vehicle for expressing anger and hurling cheap shots at your enemies.

Facebook Stories

Hogan has endeared himself to his supporters and even to his political opponents by his courageous fight against cancer and his willingness to use his illness to promote cancer awareness and sympathy for others with this dangerous disease. He has used his Facebook page to tell those stories.

Most of the other blogs are revised versions of press releases on Hogan initiatives and Hogan speaking appearances around the state.

But occasionally, Hogan’s Facebook writer gets carried away and turns the governor’s remarks venomous and stridently partisan.

Last week, the governor’s online comments went too far. His staff writer lied.

“Today, a small band of out-of-touch legislators have convened a ‘hearing’ in Annapolis to complain about our closing of the {Baltimore City] jail,” Hogan wrote on his page. “[I]t seems a few professional politicians in Annapolis want to try somehow to defend the indefensible failed status-quo.”

Hogan should disavow his staff writer’s statements. He knows they aren’t true. His Facebook “friends” deserve an apology.

The Facts

Fact: There was a hearing in Annapolis on Hogan’s decision to close the City Jail. Such a “hearing” is routine. It’s what legislators all over the country do.

Fact: There was no “small band of out-of-touch legislators.” Indeed, no one at the hearing made any “out-of-touch” comments. It was a status-updating session.

Fact: No one at the hearing complained about the jail closure. Legislators wanted to know how the closure was proceeding. Some lawmakers praised the governor’s action.

Fact: Not a soul at the hearing tried “to defend the indefensible failed status-quo.”

Hogan’s Facebook remarks were made up out of whole cloth. The blog was written before the hearing even commenced. It was a trumped-up display of partisanship designed to make Hogan’s foes look like fools.

Instead, Hogan’s staff writer made the governor look like the fool by criticizing something that never happened.

Misleading Message

Then the governor’s minions compounded this error with another strange and intentionally misleading post.

It stated the legislature had held a “partisan” hearing to “question” Hogan’s jail closure. Wrong on both counts.

It was an impartial, fact-finding session where Hogan’s prisons chief received plaudits for a job well done.

Then Hogan’s post mocked the Baltimore Sun for daring to write in an editorial that Hogan had tried to politicize the hearing with his Facebook comments.

The Sun’s assessment, though, was on the mark.

The fact that Hogan’s Facebook staff writer didn’t like that his boss had been caught trying to turn a routine legislative hearing into a political ambush (which it was not) makes Hogan sound petty, parochial and a bit paranoid.

What Hogan’s minions did in his name on his Facebook page should embarrass the governor.

It gives ammunition to his enemies and needlessly antagonizes legislators he will need on his side when the General Assembly convenes in January.

In His Own Words

Even worse, these errant Facebook diatribes run contrary to Hogan’s own words.

Here’s what the governor wrote on his Change Maryland page and reproduced on his Facebook page on October 26:

“Too often we see wedge politics and petty rhetoric used to belittle our adversaries and inflame partisan divisions.

“It is only when the partisan shouting stops that we can hear each other’s voices and concerns.

“I am prepared to create an environment of trust and cooperation. . .”

“Wedge politics,” “petty rhetoric,” “belittle our adversaries,” inflaming “partisan divisions.” That describes Hogan’s Facebook blasts. There’s no hint of “trust and cooperation.”

What to Do

If Hogan is serious in what he wrote for Change Maryland, if he wants to bridge the political divide in Maryland and solve problems based on mutual respect, he’s got to clamp down on his Facebook staff writers, who seem eager to light fires, divide and exploit the politics of nastiness.

As governor, it is his obligation to follow his own written words and stop the partisan shouting.

Hogan has a choice: Stick to the facts and try to overcome Maryland’s political divisions through good will and honest dialogue, or snarl sarcastically at the opposition and fabricate events and intentions.

He can’t have it both ways.

###

 

GOP-style Campaign Entertainment

By Barry Rascovar

October 29, 2015 – Yikes! This is how Republicans are going to pick a presidential nominee?

The Reality TV Circus – also known as the GOP presidential debates – continued in Colorado Wednesday night and it was rip-roaring fun to watch.

Campaign Entertainment

Republican presidential debate in Boulder, Colorado

Not that we learned very much about the candidates’ abilities to lead the nation. Heck, no one got to speak for more than 10 minutes during the two-hour performance.

Even then, what we heard were wise-cracking broadsides, accusations against other contenders, shouting matches, sweeping promises of revolutionary change (with no detail) and denunciations of the media.

The youthful, Republican audience loved it. They’re mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore. The candidates played to the audience’s prejudices.

What a bizarre scene. Imagine what viewers in other parts of the world thought.

Fantasyland

Give Ohio Gov. John Kasich credit for beginning this comedic romp through Politics, GOP-style by angrily shouting that what other candidates were offering America is “just fantasy, folks. We’ve got to wake up.”

Some of the gibberish espoused by Ben Carson & Co. is “a joke” and “empty promises,” Kasich said. He clearly believes experience in government actually counts, that rank amateurs cannot simply walk into the White House and magically turn everything around.

Those trying to talk common sense were drowned out or given little or no time for detailed explanations. If you’re not a loud, angry and skilled 30-second debater, you don’t stand a chance in this venue. Jeb Bush, an accomplished Florida governor, is the prime example.

The night belonged to the slick and quick-witted. Ted Cruz, a champion college debater and darling of the tea party, shined. Marco Rubio had rehearsed his lines extremely well and delivered them in machine-gun rapidity. Chris Christie, when he could get a word in, showed he will tell it like it is.

Was any of this presidential? Not by a long shot.

Inept Questions

That includes the terribly inept work of the CNBC questioners, who had been primed to stir controversies and high ratings, but instead ended up as targets of hostile responses from the candidates.

Beating up on the press proved popular Wednesday night, so many of the candidates chimed in, drawing loud cheers from the audience.

At times it felt more like a televised, staged wrestling match than a presidential debate.

Serious voters in early primary states must be perplexed.

They’re being asked to vote for a man who wants Mexico to pay to build a 2,000-mile wall on the U.S. border (fat chance), another who wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service (do we pay our taxes on the honor system?), another who wants a flat income tax rate that leaves a trillion-dollar deficit, another who wants to eliminate practically the entire federal government, etc., etc.

No Time for Explanations

When are we going to give candidates the time to set forth concrete, detailed explanations of their domestic and foreign policies?

Or are Republicans supposed to vote on the basis of who gives the best one-liners, who comes up with the most outrageously appealing schemes or who can get the loudest audience cheers?

The media insists on turning this presidential campaign into a televised horse race filled with colorful and captivating moments sure to draw high ratings. They don’t want a discussion of issues. That’s too dull. It’s not entertaining.

When it comes time to vote next year, though, that’s not good enough.

American voters need to hear informed, intelligent discussions from the candidates, not insults and shouting matches.

Otherwise, the Republican Party could be heading toward an epic train wreck. That’s not good for democracy, the country and especially for those who care about the GOP.

###

Hogan’s Hopes for Bus Transit

By Barry Rascovar

October 26, 2015 – Let’s take Gov. Larry Hogan, Jr., at his word: He sincerely wants to make Baltimore’s inadequate bus transportation system better.

He’s come up with a plan to achieve that goal, too.

Hogan's Hopes for Bus Transit

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, Jr., and a mock-up of a CityLink bus he wants to bring to Baltimore.

The odds, though, are stacked against him.

He’s given himself an unrealistically short time frame (June, 2017) to totally revamp Baltimore’s complex bus network.

He’s underestimated the cost ($135 million) of pulling off such a massive turnaround.

He’s got no support from key elected local executives.

Is It Possible?

Much of what he calls for in his plan may not be feasible or sensible. It also might make traffic gridlock worse rather than better.

He ignores the past sensitivity of Baltimore’s bus riders to major route changes. Resistance to his plan could be strenuous among those who are inconvenienced or will lose access to existing jobs via bus routes being eliminated.

If, indeed, Hogan intends to shrink Baltimore’s bus system to a dozen color-coded routes, his approach could well be “transformative” in shrinking the state’s operating costs. It might make the system less accessible for Baltimoreans, too.

We may not get a good handle on the viability and pros and cons of Hogan’s bus initiative until the state Department of Legislative Services gives the plan a thorough analysis early next year.

Going Negative

As is his pattern, Hogan in his announcement excoriated Baltimore’s current transit system in sweeping, negative language. He once again pilloried the rail transit Red Line he killed earlier this year with hot rhetoric that bears little relationship to the facts.

Once again, he portrayed his Republican administration riding to the rescue of a mismanaged Democratic city with “transformative” changes.

This time, though, Hogan has got to deliver a vastly improved bus system. Executing his plan may not be as easy as he made it appear in his announcement.

Exactly how will Hogan pull off this transformation without cooperation from Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake over the next 13 months? The two are barely civil and don’t see eye to eye on Baltimore’s people-mover needs.

Exactly which north-south and east-west roads does Hogan intend to use for his dedicated, separated bus-only lanes? There are no good options, especially downtown.

Such a move would squeeze existing traffic into fewer lanes, making rush hours more of a daily nightmare. Besides, Hogan needs the city to bless such an undertaking, which doesn’t seem likely given the uproar and traffic mess that could result.

Changing Signals

Exactly how is Hogan going to implement computerized bus signalization to turn red lights green on his 12 new, color-coded bus routes?

Every light change commanded by a bus driver will exacerbate traffic tie-ups on the cross street. What happens when buses going north-south and east-west hit the same downtown intersection at the same time in rush hour?

There’s a serious question whether Hogan’s signal-change idea will even do much to cut travel times. It sounds good on paper but in practice it doesn’t work well. The state and city have been trying to do this along the light-rail route on Howard Street for several decades with minimal success.

Hogan will get little opposition and some cheers for other parts of his plan, such as moving bus routes closer to suburban job centers; extending light-rail hours on Sunday; putting more focus on “last mile” problems for urban dwellers trying to reach their jobs in the suburbs; creating multi-modal transit hubs, and giving some financial support to Baltimore’s popular, free Charm City Circulator.

It’s now up to Hogan to make his bus plan reality.

Given the last Republican governor’s muddled attempt to markedly improve Baltimore bus service, there’s considerable room for skepticism that Hogan can pull it off.

Here’s hoping he succeeds. The city needs something to go right for a change.

###

Flawed Poll

By Barry Rascovar

October 19, 2015 – True or false: Rep. Elijah Cummings of Baltimore would easily defeat the two most prominent contenders for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Maryland Democrat Barbara Mikulski next year.

A Flawed Poll

Rep. Elijah Cummings of Baltimore

If you believe the Washington Post poll published last Friday, the answer is “true.”

But don’t believe everything you see in polls, especially polling snapshots that contain serious and disturbingly invalid tabulations.

The Post poll showed Cummings with 33 percent of the vote against Rep. Chris Van Hollen (20 percent) and Rep. Donna Edwards (20 percent), the two declared main contenders for Mikulski’s seat in next April’s Democratic primary.

The results were in line with a private poll commissioned by Cummings last spring.

But if you delve deeper into the poll’s methodology, there is reason to question its reliability.

Only 550 people were surveyed on the Senate question, a small number. Most established polling organizations insist on a sample of 1,000 to 2,000 respondents to get accurate snapshots of voter sentiment.

Poor Decision

Far worse was the decision by the Post and its partner, the University of Maryland, to ask the Senate question to both registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.

Note to the Post and UM: Registered independents cannot vote in Maryland primaries. So why in the world would you include them in a survey of voter sentiment on the Democratic Senate race?

The Post’s Senate poll results are tainted.

It may be that even when independents are removed from the tabulations, the numbers stay roughly the same – though the sample then might be too small to accurately gauge true Democratic sentiment.

Independent voters represented one-third of the people surveyed by the Post and UM for this extensive poll. That means the number of Democrats who were asked the Senate question might be quite small, perhaps only 350 or so individuals.

There’s also the problem of polling too early in the election cycle.

Governor Brown?

Well-known names always score best when balloting is far, far away.

In prior elections, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Anthony Brown looked like runaway victors in early polls. Both failed miserably on Election Day.

Cummings says he intends to make his decision on a Senate race this fall. He’s consumed right now by his role as chief defender of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton against smears from House Republicans over the death of the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi, Libya, three years ago.

He’s also a national spokesman on African-American issues and a prime defender of the Obama administration against determined Republican attacks in the House of Representatives.

It could be a difficult choice for Cummings, whose reelection to his congressional seat is a slam-dunk. The Post’s fatally flawed Senate poll won’t be of much use in making that decision.

###

Hogan’s Unmistakable Popularity

By Barry Rascovar

October 19, 2015 – Make no mistake: Republican Gov. Larry Hogan, Jr. is an anomaly in today’s “hate everything” society: He’s a popular public official.

Unmistakable Popularity

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, Jr.

Hogan tops out at 58 percent approval in a Goucher College poll and gets a 61 percent rating in the Washington Post poll.

Good for him.

He has carefully avoided most hot-button political issues and sought to minimize controversy during his initial year in office.

Sympathy for Hogan

Yet a substantial part of Hogan’s high ratings in a heavily Democratic state stems from his health problems – non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Hogan has been transparent and open with Marylanders about his illness and has become a strong advocate for those with cancer.

His obvious courage and heartfelt effort to boost the spirits of his fellow cancer patients naturally won widespread applause from all corners.

At the same time, Hogan’s aides haven’t missed a beat in pulling on voters heartstrings and reminding everyone of Hogan’s arduous and courageous trips through chemotherapy treatment.

That skews the poll results. By how much we will never know.

Honeymoon Phase

Hogan most likely still would have polled well at this early stage in his administration without coming down with such a serious medical condition.

It’s interesting to compare Hogan’s numbers with Bob Ehrlich’s and Martin O’Malley’s at similar points in their administrations.

Ehrlich encountered huge, unexpected problems with the General Assembly in his first year in office yet managed approval ratings almost identical to Hogan’s.

O’Malley, faced with a huge deficit and joblessness caused by the Great Recession, took immediate and unpopular steps to right Maryland’s fiscal ship of state. That partly explains why his first-year approval rating came in at 52 percent.

But Hogan should take note: This pretty much was the high water mark for his predecessors in polls. The first year in office traditionally is viewed by citizens as a honeymoon period for the governor. He really hasn’t done much to stir anger in his initial months in Annapolis.

Hogan has followed that script closely.

Popular Moves

He’s made some moves he knew would be popular with most Marylanders – cutting highway and bridge tolls, killing an expensive subway project, closing a decrepit jail in Baltimore and coming to the aid of the mayor when rioting broke out in Charm City.

No wonder Hogan did so well in these polls.

But by this time next year, thing might be quite different.

Hogan’s team only now is getting a true handle on the inner workings of state agencies so it can cut spending and shrink the bureaucracy. They’re putting together next year’s budget, which could stun Democratic legislators with the size of cuts to some programs that matter deeply to lawmakers.

The governor also is likely to push hard for conservative initiatives, such heavily promoting charter schools, doing away with common core education standards, loosening business and environmental regulations and reducing the scope of some social services for the poor and near-poor.

Any of these steps could become flashpoints for loud, angry opposition – the sort of controversies that hurt a politician’s poll numbers.

So enjoy the high approval marks while you can, governor. The tough part of your job lies ahead.

###

Dems in the Spotlight

By Barry Rascovar

October 15, 2015 – What a contrast between the two recent Republican presidential alley fights and the polite, wonkish policy discussions at the Democratic presidential debate Tuesday night in, of all places, a luxurious Las Vegas casino-hotel.

Dems in the Spotlight

Democrats debate (left to right): Chafee, Clinton, O’Malley, Sanders and Webb

Just as Donald Trump seized the spotlight, and kept it, during the raucous GOP debates, Hillary Clinton clearly took center stage and never relinquished her dominance of the five-candidate Democratic field.

There was no doubt who was the most competent and compelling candidate on stage, the only one you could picture sitting in the Oval Office negotiating the fate of the world with Vladimir Putin.

The Others

Wimpy Lincoln Chafee made it embarrassingly clear he would be a lost ball in high grass as president. Jim Webb seemed to have trouble explaining himself. Martin O’Malley (oh, Martin!) too often sounded rehearsed and not-yet-ready for prime time.

Then there was Bernie.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of tiny, rural Vermont, the socialist who turned Democrat at the last minute so he could launch a fervently emotional crusade to rally support for his far-left-of-center utopian ideals.

To Sanders, capitalism belongs in the waste bin of history. Let’s make the U.S. of A. like Denmark!

Similar to Trump, Sanders is capitalizing on public anger over the gridlocked mess in Washington, the dangerously intractable foreign policy quagmires, and the strong dislike people have toward politicians in power. (Sanders may be a U.S. senator but he isn’t allowed to play an influential role.)

Bernie was wonderfully entertaining Tuesday night. He’s a riveting speaker, full of fire and brimstone and loud anger that brought cheers from his fanatical loyalists.

But he was woefully short of proposals that stand any chance of becoming reality. Free college education? Free health care for all? All his ideas would require $19 trillion in new tax revenue. Even Sanders’ relentless demands to tax and prosecute billionaires to the hilt won’t come within a continent of paying for his programs.

Perfect Foil

Sanders is a dreamer and a provocateur. He isn’t going to be president. He’s way too extreme in his notions and way too vague as to how he’d accomplish anything in a Congress that could be controlled by radical Republicans. But his anger and his impossible dreams are perfect foils for the pragmatic front-runner.

Only Clinton stood out as an accomplished presidential candidate who understands the complexities of Washington and recognizes incremental reforms are the only steps that might be possible at the moment.

She came through Tuesday night as someone in command of her facts and her goals — improve life for the middle and lower classes of American society. She is, at this point, the star of a very weak presidential class.

But be aware, we still are over a year away from the general election and over three months from the first primary. It’s a long, long road to the White House and surprises are certain to emerge.

For now, though, the Democratic presidential picture has come into sharp focus. As for the Republicans, we’re still waiting for the three-ring circus to end and real policy discussions to begin.

###

Dems Debate — In Brief

[From MarylandReporter.com]

Big Dog Clinton, angry orator Sanders, and O’Malley best of the rest

Dems Debate -- In Brief

Candidates Jim Webb, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Lincoln Chafee (left to right)

By Barry Rascovar

Hillary

October 14, 2015–Throughout last evening’s Democratic presidential debate, the Big Dog in the room was Hillary Clinton.

She started strong and finished strongest, the only one who gave nuanced, pragmatic answers on how to solve vexing, seemingly intractable problems.

She led the charge in denouncing Republicans and the National Rifle Association and made it clear she will fight the hardest for women’s rights.

Bernie

Bernie Sanders wins the blue ribbon for most emotionally compelling rhetoric, though it frequently veered into unreality.

He must have denounced rapacious billionaires a dozen times. He admitted he’s leading a revolution, not presenting proposals that are achievable.

If you want to elect an angry orator, Bernie’s your man.

Martin

As for Martin O’Malley, he was clearly the Best of the Rest. His poll ratings should rise, perhaps even edging into double digits. He achieved his goal after a shaky start with his voice quavering. His defense of his zero-tolerance police policy as Baltimore mayor wasn’t persuasive.

And he made the biggest gaffe of the evening, mistakenly saying that Bashir Assad (rather than Vladimir Putin) had invaded Syria — undermining his credibility on foreign policy.

Still, our man Martin performed well enough to spread the word that he could be an up-and-coming future star of the party.

It would take a major miracle for him to become a real contender this year, but as the late Judge Edgar Silver would remind him, “The best is yet to come.”

###