Opinion

Analysis and opinion about the 2014 midterm elections

Though he just may muff it, as he has muffed so much in this presidency of his, Barack Obama has just been handed a golden opportunity to rescue his legacy and to start doing some amazingly wondrous things for this country of ours, things he himself has said he wants. 
The trick is to see that the supposed setback of Republicans taking the Senate and increasing control of the House is no such thing. The Republicans are now in a position in which they put up something positive or give up future success, there is in fact considerable common ground on a host of vital issues and, look, Harry Reid is no longer going to be Senate majority leader. That's huge. 
Some who wear ideological blinders don't get it, but Reid has been the king of stalemate. This Democratic leader has been embarrassingly, preposterously partisan and has avoided votes on numerous measures so no senator in his party would have to take politically damaging stands. A result is that the Senate has been far more a roadblock to getting things done than the Republican House. 
The new majority leader will be Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican who won re-election over a Democratic opponent who even refused to admit she had voted for Obama. He is much more able than Reid, has shown a prior willingness to negotiate and cannot be so obtuse as to think the voters will not do to Republicans in 2016 what they did to Democrats Tuesday if sufficiently provoked. The trick is to put substance over duping efforts. 
That goes for Obama, too. If he wants success in his lasts two years, he will roll up his sleeves, get in the mix of things, cut out the misleading divisiveness, respect rule of law and give up such autocratically minded ideas as deferring deportation for millions of illegal immigrants by executive order. 
If, as has been advertised, he moves in that direction, he will alienate not just the GOP but the public at large. The most he could legally do is stop deportations for the remainder of his term when an effort to reach out to Republicans the right way could result in legislation doing long-lasting good. 
Other possibilities? We need tax reform. Obama knows we need tax reform. The Republicans know we need tax reform. The result can be more revenue from a more bustling economy. More global trade deals would also boost the economy - get on with it. 
Let's build the Keystone XL pipeline. Obamacare? The best of it should not go away, as the Republicans ought to realize, but the worst of it should, as Obama ought to realize. Debt needs to be reduced, regulatory mayhem needs to be seriously addressed, and we should do something serious about the needy. 
One possibility is for Obama to call Republican Rep. Paul Ryan into his office, say he has read his extraordinary plan that could actually help people escape poverty, suggest a few revisions, and then work with him to get it passed. The president should definitely build on programs he has already launched to address the egregiously awful cultural issue of disintegrating families in America. 
In considering all of this, I suggest Obama make reference, first, to another president from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, who found ways to meld political antagonists into a unified force. He has already read Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" on the subject. He should read it again. 
Secondly, he should reread the nationally televised speech he gave at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, raising him to national prominence as he said we are not red state and blue state, not liberal America and conservative America, but one people, one country, "a single American family." That family just spoke up, and he should heed what it said. 
Jay Ambrose is an op-ed columnist for McClatchy-Tribune.

Commentary

OPAMBROSE05

GOP victories an opportunity for Obama

Opinion: GOP victories an opportunity for Obama

458402944 - cropped 3x2 / mg

The exit polls and vote tallies told the tale of a fed up nation. We don't approve of our president or our Congress. In a backlash against President Barack Obama and the status quo, Republicans captured the U.S. Senate and Republican Lee Zeldin took incumbent Democrat Tim Bishop's House seat. It was an election in which most votes seemed to have been cast against an idea or person the voters despised, rather than for ones they admired. Republicans made stronger- than-expected gains in a midterm election. So where are we now? 
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo easily earned a second term by governing from the center. "We said we would not be pushed or pulled by the extreme forces on the left or the right," he said in his victory speech. The Republicans retook the State Senate and the Democrats kept dominance in the Assembly, making Cuomo's center the place to be. 
Behind Cuomo lie four successful years that saw him bring competence, discipline, increased civil liberties and balanced budgets to the state. Before him lie significant challenges. 
Fixing the infrastructure of New York will cost a fortune. New projects will cost even more. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority can come up with only half of the $32 billion it needs for crucial projects, such as the Second Avenue Subway and East Side Access. To find the rest of the money, Cuomo wants to bring public-private partnerships and entrepreneurial ways to the old-dog agency. 
Meanwhile, schools need more help to improve, and Cuomo must live up to his promises to hold teachers accountable. He also has promised to pass the Dream Act to make college tuition assistance available to noncitizens brought to the United States at an early age. To keep those promises, he'll have to convince the Assembly and State Senate. 
In Washington, can a GOP Congress and Barack Obama work together? Both parties must make their case for the White House in 2016. The people have spoken. They are exhausted and depressed. In Albany and Washington, for Democrats and Republicans, it's time for the winners to do the jobs voters have given them.

VPELECT05

Editorial: Election won, Gov. Cuomo faces serious challenges

Editorial: Election won, Cuomo faces major challenges

nyCUOMO - cropped 3x2 / mg

Steve Bellone was not on the ballot Tuesday. But the Democratic Suffolk County executive still got very bad news from voters. John M. Kennedy Jr. is going to be looking over his shoulder every day. 
Kennedy, the Republican county legislator from Nesconset and Bellone's principal foil, won handily the race for county comptroller and crowed at his victory celebration that he was going to throw open the county's financial books and have a long hard look. 
That prospect probably already is creating nightmares for Bellone. But he also should wonder whether the results were a prelude to next year, when he presumably will run for a second term. Did Kennedy win because he was swept up in the GOP's strong showing in a host of other races, including Lee Zeldin and Tom Croci's respective wins over Tim Bishop and Adrienne Esposito? Or did Kennedy triumph because voters wanted a strong watchdog on county finances? 
Bellone did get a win with the easy passage of a proposition to eliminate the elected position of county treasurer and merge its functions into the comptroller's office, a measure Kennedy strongly opposed. Bellone was the face of that proposition. So while it's often a mistake to read too much into a vote on someone's proxies, Bellone should be wondering what awaits him in 2015.

VPSUFFOLK05

Editorial: A wake-up call for Suffolk's Steve Bellone

Steve Bellone -Cropped /hj

As American political junkies pore over the mid-term congressional election results to appraise President Obama's fate for his final two years in office, a very welcome idea has emerged from the hallowed halls of Duke University. 
In a New York Times op-ed, David Schanzer, a Duke professor of public policy, and Jay Sullivan, a junior at the university, propose to end what has become midterm political madness, by changing the election of House members from every two years to four. 
The idea not only would ease the burden of incumbents devoting so many hours raising campaign money that they have little time to address their legislative responsibilities and establish a record. It also would give voters more time and basis for assessing that record, and would assure a much larger turnout by twinning the congressional balloting with voting for president. 
The change would require a constitutional amendment. But had it been in place for the cycle just ended, the incumbent president would not have been required to go into virtual hiding as Barack Obama did in selective campaigning for fellow Democrats. 
There would have been no turning the midterms into such a critical challenge for a lame-duck second term president struggling to salvage the last two years of his tenure. A billion dollars or more would be saved every midterm year by canceling out the avalanche of campaign ads in key districts and states that drive voters to distraction, giving politics an even worse name than it otherwise would have. 
The Duke sponsors would also change the terms of senators to four or eight years, also to coincide with the presidential election, abandoning the current system wherein one-third of the senators holding six-year terms would have to face the electorate every two years. 
Having both House and Senate members serve terms of the same length might well diminish the stature of the latter, but the senators would still represent their entire state rather than a smaller district. And the small states would retain equal stature in the Senate, a provision accepted by the founding fathers in Philadelphia in 1787. 
Schanzer and Sullivan calculate that the congressional midterm elections historically have weakened presidents of both parties, with the Democrats losing an average of 25 House and four Senate seats in them, and the Republicans losing 20 in the House and three in the Senate. The upside of the proposed change for both parties might well be greater tolerance, if not popularity, among an increasingly irritated public. 
It could be argued that eliminating the midterms, while increasing turnout for the congressional elections as part of choosing the president every four years, could benefit the Democrats. Their most loyal constituencies, such as African-American and Hispanics, would be more likely to show up at the polls. 
But such an eventuality would also provide a greater incentive for Republicans to follow through on their declared determination after the 2012 presidential election to appeal to these voting blocs as essential to remaining competitive for the presidency. 
For all that, however, the current two-year House terms and the staggered Senate terms are probably so entrenched that such a major change would likely run into the same bickering and obstructionism that already has produced maddening stalemate in Congress. 
For the same reason -- resistance to changing the status quo -- campaign finance reform has been all but obliterated as a crusade in the political community. Incumbents depend too much on continued and massive giving by special interest groups to risk disrupting the flow of campaign cash. So don't bet the rent money that this idea whose time may have come will actually come about. 
Instead, the guessing game will go forward now on how the midterm results will affect the Obama legacy, even as attention inevitably jumps forward to the 2016 presidential election. 
Jules Witcover's latest book is "The American Vice Presidency: From Irrelevance to Power," published by Smithsonian Books.

OPWIT05

Witcover: Get rid of midterm elections

Opinion: Get rid of midterm elections

1 liVOTE / mg - cropped 3x2

Voters handed Republicans control of the U.S. Senate. The GOP will read it as a conservative mandate. 
That’s no doubt the message some voters wanted to send on Tuesday. But for others, it may just have been disgust with the status quo. Disgruntled voters clearly wanted &nbsp;change. About 66 percent say the country is on the wrong track. 
But if ballot referenda and state legislatures are any indication, the course correction voters want may not be a sharp right. 
Voters in Oregon, Alaska and Washington, D.C., were weighing whether to legalize marijuana for recreational use. If approved, those places would join Colorado and Washington state that legalized marijuana in 2012. 
Raising the minimum wage was on the ballot in four states —&nbsp; something 10 states already have done this year. 
And in Oregon and Colorado, voters were deciding whether foods with genetically modified ingredients will be required to label them to alert consumers. 
In Washington state, residents voted on whether to require background checks for all gun purchasers. And California residents were asked whether to quadruple the limit on pain-and-suffering awards in medical malpractice lawsuits. 
That’s a decidedly progressive agenda on social issues, one at odds with what Republican majorities in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives support. So, would GOP control of Congress signal a conservative mandate? Maybe not.

News

OPBES042

Bessent: Don’t confuse a Republican Senate win with a mandate

Bessent: Don’t confuse a win with a mandate

obama - cropped

Voters can be forgiving. 
Just ask Marion Barry — the controversial former Washington, D.C., mayor who served six months in the federal pen on drug charges. At age 78, he was re-elected to his council seat two years ago with 88 percent of the vote. 
He’s one is a string of former officials who have sought forgiveness from voters — and gotten it. 
This election cycle there were several lawmakers tainted by criminal investigations — and on Tuesday night, several won. 
In Staten Island, Republican Rep. Michael G. Grimm led his Democratic challenger, Domenic Recchia, 53 to 34 percent in polling before Election Day,&nbsp;even with a 20-count federal indictment hanging over him. He’s charged with employing undocumented immigrants and then lying about it, from his days running a Manhattan restaurant called Healthalicious. He defeated Recchia easily.&nbsp; 
In Queens, Democratic Assemb. William Scarborough has been socked with 11 federal charges for allegedly cheating on his travel and lodging expense accounts, to the tune of $40,000. Scarborough faces additional charges in state court after he allegedly used $38,000 in campaign money for personal benefit. He won with 85 percent of the vote in an uncontested race. 
In Brooklyn, state Sen. John Sampson, a former Democratic majority leader, faces federal charges that he made false statements, concealed records and tampered with a witness. He will go to trial early next year, but his East New York and Canarsie district re-elected him overwhelmingly. 
In Binghamtom, Republican state Sen. Tom Libous is expected to fight a one-count indictment, after he allegedly provided false statements to FBI agents. Federal investigators were looking into whether he used his influence to get his son a job at a law firm. Libous easily won re-election. 
In Nassau County, Democrat David Denenberg withdrew from his race for State Senate in September, after his employer accused him of defrauding a client of more than $2 million by overbilling for legal services. Denenberg’s name remained on the ballot, however, and he appeared headed for a 40 percent vote tally – better than some others on Long Island who were actually campaigning. 
Did voters even register his legal troubles? 
Like Barry, former Providence, Rhode Island, Mayor Buddy Cianci tried for some redemption. After serving as mayor for 21 years, he spent 4.5 years in prison for racketeering. He lost the mayor's race to a political newcomer, Democrat Jorge Elorza, who took 53 percent of the vote. 
And former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards, a Democrat with an eight-year prison sentence behind him, also for racketeering, was vying for a seat in Congress. He narrowly won a primary Tuesday, and moves on to a Dec. 6 runoff. 
Perhaps voters opt for the crook they know.

OPMICH04

Michaud: Voters don't mind tainted politicians?

nyCORRUPT cropped

Can Democrats run away from President Barack Obama and then count on black voters to drag them over the finish line? 
That’s the bet the party made this year in key states like Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana and North Carolina as Democrats fought what looked like might be a losing battle to retain control of the U.S. Senate. 
Obama is toxic in those states. And his popularity has plummeted across the nation among women, people younger than 30 and Hispanics, all key components of the coalition that put him in office. 
That’s why Republicans talked about Obama — incessantly — in this year’s campaign. 
But his approval rating among blacks remains north of 80 percent. So Democrats have tried to have it both ways. 
For most of the party’s candidates, Obama was persona non grata. They rarely spoke his name. The low point had to be when Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes —&nbsp; who lost her bid to unseat Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky — &nbsp;wouldn’t even say whether she voted for Obama. &nbsp; 
But as Election Day neared, Obama and other Democrats were on black radio stations trying to rally the vote. They needed it. For instance, on Tuesday in North Carolina, 95 percent of black voters cast their ballots for incumbent Democrat Sen. Kay Hagan, according to exit polling. 
In 2012, black voter turnout (66.2 percent) topped white voter turnout (64.1 percent) according to the U.S. census. Even in the 2010 midterm elections, when Obama wasn’t on the ballot, the black vote share was higher in states such as Georgia and Louisiana than it was for his historic 2008 win. &nbsp; Democrats needed a repeat of that kind of turnout to have any hope of retaining control of the Senate. But Democrats dissing Obama may accomplish what the GOP couldn’t do by limiting early voting and imposing ID requirements: Suppress the black vote.

OPBES04

Bessent: Democrats try to have it both ways with black vote

Bessent: Democrats want it both ways with black vote

Obama midterms cropped

Steve Bellone is not on the ballot today. But the outcome of two Suffolk County contests are likely to be an early indicator on the county executive’s standing with the electorate. 
Let’s start with one of the two local propositions on Suffolk ballots — Proposition No.4, which would eliminate the elected position of county treasurer and merge its functions into the comptroller’s office. 
Bellone is the face of the proposition. His ham-handed attempts to merge the offices began three years ago and he is advocating for consolidation now. With Bellone facing re-election next year, the proposition can be seen as a personal litmus test. 
Bellone has been right about the issue all along. Suffolk does need to join the rest of the state — no other county elects both a treasurer and a comptroller — and start reaping the twin benefits of greater efficiency and cost savings by merging the two offices. 
But his first stab at consolidation shortly after his election in 2011 came off as a personal attack on Republican Treasurer Angie Carpenter, who had three years left on her term and who had just lost to Bellone, a Democrat, in the race for county executive. Then his plan was struck down in court. 
The current proposition came from Legis. William J. Lindsay III (D-Bohemia), who suggested eliminating the treasurer’s post at the end of 2017, which also is the end of Carpenter’s term-limited tenure. It’s the correct approach and Bellone has been an ardent proponent. 
Leading the opposition is Republican John M. Kennedy Jr., Bellone’s principal foil in the county legislature — and his party’s candidate for county comptroller. Kennedy wants to keep the elected treasurer position. His opponent, Democratic Suffolk County Water Authority chairman James Gaughran, not surprisingly favors consolidating the offices. Bellone also is supporting Gaughran in what has become a pitched battle. 
Bellone has recorded robocalls asking Suffolk voters to back both Gaughran and the consolidation. Whether they do, and by what margin, might give us an early clue about the race for county executive in 2015.

OPDOB04

Dobie: Ballot propositions can be predictor for Steve Bellone in 2015

Dobie: Bellone is kind of on the ballot this year

Steve Bellone -- cropped / mg

Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin probably will be the first Republican to make up his mind about 2016. 
After winning re-election today, he will have to make a big decision in the next two weeks: whether to pursue his longtime dream of becoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee or pursue a more recent dream to seek the presidency. 
When the Republicans hold their planning session for the next Congress this month, Ryan would be the favorite to succeed Representative Dave Camp of Michigan as Ways and Means chairman. 
But Ryan also has been encouraged to go for the presidential nomination. One of the people reportedly pushing him is Mitt Romney, who selected him as his running mate in 2014. It's a wide-open race this time, the argument goes, and Ryan would be one of the favorites. 
"We're going to start sorting out this presidential race quickly and Paul will be the first one," says Vin Weber, a top Republican strategist. 
It's a difficult choice: No congressional committee will have a more important or fuller agenda than Ways and Means -- trade, tax reform, health care -- and Ryan is one of the foremost congressional experts on these issues. Moreover, under the current system, committee chairmen are important fundraisers for the party, and none more so than the head of Ways and Means because of the panel's wide jurisdiction over many vested interests. 
A consideration for Paul, 44, is that his three children are young. A full-fledged presidential campaign, unlike his three-month quest for the vice-presidency, would demand hundreds of days away from home on the campaign trail next year. 
Hunt is a nationally syndicated columnist.

OPHUNT04

Hunt: After the midterms, watch Paul Ryan for a big announcement

Opinion: After the election, watch Ryan for 2016

Paul Ryan CROPPED

The question of the day is, What difference will it make if Republicans take the Senate? The backdrop is a highly polarized political environment. Regardless of whether it's preferable for Congress to enact bipartisan laws, the moderates who produce them are so rare that only partisan legislation is likely to be considered. Getting such laws passed, though, requires that one party control not just the House and the Senate but also the White House. In a world where you need all three, having two as opposed to one doesn't matter much. 
The need for greater control is especially the case in the Senate, where at least 60 votes are generally required to get anything done. The Republicans, to be sure, could use a process called reconciliation to pass budget-related bills with just 51 votes, but even then the legislation is subject to a presidential veto, which takes 67 votes to overturn. And while it's true that a noticeable number of Senate Democrats are moderates (and their ranks may swell a bit after today), their votes will not be so easy for Republicans to obtain and are probably not sufficient to assemble a veto-proof majority. 
So anyone who expects a Senate shift to produce broad tax reform or immigration reform over the next two years is likely to be disappointed. Tax reform is easy to say and hard to do; immigration reform is slightly more plausible but still very unlikely in the polarized environment. So what might happen? One bad scenario is another outbreak of fiscal drama. The U.S. economy seems to be recovering, despite headwinds from abroad, in part because, for the past year, lawmakers in Washington have not created needless uncertainty. Next spring, however, the debt limit, the doc fix and other fiscal cliffs will rear their ugly heads. 
Kevin McCarthy, the House Majority Leader, has already spoken publicly against the strategy of creating mountains out of these cliffs: "Why put cliffs up that hold us back from doing bigger policy?" Many newly elected members of the House and Senate, though, may be itching for a cliff-linked fight. Let's hope the McCarthy view holds, since the last thing we need is a repeat of the debt-limit crisis of 2013. 
Even without cliffs, fiscal issues will create tensions. The temporary budget deal that Democratic Sen. Patty Murray and Republican Rep. Paul Ryan shepherded through Congress last year alleviated pressure on the discretionary budget, but that pressure will come back in force in 2015 and 2016. The caps on both defense and non-defense spending will become increasingly difficult to meet as time marches on, especially since the Barack Obama administration and Congress have different spending priorities. 
What about health care? Votes to repeal Obamacare may be inevitable, but they will not have sufficient support to override the inevitable presidential veto. Republicans may do better with targeted legislation aimed at provisions that are unpopular with a number of Democrats. On that list are the medical device tax and the Independent Payment Advisory Board. I am a supporter of both, and believe the Independent Payment Advisory Board in particular has been widely misunderstood, but they are politically vulnerable. The White House would be wise to start defending them now - or at least limit the damage any changes might impose. 
The best thing that could happen would be for Congress and the White House to agree to improve the Affordable Care Act by passing legislation such as the Better Care, Lower Cost Act. That would settle the question of whether value-based payments should go to insurers (which Republicans generally support, in the form of Medicare Advantage plans) or to providers (which Democrats generally support, in the form of Accountable Care Organizations or bundled payments) - by allowing both. 
It would also reinforce the recent deceleration in Medicare spending, increasing the odds of reaping a bigger fiscal dividend than any direct policy agreement could plausibly achieve. Nevertheless, given the difficulties of moving forward in today's polarized policy world, it's probably too much to hope for. 
A final item that becomes somewhat more likely with Republican control of the Senate is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an international trade deal that has been languishing. The coalition in favor of free trade is harder to cobble together today than it was in the past, but Republicans are still generally more supportive than congressional Democrats are. Providing trade-promotion authority and ratifying the TPP, once the international negotiations wrap up, could let Republicans demonstrate effectiveness on an issue that happens to split the Democrats. 
Mostly, though, we should expect continuation of not very much from Washington. Inaction, to be sure, is better than drama. That's why the recent comments from Mr. McCarthy, along with the Republicans' expected desire to retain their Senate majority in 2016, suggest that we may, at least, not have to put up with unnecessary distractions. 
Peter R. Orszag is a Bloomberg View columnist. Now vice chairman of corporate and investment banking and chairman of the financial strategy and solutions group at Citigroup, he was previously President Barack Obama's director of the Office of Management and Budget.

OPORSZAG04

Orszag: Senate control doesn't matter for health care, taxes

Opinion: Senate control won't fix these two problems

congress cropped

Each year, we pundits wake up early on Election Day and tiptoe downstairs to the laptop like it's Christmas, anticipating all the hot story lines we'll find under the tree. Then we remember that the sadistic process won't allow us any real presents till like 8 p.m. 
We are left with the only one topic we can knowingly discuss throughout the day, the boring equivalent of a hand-knit sweater gifted to us from senile Aunt Mabel: voter turnout. 
Well, it's going to be low. Screechy do-gooders whining "the end of democracy is upon us" low. And one rarely explained and little-understood reason is clustering. 
Clustering is what we call it when people who look, think, earn and spend alike live together in companionable, boring harmony. In urban centers like New York City and San Francisco (and the cores of Buffalo or Atlanta), the cluster is hyper-liberal and Prius-y. Out in rural lands, the clustering is whiter and more conservative and Dodge Ram-y. 
Nationally, statewide and locally, this is a big deal and it's going to look like an even bigger deal when we parse the results of this off-year, nonpresidential election. 
Clustering can be a huge reason people don't bother to vote. And it can very much dilute how much a person's vote counts. Which makes people less likely to vote. Rinse and repeat. 
In 2012, Republicans took a majority in the House of Representatives seats, 242-193. But Democrats actually won the House popular vote, the total votes cast nationally, by about 1.5 million. Blame clustering. 
Liberals cluster more than conservatives. Less than 10 percent of House races are truly competitive, but the Democrat's safe seats are less competitive than the Republican safe seats. In 2012, the average margin of victory for Republicans House members was 28.6 percent, while the average win margin for Democratic House members was 35.7 percent. My response to those figures is A) Holy freakin' moley, we are doomed and B) Democrats waste a lot more clustered votes than Republicans. 
That's because urban safe districts can go as much as 90 percent Democrat (try to find a Republican in Brooklyn, I dare you) but the Republican safe seats, largely in the 11 states that were formerly part of the Confederate States of America, have significant black, generally Democrat-voting populations and often only poll 60 percent or 65 percent Republican. That's a safe win, but not a landslide. 
As we cluster more and more, turnout may become more and more depressed. If everyone in your town, county and state agrees with you, there's not much urgency to vote in those elections. 
In New York, some upstaters may stay home, confident their local Republicans will be easy winners. But even more New York City residents, who see an easy win for Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and every Democratic candidate, see no reason to head to the polls. 
The political junkies will care about the referendums and how many votes Cuomo and his Republican opponent, Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino, get on each individual ballot line: In the trenches, that matters, as does the potentially significant showing of Green Party and leftie standard-bearer, Howie Hawkins. 
But most folks aren't in the trenches. Most folks care about politics the way my wife cares about pro football: Only the really big games are worthy of attention, and nacho platters. 
If your candidate has no chance of winning, it's likely you won't vote. If your candidate has no chance of losing, it's likely you won't vote. 
So the more we cluster, the less we'll vote, over time.

opFillerBlog04

Filler: Here's why voter turnout is so low

This just in — there is a backside of this year’s ballot. 
I don’t mean to make light of this. There are three state constitutional amendments on the second side of the ballot, along with two Suffolk County propositions and one for Southampton Town residents. 
But because voters had to physically flip the ballot to see the propositions, concerns abounded that many simply would miss the props. 
It certainly didn't help to have poll workers like the person who handled my ballot Tuesday morning. As he gave it to me, he told me to fill out the first side, then noted,&nbsp;“There’s stuff on the other side, but you don’t have to do that.” 
The propositions actually were pretty important. Among the state initiatives was a controversial one dealing with redistricting (it purported to create a better process to draw electoral lines but it really doesn’t, we can do better) and another that would let the state borrow $2 billion for technology for schools (much of which will be obsolete long before the bonds are repaid). 
Ironically, ballot propositions in other states were not only not being overlooked, they were deemed so important and/or controversial that they were seen as potentially driving extra voters to the polls. 
Voters in Florida were asked to approve medical marijuana, while Oregon, Alaska and Washington, D.C., were considering legalizing recreational marijuana. Oregon and Colorado residents voted measures to require foods with genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such, four states considered minimum wage hikes, and Washington state residents voted on one measure that would require universal background checks on gun purchases and another measure that would prohibit universal background checks (polling and fundraising suggested the first would pass). 
California, however, wins the prize for controversy — if you measure that by how much money is raised to fight and support propositions. According to The Washington Post, more than $130 million had been raised — mostly from doctors, insurers and lawyers — to fight two proposals that would change the state’s health care system. One would require random drug and alcohol tests of doctors and more than quadruple limits on pain-and-suffering awards in malpractice lawsuits. The other would require insurers to get state approval before doing anything that would change rates. 
So, we can hope voters turned over the ballot to fill in those circles as well. The propositions will continue to have impact long after the people you voted for on the first side are gone.

Columnists

Michael Dobie

OPDOB042

Dobie: There's a backside to your ballot!

Cell Phone Voting Cropped

Whom you vote for is important. How you vote for them is, too. 
Today's ballot offers five candidates for governor, but 10 lines. Andrew M. Cuomo is on the Democratic line, but also accepted nominations of the Working Families and Independence parties, and he created the Women's Equality line. Rob Astorino is on the Republican line, but he accepted the Conservative Party line and created the Stop Common Core line. Howie Hawkins is the Green candidate, Michael McDermott is the Libertarian and Steven Cohn is on the Sapient Party line. 
Most of these lines represent real ideologies. If you want to vote for Cuomo on the Women's Equality line or Astorino on the Stop Common Core line, there is some symbolism attached. We don't, however, think cross-endorsements work well. Parties should stand for something and find their own standard-bearers to represent their views. 
However, two lines offer nothing ideologically. The Independence Party has nothing to do with being truly independent; its name is there to trick you. It exists to trade votes it gathers for power and patronage. The Sapient line is even more of a mirage. Cohn has feet in three parties. A Democratic appointee to the Nassau University Medical Center board, he tried to run for governor as a tea party candidate in 2010 and is a protege of running mate and former Independence leader Bobby Kumar Kalotee. 
Denying these sham parties the votes they need to survive would be a clear victory for voters on this Election Day.

VPVOTE04

Editorial: Don't give your Election Day vote to sham parties

Editorial: Don't give your vote to sham parties

primary elections cropped file

The increasingly desperate battles being waged upstate for control of the State Senate has Democratic Party supporters looking elsewhere to see whether they had overlooked any seats. 
So about two weeks ago, one group working on behalf of the Democrats started polling in the 8th district — yes, the David Denenberg-Michael Venditto non-race. 
The goal was to see whether there was a backlash against the harshly negative campaign Republican Venditto has been running against Denenberg, the Merrick Democrat who stopped running in September after accusations from his former law firm that he had bilked a client out of more than $2 million. 
The thinking was that if polling showed that district residents were upset about the attacks on Denenberg, a very popular and effective county legislator, it might make sense to funnel some last-minute money into his non-campaign. 
Alas for the Dems, the polling found Denenberg trailing by 15 points. Not bad for a (politically) dead man, but bad enough that the race was deemed not worthy of investing any campaign cash in. 
The Nassau Republican Committee, on the other hand, gave $50,000 to Venditto (R-Massapequa) last week, last-minute funding that spokesman Tony Santino said was not a reaction to Denenberg’s supposed viability. Santino called the spending part of the plan from the beginning to keep television ads for Venditto, son of Oyster Bay Town Supervisor John Venditto, running through Election Day. Maybe. Or maybe not. 
Word is circulating that district residents received robo-calls on Sunday touting Denenberg. And civic leaders in Denenberg’s Bellmore-Merrick power base continue to work on his behalf. 
A news release issued Monday by Claudia Borecky, president of the North and Central Merrick Civic Association, was titled “The Real Scoop about the 8th Senatorial Election.” Its subtitle: “Facts — Plain and Simple.” 
The missive sought to dispel what it called “mistruths” being propagated about Denenberg and included this passage: 
“Yet, the campaign ‘Denenberg for Senate’ is over. There are no campaign funds being expended and Dave Denenberg is not campaigning. But that doesn’t change the fact that there is a choice. Election law is clear. In a democracy, the person who gains the most votes wins. 
“Simply, if Dave Denenberg wins this election, he will be our next senator. “So please keep these facts in mind when you go into the booth on Election Day. 
The choice is the same as it’s always been. Do we want someone who has been our Legislator for 15 years; who many of us relied on in the aftermath of Sandy; who has improved our communities and brought home the lion’s share of county aid to his district? Or do we want someone who is the son of a supervisor and been in office for barely two years?” 
As astute political observer Lawrence Peter Berra once noted, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.” 
So, is this one over?

OPDOB03

Dobie: For David Denenberg, it ain't over until it's over

Dobie: For Denenberg, it ain't over until it's over

poSENav cropped

John Oliver devoted a segment on his show Sunday night to talking about the importance of state-level elections. He's dead on: With divided government, whoever controls the Senate will only have limited control over the national agenda. Intraparty disputes and partisan rancor will ensure that Congress remains as impotent as ever. 
"This Congress is shaping up to be the least productive in history," Oliver said. "Although to be fair, Congress is like jazz - it's really about the bills it's not passing. It's also like jazz in that most people hate it and anyone who says they don't are lying. And the Senate is likely to remain inactive." Oliver added, "Down at the local level, everything is happening." There might be a good bit of truth to this pessimistic view about the congressional elections, and Oliver is right that these local and state elections are making the mid-terms especially exciting. Voters' choices in gubernatorial races and state house elections and on ballot initiatives this year will have important consequences. 
The minimum wage is an example of an issue in which state governments are filling the gap created by Congressional inaction. 
On Tuesday, voters are expected to vote to raise the minimum wage in Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota, as surveys show that increasing the minimum wage has bipartisan public support. None of the initiatives would increase the minimum wage as much as many workers' advocates have called for nationally. But if the measures pass, then most states will have a higher minimum wage than the current federal floor of $7.25 an hour. Democrats are likely to rely heavily on the minimum wage in their economic policy platform in 2016, so economists will be watching closely to see how increases affect businesses and standards of living state by state. 
There are also important ballot questions on criminal justice. Voters in Alaska, Oregon and the District of Columbia will decide whether to legalize marijuana (although weed will remain illegal under federal law). According to a new poll, a measure in California that would relax penalties on several crimes is likely to pass. The initiative would classify small-time theft and the possession of drugs such as cocaine and heroin as misdemeanors rather than felonies. 
Ballot initiatives make voters' power to create policy especially clear, but of course, they'll also be electing the lawmakers and governors who will set the agenda in each state. Republicans could take control of more statehouses than ever on Tuesday, although the party's candidates are in trouble in Kansas. Gov. Sam Brownback is slightly behind in the most recent polls, pointing to voters' concerns about his supply-side economic reforms. If he loses, his opponent will probably undo many of Brownback's sweeping changes to the tax code. 
If you're tired of reading about the approaching midterms, then look into your local races. There may well be some big issues being debated there. And if not, at least we only have one more day.

OPEHRENFREUND03

Ehrenfreund: The only thing that matters on Tuesday are state-level elections

Op-Ed: State elections only thing that matters

State Capitol Building in Albany cropped

New Yorkers do many things well, but voting isn't one of them. Especially if there's no close marquee election to rile us up. 
Four years ago, when we last chose a governor and all of our members of Congress, less than 40 percent of eligible voters bothered to vote. New York was dead last for gubernatorial turnout. 
The same economic malaise that affected us then colors this election. The mood is glum, expectations and dreams are pinched. Mix in the bitter partisanship and stagnation of Washington and it's easy to see why voters feel casting a ballot won't matter. 
But that's a mistake. 
On Tuesday, Long Islanders will help decide whom to send to the House of Representatives and whether to keep an incumbent governor, attorney general and state comptroller. We'll determine whether Republicans keep power in the State Senate. 
There are two important ballot issues: One would authorize $2 billion in state borrowing to pay for school technology and construction that's normally part of district spending. Another would enshrine the method for drawing electoral maps into the state constitution. Both have important long-term consequences. 
All of these are worth weighing in on. 
We could also try to convince you by revealing our David Letterman list of why you should vote. No. 4: It's a great way to spend time with neighbors, a block party with ballots. 
We could get solemn and remind you that your forefathers died -- literally died -- to give you this right. 
We could attempt to shame you with images from foreign countries of people waiting in endless lines at polling places to exercise their newly granted right. 
But the most cogent argument is that, purely and simply, voting matters. 
Look what's changed since New York last elected a governor. We have a tax cap that has slowed the rise of property taxes. The Long Island Power Authority has been downsized and now a private operator will be held accountable for services and costs. The minimum wage was increased, income taxes for the middle class were cut and estate taxes were reduced for the wealthy. We have tougher gun laws. We have same-sex marriage. 
Love those developments or hate them, they happened because of the people we chose to go to Albany. 
Look what's happened in Washington -- nothing. Congress is paralyzed by partisanship. The brutal battle for control of the Senate is being waged not over issues, but on who can best get core voters to the ballot box. We'll concede that disillusionment is a national phenomenon, the sinking feeling that government doesn't work. 
But frustration with Washington is no reason for New Yorkers to stay home Tuesday. Pick someone you think can work with the other side, someone who is a leader for an issue you care deeply about. You should at least be able to find someone or something to vote against. 
And it's not just whom you vote for that matters. In the governor's race, what line you vote on also counts. The overall tally on each gubernatorial line determines where all parties appear on ballots for four years, from president to county executive. In 2010, Andrew M. Cuomo got more votes as a Democrat than any candidate, so Democrats have the coveted top spot. 
This year he is seeking re-election on four different lines because New York, unfortunately, is one of the few remaining states that allows fusion candidates. Cuomo is running on the Democratic, Working Families, Independence and Women's Equality lines. Republican Rob Astorino also has the Conservative and the newly formed Stop Common Core lines. 
Doing it the old-fashioned way with their own candidates are the Greens, with Howie Hawkins, and the Libertarians, with Michael McDermott. If a party gets fewer than 50,000 votes for a gubernatorial candidate, it no longer gets an automatic spot on the ballot. 
The most intriguing is Hawkins, whose platform is the New Deal with solar power. Hawkins could poll as much as 10 percent. If disaffected Democrats and Working Families members migrate there, or women vote for Cuomo on the Equality line, the Greens could end up the No. 3 party in the state. This year, more than most, politicians will be analyzing voter sentiment not only from the final tally but on how the winner got there. 
Should it be more convenient to vote in New York? Yes. Early voting would help those who need assistance getting to the polls, or have work and child care conflicts. 
Still, voting doesn't take long. It's not terribly complicated. If you need a ride, let someone know. Take the kids with you and explain how this act fulfills a basic civil right, one that is the cornerstone of our democracy. 
And if there is no other reason, consider it a license. If you don't take part in the process, you have no right to complain about the result. 
Don't let someone else make the decision for you. 
Please vote.

VPVOTE02

Editorial: Voting is our right. Make your mark!

Vote on Tuesday, don't let someone else decide

Voting Editorial Cartoon

Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she isn't running for president. At this rate, however, she may have to. 
The Massachusetts Democrat has become the brightest ideological and rhetorical light in a party whose prospects are dimmed by -- to use a word Jimmy Carter never uttered -- malaise. Her weekend swing through Colorado, Minnesota and Iowa to rally the faithful displayed something no other potential contender for the 2016 presidential nomination, including Hillary Clinton, seems able to present: a message. 
"We can go through the list over and over, but at the end of every line is this: Republicans believe this country should work for those who are rich, those who are powerful, those who can hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers," she said Friday in Englewood, Colo. "I will tell you we can whimper about it, we can whine about it or we can fight back. I'm here with [Sen.] Mark Udall so we can fight back." 
Warren was making her second visit to the state in two months because Udall's re-election race against Republican Cory Gardner is what Dan Rather used to call "tight as a tick." If Democrats are to keep their majority in the Senate, the party's base must break with form and turn out in large numbers for a midterm election. Voters won't do this unless somebody gives them a reason. 
Warren may be that somebody. Her grand theme is economic inequality and her critique, both populist and progressive, includes a searing indictment of Wall Street. Liberals eat it up. 
"The game is rigged, and the Republicans rigged it," she said Saturday at Carleton College in Northfield, Minn. The line drew a huge ovation -- as did mention of legislation she has sponsored to allow students to refinance their student loans. 
Later, Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn. -- a rare Democratic incumbent who is expected to cruise to re-election next month -- gave a heartfelt, if less-than-original, assessment of Warren's performance: "She's a rock star." 
In these appearances, Warren talks about comprehensive immigration reform, support for same-sex marriage, the need to raise the minimum wage, abortion rights and contraception -- a list of red-button issues at which she jabs and pokes with enthusiasm. 
The centerpiece, though, is her progressive analysis of how bad decisions in Washington have allowed powerful interests to re-engineer the financial system so that it serves the wealthy and well-connected, not the middle class. 
On Sunday, Warren was in Des Moines, Iowa, campaigning for Democrat Bruce Braley, who faces Republican Joni Ernst in another of those tick-tight Senate races. It may be sheer coincidence that Warren chose the first-in-the-nation nominating caucus state to deliver what The Des Moines Register called a "passion-filled liberal stemwinder." 
There once was consensus on the need for government investment in areas such as education and infrastructure that produced long-term dividends, she said. "Here's the amazing thing: It worked. It absolutely worked." 
But starting in the 1980s, she said, Republicans took the country in a different direction, beginning with the decision to "fire the cops on Wall Street." 
"They called it deregulation," Warren said, "but what it really meant was: Have at 'em, boys. They were saying, in effect, to the biggest financial institutions, any way you can trick or trap or fool anybody into signing anything, man, you can just rake in the profits." 
She went on to say that "Republicans, man, they ought to be wearing a T-shirt. ... The T-shirt should say, 'I got mine. The rest of you are on your own.'" 
The core issue in all the Senate races, she said, is this: "Who does the government work for? Does it work just for millionaires, just for the billionaires, just for those who have armies of lobbyists and lawyers, or does it work for the people?" &nbsp; 
So far this year, Warren has published a memoir, "A Fighting Chance," that tells of her working-class roots, her family's economic struggles, her rise to become a Harvard Law School professor and a U.S. senator, and, yes, her distant Native American ancestry. She has emerged as her party's go-to speaker for connecting with young voters. She has honed a stump speech with a clear and focused message, a host of applause lines and a stirring call to action. 
She's not running for president apparently because everyone assumes the nomination is Clinton's. But everyone was making that same assumption eight years ago, and we know what happened. If the choice is between inspiration and inevitability, Warren may be forced to change her plans. &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Eugene Robinson's email address is eugenerobinson@washpost.com.

OPROBINSON21

Robinson: The bright light the Democrats are missing

Opinion: The bright light the Democrats are missing

Elizabeth Warren Cropped

If you spend much time talking to mainstream politicians, you can get bored. As they bicker over who wants to cut property taxes more without coming up with ways to limit the expenditures the taxes pay for, the eyelids droop. As they joust about the (largely nonexistent) difference between giving people here illegally a path to citizenship, a path to legal residency and a garden path to sweep at substandard wages while awaiting deportation, the mind wanders.
"Is that all there is?" you think, which inevitably leads you to wonder whether Peggy Lee, who so famously asked that question, is still alive.
You rouse yourself back to attentiveness, just in time to catch a ferocious agreement.
"Unlike my opponent, I will end the waste, fraud and abuse that is taking hard-earned dollars from taxpayers."
"I oppose waste, fraud and abuse as much as you do . . . times infinity. Also, I'm like rubber, while you more closely resemble glue, and I think the voters know what that means."
I wish someone would come out in favor of waste, fraud and abuse, just for variety: "Many of my constituents benefit greatly by snatching ill-gotten crumbs falling from the huge and wasteful government maw, and I stand with them."
There are, though, candidates who want to talk about big ideas. It's just that we've largely defined them as fringe folk, figures of fun who have no chance of seeing their ideals come to fruition and get little platform to espouse them.
Spend an hour talking to New York gubernatorial candidates Howie Hawkins of the Green Party or Libertarian Michael McDermott and you will not be bored. Both support actual ideologies they express honestly. And you don't have to agree with them, particularly on tactics, to recognize that their goals deserve discussion.
Hawkins wants 100 percent clean, renewable energy by 2030, and plenty of government funding to ensure it. McDermott sees the same future of sustainable energy dominating and fossil fuels waning, but via the free market, not government subsidies. And both oppose hydrofracking for natural gas in New York. They don't sort of think that maybe if the interminable studies officials have ordered not to be finished ever get finished, then with certain safeguards designed by supertintelligent robots, it might be or might not be safe to blah blah blah. 
Hawkins wants a big state income tax increase on the wealthy and the reinstatement of a levy on every share of stock traded on Wall Street to let the state cut property taxes and send more money to municipalities, schools and universities. McDermott wants to abolish the state income tax over four years, which would return $40 billion a year to New Yorkers, and huge cuts in state spending.
Hawkins wants free, single-payer health care for everyone. McDermott wants individuals to have the freedom to pay for health care as they see fit.
I have spoken to at least 60 people seeking elective office in New York over the past two months and Hawkins and McDermott are the only two who've said they support legalizing marijuana for recreational use. These are big ideas. They are worth discussing, and mostly are rooted in laudable goals, even if the methods Hawkins and McDermott support are difficult to stomach. Big solutions to big problems are always difficult to stomach. The solutions that don't come with sacrifice don't work.
McDermott and Hawkins will debate Republican candidate Rob Astorino and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, the Democrat, on Oct. 22 in Buffalo. It's the only debate scheduled and the best chance to hear Hawkins and McDermott. Astorino and Cuomo will get the attention, but that's not all there is, even if there are mainstream politicians who'd prefer you think so. 
Lane Filler is a member of the Newsday editorial board.

Lane Filler

OPFIL15

Filler: Want big ideas? Listen to Howie Hawkins and Michael McDermott

Filler: Want big ideas? Listen to 3rd party candidates

Howie Hawkins Cropped

When an editorial board recently asked Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell about climate change, he said he wasn't a scientist. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov. Rick Scott, both Republicans, have said the same thing. 
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, said he wasn't a scientist, too, when he faced questions about his administration editing documents about the risks of hydraulic fracturing. Louisiana's Gov. Bobby Jindal, of the GOP, said he wasn't an evolutionary biologist when asked about teaching established science in schools. 
Of course, very few politicians are actually scientists. And while having more scientists in elected office may seem like an appealing idea, it is really beside the point. 
Scientists, including me, serve on committees that advise governments at all levels. We do the tedious work of digging into the data and weighing the evidence. We don't present our individual research, but try to convey to policymakers what scientists have collectively discovered about a given topic. 
These advisory bodies are designed to be transparent about the data they use, reveal members' conflicts of interest, and solicit input and feedback from the broader public. 
In other words, they are democratic institutions that we should trust to tell us about the scientific aspects of the issues that confront us. 
Too often, however, politicians conflate scientific evidence about risks we face with a demand for specific policy proposals. As a result, politicians who oppose climate policy are hostile to climate science just as politicians who favor hydraulic fracturing try to prevent scientific agencies from even studying it. 
But as marine science professor David Hastings told Scott, scientists are the "mapmakers" while politicians are the "navigators." The navigator must ultimately choose the ship's course, but to do so while ignoring - or arbitrarily redrawing - the map is a perilous business. 
The distinction and the process should be familiar to any elected official. After all, politicians aren't engineers, but they approve infrastructure projects. They aren't accountants, but they create budgets. They aren't inventors, but they make patent laws. 
As Congress has become more polarized, including around scientific issues, some local and state governments have been trying to close the gap between science and policymaking. 
For instance, while Rubio and Scott might have a strained relationship with climate science, city and county officials in Florida have already banded together to plan for future sea level rise. 
Similarly, Congress tied the Environmental Protection Agency's hands when it comes to monitoring air and water pollution from hydraulic fracturing. City council members have reached out to local scientists to help them make sense of the risks as they simultaneously weigh the benefits of economic development from new wells. 
In Colorado, which formed a commission to study fracking, some advocates are calling for a year's worth of so-called "baseline testing" that would allow the state to assess pre- and post-fracking air and water quality. Such testing could provide trusted, publicly available scientific information that both pro- and anti-fracking groups should welcome. 
Finally, public policy has an undeniable effect on our diets, including sugar overconsumption and poor childhood nutrition. But some politicians responsible for food policy ignore this research. Again, cities such as Los Angeles and states including Minnesota are moving ahead with "food charters" that bring together farmers, nutrition experts, parents, community organizations and government officials to foster stronger local food systems. 
Scientists study the risks we face - whether it's from failing to vaccinate our children, prescription drugs, hydraulic fracturing, climate change, or exposure to toxic chemicals. 
Politicians don't have to respond to every one of these risks, of course. They can and should disagree with each other about if and how to respond. 
But saying, "I'm not a scientist" in the face of scientific evidence is a cheap cop-out. As a talking point, it should be quickly retired. 
Andrew A. Rosenberg is director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science advocacy group, a former convening lead author of the National Climate Assessment, and served as northeast regional administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

OPROSEN23

Rosenberg: Politicians agree that they aren't scientists

Opinion: Politicians agree that they aren't scientists

UN Climate Cropped

Just how afraid should Long Islanders be of the Democratic Party taking control of the New York State Senate? In this campaign, it's begun to seem more and more that we should be very afraid. 
Republicans say that if Democrats win outright at the polls, that party will run the state. Continued Democratic control of the Assembly is a given, and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is a sure bet to win re-election. Even more worrisome, the GOP argues, is that lawmakers from New York City would dominate the Senate's Democratic caucus. 
The Republicans, including all nine Long Island senators, share control of the chamber with several breakaway Democrats. It's possible after this election that the GOP won't be able to regain the majority or broker another deal to share power. 
And the suburbs would be left with virtually no voice. 
It's hard not to believe in that scenario. There has been almost no effort by top Senate and Assembly Democrats to allay those fears and assure suburban residents that their considerable concerns would be a priority. 
In Albany, region can be more telling than party affiliation. Every Long Island candidate thinks we need more state aid for schools and that Common Core was rolled out poorly. There are no hugely divisive issues, like a property tax cap or same-sex marriage, on the table. But party affiliation matters greatly when candidates fight for their districts. 
The last time Democrats gained the majority in the Senate, winning 32 of 62 seats in the 2008 election, Long Islanders got a new payroll tax to help fund the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and a huge and unfairly targeted cut in school aid. And the two newly elected Democrats who voted for that tax in 2009, Brian Foley and Craig Johnson, were defeated in 2010 as Republicans took back the chamber. 
Unless Republicans can quickly attract minorities, the trending demographics guarantee a Democratic Senate majority eventually. But they don't guarantee it forever. Minorities and immigrants, as they move up the economic ladder, often become suburbanites. If the Democrats ignore their needs, these strivers will become Republicans again, just as they did in the postwar migration from New York City. 
How much should the fear of a city-dominated Senate determine whom Long Island voters support? It's generally wise to support the best individuals, regardless of party. But the Democrats, having left six of the nine Long Island Senate seats practically uncontested, don't do much to bolster the argument that the party's Senate leaders care about Long Island. 
Whoever is elected, and whichever party rules, our representatives must fight unabashedly for Long Island. They'll need to battle for our water and environment, schools, economic development and infrastructure. Between the obvious needs of New York City and economic challenges upstate, suburbs like Long Island are often ignored, like the well-behaved child in a troubled family. But we do have needs, and we need senators who can make sure they're tended to.

VPSENATE

Editorial: NY Senate control will shape Long Island's future

Editorial: NY Senate control will shape LI's future

NY Senate cropped

As President Barack Obama heads into the final half of his final term, many of us wonder whatever happened to the fresh promise of that charismatic optimist who dominated the political stage back in 2008. 
Some of those who voted for him now say they're sorry they did. A poll by USA Today/Suffolk University finds, among those who say they did vote for him in six states that have key Senate races this fall, as many as 1 in 7 say they regret it. 
Of course, it also is significant that some of those folks are liberals who think Obama has been too conservative. I am thinking, for example, of Cornel West, the activist-intellectual who told Time magazine he didn't vote for anybody in the 2012 presidential election. To me, that was essentially a vote for Mitt Romney, but I don't expect West to brag about that. 
Obama's slump isn't that special. Every two-term president in recent decades has suffered a dip in approvals halfway through his second term. But Obama's slide is startling for a man who, only two years ago, became the first Democrat since Franklin Roosevelt to win the popular vote in two elections. That's why you won't see him campaigning with Democratic candidates in close Senate races. They're delighted to receive the money he helps raise but they don't want to be seen with him. 
Why has the thrill gone? I can think of three big reasons: 
1. Public impatience. After six years in office, any president has been seen and heard too many times to satisfy the public's relentless appetite for something fresh and new. "We claim that a president is tired or looks tired," wrote presidential scholar James Mann in a recent New York Times op-ed, "when what we really mean is that we are tired of him." 
2. An anti-incumbent reflex in news media. The most powerful media bias, I often have argued, is our bias against any political narrative that sounds like old news. Our president looks less exciting than the menagerie of wannabes on the horizon. 
3. Obama's own distaste for the politicking. That is an inevitable and an essential part of presidential leadership. 
Leon Panetta, a former defense secretary and CIA director under Obama, added fuel to this long-running narrative in recent interviews to promote his new memoir. 
"I think the difference is that Bill Clinton [for whom Panetta also worked] likes politics, likes the engagement in politics," Panetta told Fox News. "Barack Obama does not like that process of engaging in politics, and I think that hurts his presidency. It hurts him in terms of getting things done." 
Yet as a fair historical accounting will show, Obama got some things done. He reversed the recession with a stimulus that injected billions into the economy. Recovery has been sluggish and low-wage workers have not benefited as much as upper-income earners. But unemployment is down, so is the deficit, and the stock market has hit record highs. 
The president's health care plan still suffers in the polls, but not enough for Republicans to carry through with their plans to make attacks on "Obamacare" a central theme of their midterm campaigns. 
As for social issues, the Obama era has reversed the conservative culture wars, particularly in women's rights, same-sex marriage and reproductive rights, among other. 
Yet there's little doubt that he could have done more had he engaged his relentless opposition more effectively early on. He still has two years. He still faces such weighty issues as immigration, Ebola, the Islamic State, Iran nuclear talks, new trade agreements, federal budget disputes and who-knows-what crises that we have not even imagined yet. 
Gary Younge, at Britain's liberal newspaper The Guardian, observed that Obama's campaign slogan, "Yes we can," seems to have become, "At least he tried." The next two years offer him a big opportunity to try harder. 
Clarence Page is a syndicated columnist.

OPPAG26

Page: 3 reasons why the Obama thrill is gone

Opinion: 3 reasons why the Obama thrill is gone

Obama -- cropped jcm

To paraphrase Roger Miller -- and, indeed, to reveal my vast store of musical trivia -- America swings like a pendulum do. 
If projections, human nature and historical bent prevail next Tuesday, we may see a bit of topsy-turvy up on the benighted Hill. Anything still can happen, but it seems as though Republicans may command both the House and Senate beginning next year. 
In this event, President Obama would be left alone with his pen and executive power. Wouldn't he rather just have a newspaper and a cup of coffee? Worst. Job. Ever. 
Indeed, with the Islamic State, Ebola and the harsher realities of Obamacare on the rise, one wonders how the president will navigate the next two years -- with or without Democratic support, which has been scarcer than lawyers' jobs in recent weeks. 
As token consolations should Republicans succeed in taking back the Senate, Americans may no longer routinely peer into the funereal face of Senate leader Harry Reid. (I know, dear, take a tissue.) Rather they could be treated to the equally mirthless countenance of Mitch McConnell, the man who once said his goal was to limit Obama to one term. 
Republicans are too smart to celebrate, yet, and Democrats, ever saddled with hope and -- what was that other thing? -- are too busy scrambling for unreliable midterm voters. Pundits, meanwhile, whose brilliance often shines in retrospect, have drummed their fingers to nubs waiting for Election Day as Brits do a royal birth. 
Given the preceding qualifiers, weasel words and other verbal outlets favored by political prognosticators, permit me a few observations about the state of government, the people and the pendulum. 
What seems clear is that the hope-and-change formula that catapulted a relative unknown into the presidency has lost its magic. 
This isn't intended as an indictment of Obama's performance, which speaks for itself, but this election surely is a referendum on his presidency as much as it is anything else. The pendulum that swung hard leftward in 2008 -- notwithstanding Obama's rhetorical flourishes about unifying the country -- is now gaining momentum on its inevitable return toward the right. 
It is nearly axiomatic that Democrats have become the Republicans they despise, using social concerns as wedge issues. Whereas Republicans used to summon voters with the prospect of, say, homosexuals wanting to marry each other and settle down with mortgages and other marital miseries, they're now relatively relaxed with a recent Supreme Court move making such marriages possible in many states. 
It's Democrats who now want to talk about these awful wedge issues as bait for Republicans who seem finally to have found their big(ger) brains. As predictably as the pendulum's swing, victors usually become the people and practices they once loathed. How quickly the grass-roots movement becomes the bureaucracy; how soon the oppressed become the oppressors. 
Victorious Republicans would be at risk of reading this election's results as a mandate for conservatism, which would be just as mistaken as Democrats who read Obama's election and re-election as a mandate for Just Everything! What's happening this time is that people feel unmoored. The world may not be scarier than ever, but we're more aware than ever. 
There's nothing like a few beheadings to put things in perspective. 
Thus, I suspect that a ballot cast in the midterms is less a vote for a person or policy than it is a vote against the void so many perceive in the presidency. When two of the four horsemen of the biblical Apocalypse come galloping out of Hell's gate -- Death/Ebola and War/Islamic State -- one can hardly rely on the hopers to sort things out. It's doer time. Or, Dewar's, if you please. 
It would be nice, should Republicans indeed take charge, if they would skip the hubris course and buckle down with their Democratic counterparts to make wise, not goal-prancing, decisions. The people will be entrusting to the victors their fates and their children's future -- no trifling matters. 
What our political pendulum tells us, meanwhile, is that we the people are neither hard right nor hard left, if every now and then an exemplar of either wins favor long enough to remind us of this fact. 
What we are is a nation of sensible sorts, most of whom come home each day to rest where the pendulum do. May the victors, both Democrat and Republican, remember this fact and keep it close to their conscience. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Kathleen Parker's email address is kathleenparker@washpost.com.

OPPARK29

Parker: What our political pendulum tells us

Opinion: What our political pendulum tells us

Obama at Clinton Global Initiative -- cropped /lii

For years, Republicans have told us it's vital that they control the State Senate to protect Long Island's interests. They've argued that their control provides balance in Albany, which is otherwise dominated by Democrats in the Assembly and key statewide offices. 
Republicans have used this argument successfully to win every Long Island State Senate seat, even though Nassau and Suffolk counties have more registered Democrats than Republicans. 
But, as we ready for the Nov. 4 election, we can't afford to fall for their argument anymore. Repeatedly, on issues including the minimum wage, women's equality, higher education equity and fair elections, they've blocked the agenda of working-class Long Islanders. The Senate Republicans' record since 2010 shows "balance" in Albany has been bad for Long Islanders. 
A close look at the 2014 legislative session and campaign underscores stark differences between the parties. This is especially true of the minimum wage debate. Virtually every Long Islander knows that $9 per hour -- coming in December 2015 -- is not enough to live on Long Island. Nevertheless, Republicans led by Senate co-leader Dean Skelos (R-Rockville Centre), would not agree. While many Long Island Democrats supported an increase to $10.10 per hour, with local wage authorization and future increases based on inflation, local Republicans stood in the way. Their typical talking point -- that a higher wage hurts businesses and reduces Long Islanders' incentive to succeed by moving up and out of these jobs -- shows that it's been a while since Skelos and his peers worked a hard day for low pay. 
During the 2014 legislative session, Republicans also shattered the dreams of thousands of New Yorkers by blocking the New York Dream Act, a bill to expand college tuition aid to all eligible students, regardless of immigration status. The legislation lost by two votes statewide after it received no votes from any of the nine-member Long Island Senate delegation. By denying Dreamers help to go to college in New York, Republicans callously blocked the road to opportunity for thousands of students with great potential to help our economy. A 2014 report from State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli found that the legislation would lead to significant economic benefits and more tax revenue to our state by increasing the number of skilled workers who stay in New York. That reality, however, is not reflected in Republican voting records or explanations. 
The Republican leadership also blocked progress, by refusing to allow a vote, on two other key issues that most Long Islanders stand behind: women's equality and fair elections. On women's equality, the Republican leadership refused to put the full, 10-point Women's Equality Act to a vote in the State Senate, despite the Assembly passing it twice. 
Skelos' conference followed the same playbook to stall fair elections legislation that would help limit the impact of big money and give every Long Islander a more equal say in our political process. There are likely enough votes to pass a bill to create a statewide public financing system, however, Senate Republicans wouldn't allow the bill to come to the floor in either 2013 or 2014. 
Every two years, we get a chance to shake up New York's political structure and make a change. It's hard enough to make ends meet and provide opportunity for our families. In the name of a mythical balance, State Senate Republicans have made living on Long Island more difficult for us. 
We should not give them another chance. 
Frank Sprouse-Guzmán is a member of Make the Road Action Fund, a progressive advocacy group.

OPGUZ30

Sprouse-Guzman: The myth of balance in Albany

Opinion: The myth of balance in Albany

0622_session10 cropped

Newsday

Analysis of the 2014 midterms

California voters -- cropped

Opinion Columns

Opinion Rail Module

Can a putative Gov. Blakeman amass the support and alliances to win, then thrive?

For Blakeman, a rocky path to Albany success

His message was needed after years of AI growing in a regulatory vacuum.

Leo's important guideposts for AI

This spring has provided entertainment, escapism and feeling part of something larger.

This wild ride in sports is why we watch

As it turns out, weeks ago Hochul was essentially shouting "last call, all aboard."

In budget spin, timing isn't everything

We underestimate El Niño's impacts to our peril

Opinion Article Bottom Module

Empty sites in Ronkonkoma, Uniondale show how infighting stalls progress.

Don't let Long Island's giant hubs stagnate

Republicans won't find it difficult to write the attack ads.

Graham Platner is the Democrats' Ken Paxton

There's a learning curve involved with safely using electric two-wheelers.

Fast e-scooters are a menace. Don't lump e-bikes with them.

Jor'Dynn Duncan and Thomas Valva both deserved better.

In Suffolk, can we prevent another child tragedy?

NYU Langone, volunteer deputy's arrest, solar energy, Trump's weight

Understanding what has gone wrong at the station, in the tunnels and with the new train fleet is critical.

Amtrak needs to get back on track

Sign up for the Viewpoints newsletter

Viewpoints Newsletter Widget

The Point is Newsday Opinion's daily newsletter inside the local, city and state political scenes.

Dem party fight comes down to 'the gubes'

Opinion Video Playlist

Google is being led somewhere uncomfortable.

Google's AI shift is causing a collective freak-out

Pulte seems even less qualified for the job than Gabbard.

Pulte will drag U.S. intelligence from bad to worse

His death evoked memories of a humid confrontation at the Boston Fed.

Recalling Barney Frank, and that time he yelled at me

Greenport's vacant storefronts, Penn Station fire

Build on the success by evaluating other technologies used in the classroom.

Banning cellphones was a start. Next up: Tackling tech

Some GOP candidates look to rebrand with a new third party line

Computer-reliant white-collar jobs are most amenable to working from home.

Can't find a job after graduation? Blame WFH, not AI.

We need all hands on deck to stop the spread.

U.S. should help contain Ebola outbreak, not aggravate the crisis

According to Dr. Mehmet Oz, "1 in 3 Americans are under-babied."

Moms.gov falls short of needed resources for all

For a brief moment last fall, hunger in America commanded the attention it deserved.

SNAP needs protection again, now

Death of 7-year-old Jor'Dynn Duncan, government checks

App Nativo Ad Unit Slot

Opinion - megaslot

Nassau County and Suffolk County editorials, columns, guest essays, cartoons, letters and more.

Opinion Columns

Stay logged in.