Marc Korman, who is on the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee, and Mark Uncapher, the Chairman of the Montgomery County Republican Party, discuss key County and State races on "Political Pulse" on:
Thurs, Oct 7th at 9:00 p.m.
Fri-Sun, Oct. 8th-10th at 6:00 p.m. and
Tues, October 12th, at 9:30 p.m.
Political Pulse is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.
Showing posts with label Marc Korman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marc Korman. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Marc Korman and Mark Uncapher on Political Pulse
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Another Blogger Bites the Dust
By Marc Korman.
Back in December of 2007, David Lublin asked me if I wanted to start writing for his blog Maryland Politics Watch. I eagerly agreed and for about two and a half years have churned out regular entries. Unfortunately, that time is coming to a close.
Since Lublin invited me aboard shortly after he posted an email I sent called “Why I Voted for Al Carr” until about three months ago (when I started studying for the bar exam) I tried to treat my contributions to MPW as a regular column. I would send an entry to Adam or David by Sunday night each week and if I were going to be late or not get one in, I would let them know.
I tried to write fact-based entries that had a heavy dose of my own opinions, but with support to back them up. Of the approximately 120 entries I wrote, I am most proud of the fact-rich ones like my recent piece on term limits. I am a little less proud of some of the more rumor and insiderish pieces, though they were always the easiest to write and got the best readership.
I never had the vast collection of spies Adam had, but I did have a small band of friends and sources to bounce ideas off of, spot typos, and fact check with. Chief among them is my wife, Rebecca, who would usually proofread before I emailed my entry off.
I am calling it quits because I am about to start a new job and have many competing commitments. As I said, I viewed writing for MPW as a serious responsibility and do not want to continue it in a haphazard way. MPW will still be the first website I check in the morning. Of course, many of my competing commitments are still related to local politics and our community so I will still be involved and hope that each of you who have gotten to know me as a result of MPW will continue to hear from me in those other capacities.
Many of you probably view me as a “blogger” and I have gotten used to assuring friends that what they tell me is off the record. But when I characterize my role it is as a political activist and loyal Democrat. One of the last truly great Republicans, Teddy Roosevelt, said “the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.” I viewed this blog as an extension of my activities, another way to be in the arena of local public policy and politics, but not the sum total of my involvement.
I want to thank David Lublin for inviting me to write and both him and Adam for always posting whatever I sent in. Although they had occasional complaints, especially in the early going, they treated MPW as the open forum it is and always posted without edit. I have especially enjoyed working with Adam on a few back and forth series such as Primaries to Watch. What Adam, David, and many others who write for MPW do is important. They fill a deep void in local political and policy coverage. I hope others will join them in that pursuit.
Thank you for reading.
Friday, September 03, 2010
Primaries to Watch V, Part Five
By Marc Korman and Adam Pagnucco.
Here are the Top Two Primaries to Watch!
2. District 19 State Senate
Previous Rank: #2
Marc
When Delegate Roger Manno first challenged incumbent State Senator Mike Lenett, there was lots of talk about dueling slates and in our last “Primaries to Watch” installment Adam talked about a possible endorsement by Ben Kramer. But it turns out that most of the other folks on the ballot in District 19 do not want to touch this increasingly bitter personality clash with a ten foot pole. I am going to act similarly and leave it at that.
Adam
Take two starving animals, file their claws to razor sharpness, throw them in a cage with a small piece of meat and pull up a seat. But first, have them watch Mike Lenett and Roger Manno so they can see what a real fight looks like.
This race has seen it all: baseball bats, a slime website, an independent mailer and even firearms. Lenett and Manno have almost identical policy positions, so as David Lublin told the Gazette, races like this “become highly personal because the difference between these candidates is relatively small.” Both men finished first in their respective races last time and each has a chance to win, but my sources are starting to lean towards Lenett. Here’s why.
1. Lenett is the incumbent and Manno needs to state a compelling reason for why voters need to kick him out. Saqib Ali and Cheryl Kagan are going after the incumbents they are challenging on the basis of their votes. Manno’s two negative pieces slam Lenett for allegedly stealing other people’s ideas. This is an inside-Annapolis argument that may not resonate with voters.
2. Leisure World HATES negative mail, a fact that was on full display in last year’s Council District 4 special election. In 2008, Don Praisner beat Nancy Navarro in Leisure World by 476-323 votes, or a 47-32% margin. In 2009, Navarro sent out three negative mailers against Ben Kramer and he raised hell over them. Kramer lost the race, but he walloped Navarro in Leisure World by 798-280 votes, or a 67-24% margin. Yes, there were other reasons for Kramer’s performance, but every spy I had who had knowledge of Leisure World said Navarro’s negative mail backfired there. Manno’s baseball bat mailer could backfire there too.
3. MCEA is going to be out in full force on primary day passing out Apple Ballots with Bonnie Cullison’s name on them. Those Apples are also going to promote Lenett. Manno has the Post endorsement, but extra help from MCEA will benefit the incumbent.
4. While both candidates have lots of money, Lenett has a little more, and he could very well swarm the mailboxes at the end.
5. Delegate Ben Kramer has a much better personal relationship with Manno than Lenett. If he had endorsed Manno, he could have helped Manno win Leisure World and Kemp Mill. But Kramer has stayed out of the Senate race, depriving Manno of important help.
Manno’s supporters make some good points on behalf of their candidate. They say that the Post endorsement might mean more in District 19 than the Apple, especially in Leisure World. They believe that Manno’s very likable personality will wear better on voters than Lenett. And they point to Manno’s maniacal door-knocking, substantial grass-roots base and his backing by Delegate Hank Heller, former Senator Len Teitelbaum and former Delegates Adrienne Mandel and Carol Petzold.
All of this is true, but the preponderance of the evidence suggests every so slightly that the race may be headed Lenett’s way.
1. District 39 State Senate
Previous Rank: #1
Marc
You have to laugh when you hear Delegate Saqib Ali and his supporters complain about Senator Nancy King going negative. The challenger has run a relentless three-year campaign against King, sometimes based on legitimate policy differences but always designed to promote his inevitable State Senate candidacy. King is getting ample support from Mike Miller and friends. Her message in the mailboxes is much better than her message at little-watched, though highly analyzed, debates. King is no doubt right that Ali would be an outsider in the State Senate, but Ali is more in touch with Democratic Primary voters than King on specific votes.
We will see on September 14th who can pull themselves out of the gutter and head back to Annapolis. If it is Nancy King, does anyone want to take bets on when Ali’s 2014 campaign begins?
Adam
It’s worth remembering a few things about Saqib Ali and Nancy King before this contest went the way of Big Daddy and the Seven Dwarfs.
Saqib Ali ran a brilliant campaign in 2006, knocked out incumbent Delegate Joan Stern and was the freshest of fresh faces when he arrived in Annapolis. Most politicians present a bland persona to the public, seeking to display themselves in the least offensive way so as not to make enemies. Ali’s genius is that he understands that voters prefer politicians who act like real, live, appealing people. As he reached out to supporters, friends and well-wishers through social media, he attracted allegiance from people who felt that he was one of them – not just in terms of his progressive positions, but also as a human being who was willing to listen and willing to laugh. Despite his unpopularity in Annapolis, I have always liked Saqib Ali for these qualities and his ability to bring new people into politics.
Nancy King is not one of those people who was determined to run for office straight out of the womb. She worked her way up the ranks, from the Montgomery Village Foundation and the PTAs to the Board of Education and then on to Annapolis. If P.J. Hogan had not retired, King would have been perfectly content to serve as Delegate until her time to leave had come. As a legislator, she has been anything but the conservative Republican portrayed by Ali’s campaign. If she was, she would never have been endorsed by MCEA, SEIU, Equality Maryland and other progressive organizations. Sure, Ali is more liberal, but that does not make King a conservative – she is indeed a moderate Democrat. Finally, while I like Ali, I also like Nancy King very much. She is responsive, forthright and unpretentious – an unusual combination for a politician.
So am I going to scold these two for going negative? Absolutely not. Both candidates know exactly what they’re doing and are making their choices with eyes wide open. They understand the risks and benefits of their attacks. They probably understand the damage that each of their reputations will suffer in the eyes of some voters. But they have decided to do what it takes to win, and damn the consequences.
So who will survive? The race will turn on two questions. First, will Ali’s ground game be enough to make up for King’s deeper roots in the district? Or will he be so distracted by her mail that he will lose his focus? And second, whose negative attacks will be more effective? King seems to have the edge on both counts right now, but low turnout, ferocious mail and huge resources on both sides make this contest a bit unpredictable.
No matter who wins, this will go down as one of the nastiest MoCo races of all time!
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Primaries to Watch V, Part Four
By Marc Korman and Adam Pagnucco.
Here are races Four and Three!
4. District 17 State Senate
Previous Rank: #3
Marc
Shortly after Adam christened this race the “classiest” in Montgomery County, fireworks started to fly with Cheryl Kagan aggressively going after incumbent Jennie Forehand over a missed death penalty vote. The issue is a bit of a political trapeze act for Kagan (where exactly does she stand on the death penalty?), but absenteeism is an effective campaign tactic.
Forehand is out working now and if she can remind voters who she is and that they really have no issue with her, she could still be able to beat back a really aggressive challenge by Kagan. One potential twist I have heard, though from Forehand supporters, is that much of Kagan’s effort has been a mirage and she did not have nearly the head start in the field she claimed before the filing deadline. Even if that were true, she was definitely raising funds and meeting with lots of groups and individuals long before July.
Adam
Kagan has rolled the dice by sending out no fewer than three negative mailers hitting Forehand. The issues they discuss are fair game: missed votes and a bad vote to pass the hated computer tax. But Jennie “Grandma” Forehand is a difficult target for negative campaigning and this state legislative district has not seen negative mail before.
Here’s the case made by Forehand’s supporters. The district has no other contests of note – no County Council district race, no Delegate race and no top-of-the-ballot races. That means turnout will be very low and will consist mainly of long-time voters who have been supporting Forehand for decades. That is a bad environment for any challenger and gives Forehand a leg up. I was skeptical of that case given that for many months Forehand was running a non-campaign and Kagan was everywhere.
But Kagan’s negative mail changes the dynamic. She has given Forehand’s supporters a reason to get mad and come out. Whether they can be offset by a wave of new voters demanding the sort of activist representation that could be provided by Kagan is a big question. Kagan is a very bright candidate and she may well have decided to go negative because she had some evidence that Forehand would pull out a positive vs. positive campaign. There is a rumor floating around that a recent poll showed Forehand getting 60% support and perhaps that influenced Kagan’s thinking. One more factor is at play here: Forehand has the Apple Ballot and Kagan has the Post endorsement. Is that a wash or not?
A majority of our informants had been picking Kagan to win, but recent events have changed this race and the turnout argument on behalf of Forehand is a good one. I have changed my position from leaning towards Kagan to favoring her by the most narrow of margins.
3. Council At-Large
Previous Rank: #4
Marc
I think the only options here are for the four incumbents to return or Hans Riemer to knock one of them off. Beating incumbents is difficult and only Riemer seems to have the funds and organization right now to do it.
All of the incumbents, except maybe Marc Elrich, seem to have some block of voters or organized interest working against them. But instead of helping Riemer, that could just lead to all four coming back. The math is hard in a pick four race.
Full disclosure, I have donated to and volunteered for Hans Riemer.
Adam
Here’s an odd fact: since the current council configuration of five district seats and four at-large seats was established in 1990, the four at-large incumbents have never run for reelection. Every race since then has had at least one open seat. Two at-large incumbents have been defeated: freshman Blair Ewing in 2002, who was targeted by Doug Duncan’s End Gridlock slate, and five-term incumbent Mike Subin in 2006, who was excluded from the Apple Ballot and did not campaign. So there is no real precedent for what we are witnessing this year.
I’ve written a lot about this race. My picks are George Leventhal to finish first, Marc Elrich to finish second and Nancy Floreen to finish fourth. The wild cards are Duchy Trachtenberg, who has tons of money, few endorsements and no campaign expertise, and challenger Hans Riemer. Either of them could finish anywhere from third to fifth.
Riemer has a decent chance to win. Look at the ingredients of a successful campaign. Endorsements: he has plenty, including the Post and the Apple. Money: he has plenty. Ground game: his is the best in the field. Name recognition: nope, not yet, and that’s his problem. If low turnout emphasizes incumbent name recognition, then no previously little-known challenger can break through. But if campaign skill, endorsements, money and field operations mean anything, Riemer will go to Rockville.
So if he wins, who would he replace? I don’t think it will be Leventhal or Elrich. Trachtenberg has lots of problems and Floreen has a few of them. And many of our smartest spies are saying all the incumbents will come back.
Putting it all together, I think there is a 50% chance that all the incumbents will be reelected, a 30% chance that Riemer displaces Trachtenberg and a 20% chance that he displaces Floreen. Council at-large races have a history of tight finishes so this could all come down to a couple hundred votes.
We’ll have the Final Two tomorrow!
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Primaries to Watch V, Part Three
By Marc Korman and Adam Pagnucco.
Here are races Six and Five!
6. District 16 Delegate Open Seat
Previous Rank: #6
Marc
The chaos continues in District 16. At times, this has started to shape up as a race between Obama campaign staffer Kyle Lierman and Ariana Kelly from MomsRising. Both have the resources to run competitively and the mail house does not care if it was loaned to the campaign or only raised as a result of family connections. On the other hand, Kelly has not been able to consolidate as much support against Lierman as it appeared she would early on, when she picked up the Apple Ballot and SEIU.
Lierman and Kelly are still the most likely new Delegates, but there are nine other challengers in the race and they are all making waves in their own ways. Hrant Jamgochian can try to leverage the Post endorsement into political victory. Mark Winston and Charlie Chester can still convince voters that their experience is what is needed. Scott Goldberg can make good use of his combination of personality and policy smarts to connect. Bill Farley has demonstrated at least through lawn signs (which cannot vote) a presence far beyond his political base of Somerset. One thing holding back the pack is a serious lack of resources compared to Kelly and Lierman.
Incumbents Bill Frick and Susan Lee are also working really hard to keep their seats, which seems pretty certain but it is never a bad thing to see incumbents work.
Full disclosure, I have volunteered for the incumbents and donated to Bill Frick.
Adam
It’s a pity that Hrant Jamgochian, Scott Goldberg and Mark Winston do not live in District 39 as all of them could very well win the open seat up there. Unfortunately for them, they are competing with Kyle Lierman and Ariana Kelly.
Our spies say that Lierman is running the best campaign. He has tons of outside money without resorting to big self-funded loans (as has Kelly), has good mail and has a sophisticated voter outreach operation. None of this is a surprise given the work he did for Barack Obama in 2008. If Lierman was not a candidate, he would be an excellent campaign manager. Kelly has two important advantages: her endorsements (including the Apple) and her status as the only female challenger. She also has enough money to compete with Lierman.
The fact that the Post did not go with Lierman helps Kelly, but the teachers have more critical races than this one to which to devote poll coverage. Since the mail is crazy in this district, that puts a premium on other ways to reach voters. Lierman’s skill set will help in that regard. I still see this as a two-way race, but one interesting new wrinkle is that Kelly has gone negative against Lierman. If the two of them start slugging it out, there is a tiny chance that another challenger could squeeze past them for the open seat.
5. District 19 Delegate Open Seat
Previous Rank: #7
Marc
You have to hand it to Bonnie Cullison. If she is half as convincing with District 19 voters as she must have been with the Post to get their endorsement, she should do well on September 14th. But that only works if she is out there hustling as much as the other candidates working for District 19’s two open seats including fellow Apple Ballot endorsee Jay Hutchins, fellow Post endorsee Sam Arora, as well as Hoan Dang and Vivian Scretchen.
The teachers will likely be out in force in District 19, which will benefit Jay Hutchins since he shares their endorsement. Sam Arora has plenty of money and work ethic, but it is probably time to start spending some of it on mail.
Full disclosure, I donated to Arora and have volunteered for him.
Adam
Ben Kramer is the only incumbent in the race and is certain to come back. That leaves two seats for three quality candidates: Sam Arora, Bonnie Cullison and Jay Hutchins.
Lots of sources in the district are picking Arora to finish second. He started early, has the most money, has been working the hardest and has performed well in candidate forums. He does not have the Apple Ballot, but he does have the Post endorsement, and this may be one district where the Post is as, or maybe even more, important than the Apple. Arora has been all over Leisure World and his signs sprouted first around the district, but Hutchins has nearly caught up in the sign war. Arora has problems: he started as a complete unknown, has little history in the district before running for office and some say his campaign has petered out a little bit. But most of our informants say that he has run the best campaign of any Delegate candidate and that could get him to Annapolis.
If Arora wins, Cullison and Hutchins will square off for the remaining seat. Cullison scored a huge win by getting the Post endorsement, and her supporters can point to that as a sign that she is not merely a creature of MCEA. Hutchins is hustling and is liked by nearly everyone who meets him. Cullison’s campaign gets low marks for execution and Hutchins has more money, but Cullison benefits from being the most viable woman in the race. Our sources are flipping coins on this one, but the Post could make the difference for Cullison in the end. The result could easily depend on absentees and provisionals.
More tomorrow!
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Primaries to Watch V, Part Two
By Marc Korman and Adam Pagnucco.
Here are races Eight and Seven!
8. District 14 Delegate Open Seat
Previous Rank: #8
Marc
Incumbent Anne Kaiser and 2002 candidate Craig Zucker are widely considered locks for two of the three Delegate seats. Zucker should probably be sweating a little just because of the uncertainty created by two open seats.
For the third seat, the crystal ball is a little cloudy. Eric Luedtke continues to chug along with door knocking and many solid endorsements. I have heard anecdotally that Jodi Finkelstein is impressing lots of people, including the Washington Post of course. Bo Newsome’s campaign had a late and real slow start, but benefits from being on the slate of incumbents plus Zucker.
It is hard to say with any certainty who breaks through here. I give the edge to Luedtke who started early when he was planning a State Senate run and is hitting so many doors, but I am probably biased.
Full disclosure, I donated to Kaiser, Luedtke, and Zucker. Neeta Datt’s son and I attended high school together. I have volunteered for Luedtke and Kaiser.
Adam
Kaiser is definitely a lock. Zucker has been a smart pick for nearly a year. Of the remaining candidates, Luedtke has the best combination of money (although not much), endorsements, door-knocking and mail. Bo Newsome may be technically on a slate with Rona Kramer, Kaiser and Zucker, but they are effectively letting him sink or swim on his own. The other candidates’ financial performances are truly woeful. One candidate whose fundraising record is unknown is Vanessa Ali, who never sent in her August 10 report and has racked up $150 in late fees.
7. District 14 State Senate Challenge
Previous Rank: #5
Marc
From where I am sitting, which is far, far away from District 14, Delegate Karen Montgomery is not picking up the momentum she needs to topple Rona Kramer despite a steady stream of door knocking. The incumbent State Senator is taking Montgomery seriously, has formed a full slate, and has the full-throated support of Ike Leggett and others as a result. To win, the challenger will need to rapidly amp up her campaign to try and demonstrate why Kramer is out of touch with primary voters.
Adam
Both candidates are working hard at crunch time. Both are mailing, both are knocking and both have allies. The unions have stepped up to help Montgomery with the first of what could be multiple independent mailers, but Kramer can always write checks to herself to counter them.
Kramer is holding an ace that has not yet been seen. It is widely known that Montgomery was in China during the critical 2007 special session and missed votes on tax hikes, slots and the budget. But it appears that she missed the 2006 special session too. She was recorded as having an “excused absence” on the only two bills to make it to the House floor during that session: a bill to crack down on sex offenders and a bill to limit increases in electricity rates. Given the recent problems with Pepco, that latter missed vote could make for a damaging mailer.
Our informants are split down the middle on this contest and many are calling it a toss-up. But when the incumbent holds the money advantage, these kinds of races usually go in their favor.
More tomorrow!
Monday, August 30, 2010
Primaries to Watch V, Part One
By Marc Korman and Adam Pagnucco.
Marc
A major fundraising report is in, the Washington Post has given its blessings from atop the mountain, mailboxes are filling up, and people who do not read this blog are finally starting to pay attention. So it is time for another installment of “Primaries to Watch.”
The problem with a list like this is it rewards bad behavior. The relatively tame District 14 and 17 State Senate challenges are not as fun to watch next to the madness of the District 16 or 19 Delegate races or the increasing nastiness of District 19 or 39 State Senate. But these races are supposed to be interesting, so here goes.
10. Hopkins vs. Berliner
Previous Rank: #10
Marc
Hopkins is hitting Berliner harder and harder through her mass emails, really taking it to him on one of his strongest issues, energy. She has attacked his loan program for home improvements, his public comments on Pepco, and his passage of a carbon tax. But it is probably too late to really change the overall momentum of the campaign. Hopkins does not have much presence outside of her geographic base of East Bethesda where she will likely do well. Berliner retains all the advantages of incumbency including a fundraising edge and most endorsements.
The Gazette endorsement is a nice feather in Hopkins’ cap and if she is thinking about her political future, she should figure out how to use big endorsements and other attributes from losing campaigns a la Laura Berthiaume (she got the Gazette in her 2006 Delegate race and later was elected to the School Board) or Ryan Spiegel (he got the Post in his 2006 Delegate race and later was elected to the Gaithersburg City Council).
More likely, Hopkins will spend the next few weeks continuing to hammer pretty hard at Berliner and try to pull out an unlikely win.
Full disclosure, I donated to Berliner in 2008 and serve on the Western Montgomery County Citizens Advisory Board with Hopkins.
Adam
Ilaya Hopkins had a lot of potential at the beginning of this race, but Berliner has totally overwhelmed her. He has run a classic incumbent campaign of reporting early money, rolling up lots of endorsements, taking the high road as she has gone negative and using his status as an incumbent to get into the Washington Post on the Pepco issue. This contest stopped being competitive when Berliner got on the Apple Ballot and now none of our informants believe Hopkins will win. She has to be kicking herself for missing out on the District 16 open seat. Hopkins would have been one of the favorites in that race.
The fact that we still have this contest at number ten illustrates how bored we are by the District 15 and 39 House primaries. Those races are midget wrestling compared to the titanic King-Ali and Lenett-Manno cage matches.
9. Council 2 Open Seat
Previous Rank: #9
Marc
There are five candidates in the race, but this one is really a three-way contest between Delegate Craig Rice, former Planning Board Chair Royce Hanson, and civic activist and prior candidate Sharon Dooley.
The stars may be aligning for Rice. He has the financial edge, strong endorsements, and is apparently the only candidate doing serious door knocking. Still, Hanson should have some latent name ID and people should be impressed by his experience. Dooley will be the only woman in the primary and has garnered substantial votes in the District before.
The winner here will face a spirited race against Robin Ficker, making this one of the more serious fall contests in the County.
Full disclosure, I have been doing some volunteer work for Craig Rice.
Adam
Craig Rice is now the favorite. He has the edge over Royce Hanson and Sharon Dooley in money, endorsements and prior electoral performance. Hanson last ran for office in 1978 (losing a Democratic County Executive primary to Charlie Gilchrist) and has half of Rice’s cash on hand. Dooley was crushed by incumbent Mike Knapp in 2006 and hasn’t changed much since then. She has almost no money. Rice worked very hard to beat popular Republican incumbent Delegate Jean Cryor in the last cycle and his Legislative District 15 precincts accounted for about 40% of the votes cast in Council District 2 in 2006. Additionally, MCEA will knock itself out on poll coverage in this district because Rice could be a swing vote on budget issues. All of this puts Rice over the top.
More tomorrow!
Friday, August 20, 2010
A Solution in Search of a Problem, Part Two
By Marc Korman.
Previously we examined the forty-one members of the Montgomery County Council since the current Charter was adopted. We found that only five Councilmembers have exceeded the proposed term limit Robin Ficker is promoting.
Examining those five individuals, I will demonstrate why a term limits amendment is unnecessary:
Neal Potter
Potter was elected with the first County Council under the new Charter in 1970 and served five consecutive terms until 1990, exceeding the proposed limit by two. County residents were so outraged by Potter’s mad grab for power that they elevated him to County Executive, ousting an incumbent to do so no less. After one term as County Executive, Potter returned to the Council which would be acceptable under the Amendment because it was non-consecutive.
William Hanna
Hanna was elected in 1982 and reelected three more times, serving until 1998 and exceeding the term limit proposal by one term. Why did Hanna step down given his clear domination and entrenchment in Rockville? Oh, wait, he did not step down. He was defeated for reelection by Phil Andrews in 1998. Obviously the dreaded power of incumbency only took Hanna so far before a young and hungry politico was able to defeat him in an open and democratic election.
Michael Subin
Subin was first elected in 1986 and was reelected four more times, exceeding the term limit proposal by two elections. Again, why would the entrenched incumbent feeding off the government trough retire from his cushy lifestyle? Oh, wait, he also was ousted in an open and democratic election in 2006 as a new wave of at-large Councilmembers defeated Subin and took the seat left vacant by Steve Silverman.
Ike Leggett
Leggett served four terms on the County Council between 1986 and 2002. He was not defeated for reelection but stepped down voluntarily. But what did the voters do once they were rid of his terrible long term reign on the Council? They elected him County Executive in 2006. Clearly they were so outraged by his long term tenure on the Council that they wanted to ensure he would not return….by electing him to higher office.
Marilyn Praisner
And now we come to the most outrageous name on the list, Marilyn Praisner. First elected in 1990 and subsequently reelected in every election up to 2006. When she passed, she was serving her fifth term of terror on the Council. There is no pithy ending to Ms. Praisner’s term on the Council. She passed away and left eight politicians without their compass or most experienced voice. She was never defeated for reelection or elevated to higher office.
That is what the Ficker proposal comes down to, Marilyn Praisner. Based on the Amendment, she is the problem. The other four cannot be because they were not so entrenched as to avoid losing reelection to the Council or so hated for their incumbency that they were denied higher office by the voters in open elections when they left their safe seats. The lack of term limits did nothing to stop the voters from elevating or discarding them.
So if you think Marilyn Praisner was the problem on the County Council, then please go ahead and sign the Term Limits proposal and vote “yes” if it appears on the ballot. But if you think the voters can be trusted to enforce their own term limits through elections and that if we want to keep sending Marilyn Praisners back to the Council, we should be allowed, then say no thanks and vote accordingly.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
A Solution in Search of a Problem, Part One
By Marc Korman.
Signatures are being collected for a Charter Amendment proposed by Robin Ficker to limit Montgomery County Councilmembers and County Executives from serving more than three consecutive terms. We have a solution! But what’s the problem?
The proposed term limits language is available here. To summarize, starting in 2014 Councilmembers or Executives cannot serve more than three consecutive terms, but they can serve additional terms if they are non-consecutive. For example, County Executive Doug Duncan served three terms from 1994 to 2006. But under the proposal he would not be barred from seeking a fourth term in 2014 because it would be non-consecutive.
So there is the solution, now what is the problem? There are some generic reasons for promoting term limits such as ousting “entrenched politicians” and ensuring a citizen-legislature. My own view, based on seeing term limits play out in California, is they actually have the opposite effect and elected officials spend too much time hunting for their next office and not enough time doing their jobs. It also ensures that once elected officials have a certain level of experience, they will be shown the door.
But generic discussions aside, what would the effect of term limits actually be in Montgomery County? Let’s take a look.
Since the charter establishing the County Council-County Executive form of government was enacted in 1970, there have been forty-one individual members of the County Council including those elected or appointed mid-term.
Seventeen of the forty-one served only one term or a partial term, which includes incumbents currently serving their first term such as Roger Berliner, Nancy Navarro, Valerie Ervin, Marc Elrich, and Duchy Trachtenberg.
Eleven of the forty-one have served two terms or one term plus a partial term, such as Howard Denis who was elected midway through a term and then reelected to his own.
Eight of the forty-one were elected to three terms, including current Councilmember Phil Andrews and other well known names (among readers of this blog anyway) such as Derick Berlage, who did not complete his third term due to appointment to the Planning Board, and Esther Gelman.
That leaves just five Councilmembers who have ever exceeded the proposed term limit. Incidentally, just one Councilmember surpassed the proposed term limit during the Councils that existed prior to the County Executive between 1949 and 1970. That Councilman was Grover K. Walker, who served four terms.
So maybe the term limit is not such a bad idea, since it won’t really have much effect? Let’s take a look at who these five dastardly people are who overstayed their welcome due to their thirst for power:
Neal Potter
William Hanna
Michael Subin
Ike Leggett
Marilyn Praisner
Now I know what you are thinking. There are some good people on this list, but maybe some did overstay their welcome a bit. We will address these five individuals in Part Two.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Marc Korman's Central Committee Letter
Marc is running for reelection to a seat on the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee in District 16.
PLEASE VOTE IN THE SEPTEMBER 14th PRIMARY FOR
MARC KORMAN
---
CANDIDATE FOR DISTRICT 16
MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE
MARC KORMAN
---
CANDIDATE FOR DISTRICT 16
MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE
Dear District 16 Democrat,
When you head to the polls in September and get down to the bottom of the ballot, please make sure you cast a vote to reelect me, Marc Korman, to the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee for District 16.
As you know, the Central Committee is the governing body of the Montgomery County Democratic Party. With your help, we raise funds for Democrats, staff the polls on Election Day, and help get out the Democratic message. These past few years have been an unparalleled success: the County Council and our legislative delegation to Annapolis are entirely Democratic and President Obama won more votes in Montgomery County than any previous Democratic presidential nominee.
Working alongside my District 16 colleagues Karen Britto and Simon Atlas, as well as each of you, I have helped keep the Democrats strong in Montgomery County. Among the accomplishments we have achieved together are:
• Grassroots: Making District 16 home to the best staffed precinct organization in the state. All 33 precincts in the district are staffed with chairs, vice chairs, and other volunteers to work the polls on Election Day, bring new voters into the Democratic Party, and spread our message. The precinct organization exists thanks to you, the amazing and hardworking political activists of District 16 who comprise it.
• Fundraising: Raising approximately $100,000 for the County Democrats by putting together the annual Spring Ball program book for the past four years. The program book, seen by the more than 500 attendees at our annual Spring Ball, is filled with advertisements from elected officials, candidates, unions, local businesses, and activists. It is a major source of funds for the County Democrats.
Co-chairing the Democratic Forum, one of the Democratic Party’s donor clubs. For a fixed price, committed Democrats donate to the organization and get to attend special events. Events we have organized have included presentations by elected officials such as Michigan Congressman John Conyers, political pundits including Congressional commentator Norm Ornstein, and campaign operatives including those from the Democratic National Committee. You can learn more at www.mcdcc.org.
• Outreach: Bringing new community members into the Democratic Party through events such as the fall 2007 fundraiser with the Maryland Democratic Party Chair, working closely with the District 16 Democratic Club and the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Democratic Breakfast Club, and successfully recruiting new people into the precinct organization.
Working to modernize the Democratic Party’s outreach by establishing better email communications and a Facebook page. You can “friend” us at “Montgomery Dems” on Facebook.
• Election Reform: Working with the Democratic Party’s Issues Committee to promote important issues such as: early voting, making it easier to register to vote, and ensuring Democrats’ ability to speak to voters at the polls.
I have only started this job and want to do more for you. The names of the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee candidates will be on your primary ballot; so, when you walk into the polling booth on September 14, 2010 I ask that you vote for me along with my District 16 teammate Almina Khorakiwala and at-large candidates Simon Atlas, Alan Banov, Vivian Malloy, Sandy Raymond, Elly Shaw-Belblidia, Venattia Vann, Marie Wallace and Janet Williams. Together, we can keep working hard to keep the Democratic Party vibrant and strong in Montgomery County.
You can vote at your regular polling place on Tuesday, September 14th or at an early voting location from September 3rd to September 9th (except on Sunday) between the hours of 10:00am and 8:00pm. The two most convenient locations for District 16 residents are the Executive Office Building at 101 Monroe Street in Rockville or the Silver Spring Civic Center on Fenton Street in Downtown Silver Spring.
Although I want your vote, I also want your involvement. If you would like to know more about the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee, volunteer in some new capacity, or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 240/447-1175 or [email protected].
Thank you for your support and do not forget to vote on September 14th.
Sincerely,
Marc Korman
District 16
Montgomery County
Democratic Central Committee
Endorsed By District 16 Residents Including
Attorney General Doug Gansler
State Senator Brian Frosh
Delegate Bill Bronrott
Delegate Susan Lee
Delegate Bill Frick
Delegate Karen Britto
Councilman Roger Berliner
Simon Atlas
Paul Mandell
Susie Turnbull
Sue Byrnes
Matt Herrmann
Roxana Olivas
Jim Mercurio
Jeffrey Slavin
Jon Weintraub
Ben Ross
Lucy Freeman
By Authority of Friends of Marc Korman
Karen Britto, Chair
Mark Brown, Treasurer
4850 Montgomery Lane Bethesda, MD 20814
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Notes and Observations in District 16
By Marc Korman.
The race for District 16 is heating up with 13 candidates and 100 degree temperatures. Here are a few random notes and observations from the front, combined with some free advice to the candidates.
For those not living and breathing the race, the 13 candidates are: Incumbents Bill Frick; and Susan Lee; Attorney and former District 19 Democratic Club Officer John Adams; Attorney and repeat candidate Charlie Chester; Attorney Peter Dennis, also the son of Civic Federation President Peggy Dennis; Town of Somerset Councilman Bill Farley; Real estate management business owner and Montgomery County Young Democrats President Scott Goldberg; Attorney Craig Herskowitz; Attorney and health policy strategist Hrant Jamgochian; Former NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Executive Director and MomsRising’s Director for Environmental and Workplace issues Ariana Kelly; Former Obama campaign staffer Kyle Lierman, also the son of local political bigwig Terry Lierman; Common Cause Board Member Michael Sriqui; And attorney and former Housing Opportunities Commission Chair Mark Winston. Whoa, that’s a lot of candidates.
The District 16 Democratic Club hosted a forum for all of the Delegate candidates at the Bethesda Library last week. Twelve of the candidates, including the two incumbents, attended. Craig Herskowitz was out of town for work but had a statement read.
The consensus among the individuals I spoke to were that the big winners were the two incumbents, Bill Frick and Susan Lee, and challenger Scott Goldberg. Other candidates had high points, but these three were consistently great. Frick and Lee were essentially endorsed by all of the other challengers during a question about what legislator you would like to emulate, cementing the impression that the 11 challengers are fighting for one open seat. Goldberg’s one two punch of strong and humorous delivery plus real policy proposals stood out even to those in the capacity crowd supporting other challengers. The funniest moment of the debate belonged to the moderator, who gave the field a grand total of 15 seconds to explain how they would solve the budget deficit.
The Bethesda-Chevy Chase Breakfast Club is also working its way through the challengers. The first installment featured Bill Farley, Craig Herskowitz, Ariana Kelly, and Kyle Lierman. Also in attendance was District 18 Challenger Dana Beyer. The moderator was kind enough to grant the candidates a grand total of 30 seconds to explain their approach to the budget.
Herskowitz has staked his campaign on speed cameras and constituent service, pretty much declining to comment on other issues and referring individuals to his website. Although no one loves the speed cameras, my own view is that he cannot mount a successful campaign in a crowded field on these narrow issues alone and should talk about some of his other ideas along with these passions.
Kelly and Lierman seem to view the race as between them, at least when they appear together. That thinking is understandable given that MPW and others have consistently cited them as the frontrunners. They both have a strong ground game and the resources to win. But I would just remind them that a race with two perceived frontrunners often creates opportunities for Trojan horse candidates (Just ask Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt about Iowa in 2004). With so many candidates in the field, there are plenty of places for voters to turn besides Lierman or Kelly.
Bill Farley is a Town of Somerset Councilmember, making him the only challenger with elected office experience and giving him a stronghold in one of the top performing precincts in the primary. I have no idea if he is working the doors or has money for mail, but he has a good candidate profile. However I am not sure what his message is and his approach to the Purple Line should also be explained. He supports starting over with some type of trench or cut and cover approach. That is an unrealistic option at this stage and in practical terms means Farley opposes the Purple Line.
If you care about the lawn sign primary, which does not win elections but is fun for bloggers, Lierman, Jamgochian, and the incumbent team have a strong start in Bethesda with a sprinkling of other candidates as well. I have not been to the northern or western portions of the district lately to see the signs there. So far the only mass mail I have received is from Mark Winston and Michael Sriqui.
Based on my conversations and impressions in the district, candidates are distinguishing themselves in many ways. Hrant Jamgochian is impressing people with his smarts, nice guy approach, and health care background. Winston is picking up what I view as strong endorsements including Ike Leggett’s and the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce. Many long time District 16 residents I speak with think highly of Charlie Chester and his experience.
My advice to the candidates? Keep knocking on doors and stay hydrated.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Herman Taylor’s FEC Report
By Marc Korman.
Wondering why the 4th Congressional District is not one of our “Primaries to Watch?” Wonder no more.
According to Delegate Herman Taylor’s quarterly campaign finance report, he has a grand total of $6,646 cash on hand having raised just $4,000 during the quarter. The report also indicates Delegate Taylor has spent no money out of his federal account thus far. Back in January, the Congressional hopeful had no funds left in his state campaign account.
Meanwhile, Congresswoman Donna Edwards raised $131,294 over the past three months and has over $200,000 cash on hand. Congresswoman Edwards had a slow fundraising year in 2009. She reported just $56,000 cash on hand at the end of last year, a pretty low figure for an incumbent. She began increasing her fundraising activity when Prince George’s State’s Attorney Glenn Ivey threatened to run against her and has not let up since.
Money alone cannot win the election, but the disparity between the two candidates means that absent a scandal of Watergate proportions, Congresswoman Edwards will be nominated for another term.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Primaries to Watch IV, Part Five
By Marc Korman and Adam Pagnucco.
Here are the Top Two Primaries to Watch!
2. District 19 State Senate
Previous Rank: #3
Marc
My view on this race has evolved since our last installment. Manno has been extremely aggressive in lining up district-based support and going after endorsements. Although he did not get the Apple Ballot, his letter campaign to try to force the teachers into supporting him showed some strength. There is not a great issue-based rationale for choosing Manno over Lenett or vice versa. Manno is trying to make the race about personality and leadership. As I have said before, Lenett will work hard to keep his seat. These are two ambitious guys who have a lot more in common than they care to admit.
Adam
Under normal circumstances, an incumbent like Mike Lenett would not be endangered. He has a lot of money, works the district hard, has a good base of support and has a liberal voting record that will appeal to MoCo Democratic primary voters. Incumbents get into trouble for being lazy, making lots of enemies at home or voting against their districts. Lenett has committed none of those sins. All of this plus his intelligence, energy and institutional support make him a very formidable incumbent.
But Roger Manno is not an ordinary challenger. He has many of the same advantages that Lenett possesses: good financing, a base inside the district, campaign know-how and more endorsements than challengers usually get. Manno is also a very likable liberal who wears his heart on his sleeve and tends to attract true believers to his cause. Lenett’s task is to thwart Manno’s personal appeal. Manno’s task is to establish a contrast with an incumbent who agrees with him on almost every issue. Our informants are divided right down the middle on who will win and that makes this an exciting race.
The X-Factor could be Delegate Ben Kramer, who is running for reelection. Kramer and Manno are something of an Odd Couple. They share a suite in Annapolis and occasionally disagree on issues, but they have established a very constructive working relationship. Your author has never heard of one disparaging the other. Kramer does not have that sort of relationship with Lenett. Kramer is very strong in Leisure World, where he crushed Nancy Navarro in last year’s special election, and in Kemp Mill, where he grew up. If Kramer throws in for Manno and helps him win Leisure World and Kemp Mill, Lenett will have to pull out all the stops to triumph.
1. District 39 State Senate
Previous Rank: #2
Marc
Nancy King just does not get it. Saqib Ali has been running against her since 2007 when she beat him for the State Senate appointment. Yet King seemed to hope against hope that Ali would not run. When I asked one of her supporters about her comments to the Washington Grove Town Council about the BOAST Bill, I was assured the reason for her lapse was because it was a few months ago before the race began. A few months ago? Ali has been running for three years, yet King seemed ill-prepared in fundraising or message.
She is finally building a serious campaign but really needs to focus on her message. Ali knows how to pick apart every vote and clearly differentiate himself as a progressive from the moderate incumbent. In a Democratic primary, that matters and King needs to understand that if she is going to return to Annapolis.
Adam
There is no doubt about it: Saqib Ali is a very talented candidate. He understands every facet of campaign operations: motivating volunteers, managing a field operation, planning and staging his mail, raising money and of course working old and new media. He already has three district-wide mailers out and has moved from biography to contrast. He will have all the resources he needs for more mailers, more door lit and more of anything he believes is necessary to win. The one thing he needs to guard against is a tendency to go overboard against his opponent.
Nancy King is a better public servant than a politician. She draws considerable respect from other elected officials and the educational community, which she served as a school board member for two terms. In person, she is an easy-going, gracious lady from upstate New York who is a good listener and never comes across as a self-promoter. She is also not the conservative knuckle-dragger that Ali is trying to define her as.
But that definition battle is the story of the campaign so far. Ali is very actively defining himself as the progressive and King as the conservative. King does not seem to be trying to define either of them. It is not necessary for King to respond to every one of Ali’s attacks, but her surrogates should rally to her defense. Where are her teammates, Delegates Charles Barkley and Kirill Reznik? Where are her long-time supporters inside the district? When Ali goes after King on education, why not ask MCEA to do a robocall defending King? And why not put Ali on the defensive? His record in Annapolis contains as many opportunities for mischief as does King’s.
Two months ago, the consensus was that King was the favorite. Now an increasing number of our sources are predicting an Ali victory, though they are not a majority. Anything – ANYTHING – could happen in this race, and that is why it is our Number One Primary to Watch.
That’s all for now, folks!
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Primaries to Watch IV, Part Four
By Marc Korman and Adam Pagnucco.
Here are races Four and Three!
4. Council At-Large
Previous Rank: #4
Marc
For a race with all four incumbents running, there is a lot of action here. With the filing deadline behind us, there are six challengers. Of the six, I would argue that at this point only two are serious contenders to knock off an incumbent: Hans Riemer and Becky Wagner. Both are running hard campaigns all around the County and secured the Apple Ballot. Riemer also nabbed the Post endorsement. Jane de Winter has also been running for fifteen months and working hard.
But the real question is whether any incumbent is actually vulnerable. Nancy Floreen was the loser in the Apple Ballot sweepstakes, but she has won without it twice before. Duchy Trachtenberg seems to be a popular target, but she has $350,000 which pays for a lot of mail. Marc Elrich will probably have the least money, but he has strong grassroots support and candidates in every race are praising his Bus Rapid Transit plan. The Apple Ballot and Post stamp of approval help his profile too. George Leventhal, the primary vote leader in 2006, seems to be the favorite for that slot again. Even the Washington Post gave him some praise while declining to endorse him, a courtesy they did not extend to many others they did not support.
There are some great challengers, but who are they going to beat?
Full disclosure, I am a public supporter of Hans Riemer.
Adam
The last assessment by the spies still mostly holds. There is a significant sentiment that all four incumbents will win. There are also those who think that Hans Riemer will beat one of them, although educated observers differ on whether Duchy Trachtenberg or Nancy Floreen is more vulnerable. Riemer is running the best campaign of any candidate and he is flying high because he and incumbent Marc Elrich are the only at-large contenders to get both the Apple Ballot and the Post endorsement. Becky Wagner has a lot of respect in some quarters of the county and still has an outside shot as long as she stays on message and avoids spats and rants. The Post is trying to pin all the county’s budget problems on incumbent George Leventhal, but the newspaper by itself cannot prevent him from coming back. We have noticed that the incumbents mainly bring their families or their council staffers to parades and other events, meaning that their ground games are not awesomely strong.
There are various phenomena operating just under the surface in the at-large campaign. They include:
1. The Possibility of Slates.
Last fall, many speculated that the Council Members who backed Nancy Floreen for President (Floreen, George Leventhal, Mike Knapp, Valerie Ervin and Nancy Navarro) might form a slate and try to knock out one of the other four. That idea was dashed by Ervin when she announced that challenger Hans Riemer was the only at-large candidate she would be backing. Now it seems more likely that at least some of the other four council incumbents – Roger Berliner, Phil Andrews, Duchy Trachtenberg and Marc Elrich – will be cooperating formally or informally. If they do, one of their priorities will be ensuring that Elrich, who refuses developer contributions, will have enough money to finance his mail. They may also choose to back an at-large challenger if they can find one who is both viable and politically acceptable.
2. Target: Floreen
Accordingly, some or all of the above four may go after Floreen. None of them agree with her on growth policy, none were impressed with her handling of the budget and all were unhappy at her successful wresting of the council presidency from Berliner. Now that she has been rejected by MCEA, some smell blood in the water. We have heard from multiple sources that there is a significant possibility that Floreen will be targeted by negative mail, either by a slate including one or more of the four who did not back her for the presidency or by an “independent” entity supported by them. Since Andrews has no opponent, Berliner is pulling away from Hopkins and Trachtenberg has more money than several regional banks, there is more than enough campaign cash to spare for a mailer or two against Floreen. Leventhal is not viewed as vulnerable enough for such tactics to have effect.
3. County Executive 2014
In part, the at-large race will be affected by the dynamics of the impending contest to succeed Ike Leggett in 2014. Leventhal is likely to run. Ervin would be foolish not to consider it, and she is no fool. There may be others. If Leventhal finishes first and Riemer does not win, Leventhal will project early strength for the Executive race. If Riemer wins with strong support from District 5 and non-white precincts, Ervin will look like a king-maker. If Riemer scores close to Leventhal or even outpolls him, Ervin will look even more formidable. But if Marc Elrich finishes first, his name will be bandied about. Trust us: all capable politicians think more than one step ahead, and the County Executive’s seat is a big step indeed.
3. District 17 State Senate
Previous Rank: #1
Marc
The rumor is that Jennie Forehand has begun to work, but what took her so long? Why let Cheryl Kagan get such a head start when the challenger has been open about her campaign for over a year? If Forehand loses, I think the post-mortem on her campaign will focus on the past year and Forehand’s failure to understand she was facing a serious threat. A similar scenario has unfolded in District 39. On the other hand, if Forehand pulls out a victory it will demonstrate the power of incumbency and slates.
Adam
Cheryl Kagan has the complete package for a candidate: smarts, savvy, charm, speaking ability, experience in campaigning and office-holding, work ethic and a methodical approach to the business of politicking. She is the kind of challenger that would pose problems for any incumbent and is running perhaps the best campaign in the county. But she has a conundrum to resolve: how to give voters a reason to get rid of Forehand. The incumbent is a pleasant, gracious and long-serving politician who has built up a base among regular, older voters who tend to dominate primaries with low turnout. Kagan has not tried to build a contrast with Forehand. It’s tricky given that the two have similar policy positions and no one wants to come across as beating up the nice grandmotherly lady next door.
If Forehand lets Kagan continue to hustle rings around her, she will lose. But if she picks it up, she could still survive.
We reveal the final two tomorrow!
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Primaries to Watch IV, Part Three
By Marc Korman and Adam Pagnucco.
Here are races Six and Five!
6. District 16 Open Seat
Previous Rank: #7
Marc
Chaos is the order of the day in District 16. There are thirteen candidates vying for three Delegate seats. Perhaps that should not be a surprise since eleven ran for one seat in 2007 when Delegate Frick was appointed. It is an odd race. One of the incumbents has never run before, one of the challengers has run five times, and the district has little to drive turnout at the top of the ticket.
Obama campaign staffer Kyle Lierman, business owner and Montgomery County Young Democrats President Scott Goldberg, and former NARAL Executive Director Ariana Kelly have been the most active thus far. But Mark Winston is coming out strong with Ike Leggett’s endorsement and Hrant Jamgochian has been carpet bombing the district with signs and campaign frisbees.
Bill Frick and Susan Lee have been canvassing with teammate Brian Frosh and few have anything bad to say about them. Frosh has really stepped up for Frick and Lee, spending lots of time door knocking despite not having a primary and being the heavy favorite in November. Most people think the real fight is for the third Delegate slot. With a race this crowded with a low turnout, it could be anyone’s for the taking.
A fun little note is that one of the three Republicans waiting in the general will be Prince Arora, who ran as a Democrat for the appointment in 2007.
Full disclosure, I am a member of the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee from District 16 and have supported Bill Frick.
Adam
There are too many candidates in this race. Most of them will get lost in the shuffle and District 16 residents will learn to get very acquainted with throwing out mailers. This greatly helps incumbents Susan Lee and Bill Frick, who should win solidly by racking up institutional support and cash and running with Senator Brian Frosh.
So for the challengers, how do you stand out? There are usually two ways to do so: endorsements and money. Ariana Kelly is the early endorsement leader, collecting support from MCEA, NARAL, NOW and SEIU. There could be more to come. Kyle Lierman will rely on his famous last name and his Obama connections to raise great heaping gobs of cash. Kelly is the only female Democratic candidate other than Lee and Lierman’s campaign experience is unparalleled. All of these factors make these two stand out.
The others are all white males who will probably wind up agreeing on most issues. As the deluge of literature begins to swamp mailboxes, voters will have a hard time telling them apart. These candidates must figure out a way to break out from the pack. Could it be Mark Winston, who was endorsed by Ike Leggett? Could it be Young Dems leader Scott Goldberg? Could it be someone else? Or will this be a Kelly-Lierman race? It’s too early to tell.
5. District 14 State Senate Challenge
Previous Rank: #5
Marc
Karen Montgomery is knocking on doors and talking about progressive issues. Rona Kramer has slated up with incumbent Delegate Anne Kaiser, and Delegate candidates Craig Zucker and Bo Newsome and is talking about Montgomery missing the 2007 Special Session. Absenteeism is an old, effective campaign favorite and Kramer will make a big deal out of it. Both candidates are out working but given Kramer’s money this is a real uphill climb for Montgomery. Progressives are happy to have a champion talking about issues such as the death penalty, but it may not be enough against the entrenched Kramer.
Adam
Jamie Raskin toppled Ida Ruben in 2006 in part by tapping into a wave of progressive activism in Silver Spring and Takoma Park. One of the questions in this cycle has been where those progressives would wind up. A school of thought held that many of them would head up US-29, New Hampshire Avenue and Georgia Avenue to help a credible liberal defeat Rona Kramer. So where are they?
This race is behaving rather predictably so far. Montgomery is racking up endorsements from unions and environmentalists. Kramer has assembled a slate for self-defense and will soon be spending lots of money on mail. If Montgomery’s endorsements are accompanied by real live boots on the ground, she has a chance. Otherwise, Kramer is going to win.
More tomorrow!
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Primaries to Watch IV, Part Two
By Marc Korman and Adam Pagnucco.
Here are races Eight and Seven!
8. District 14 Delegate Open Seats
Previous Rank: #8
Marc
The dust is still settling in District 14 where eight candidates are running for three seats. The safe money seems to be on two term incumbent Anne Kaiser returning to Annapolis. She even worked hard in 2006 when there was little primary suspense. Confidence is high for Craig Zucker as well, who is slating with Kaiser and State Senator Rona Kramer.
As I wrote previously, there has been a strong push for an African American candidate in District 14 (Ike Leggett’s home district). Kramer, Kaiser, and Zucker are adding 2006 County Council candidate Bo Newsome to their team. Newsome received 7.56% of the vote in District 14 when he ran for Council, a distant sixth. Though he did do better in District 14 than he did Countywide, where he registered 5.91%. However, Newsome did get the Washington Post endorsement and ran what was considered a credible campaign. Being on the slate will be a big boost for Newsome, but it does not give him a free pass by all of the other candidates in the field.
Those other candidates are led so far by Eric Luedtke. Luedtke has been running hard for months, bringing home endorsements, and most importantly knocking on lots and lots of doors. Others in the field include Jodi Finkelstein, Vanessa Ali, Neeta Datt, and Gerald Roper.
Full disclosure, I donated to Kaiser, Luedtke, and Zucker. Neeta Datt’s son and I attended high school together.
Adam
Kaiser and Zucker are going to win, so the question in this race applies to the remaining Delegate seat. I am a bit puzzled about why Kaiser and Zucker chose to align with Newsome. It makes sense for Rona Kramer, who would like to have African-American votes in her race against Karen Montgomery. It also looks like payback by Kramer against Eric Luedtke, who briefly explored a run against Kramer last fall. But Kaiser and Zucker do not need Newsome, or even a slate of any kind, to win. And since Luedtke is a favored son of many parts of the county’s progressive community, there has been pushback against what is perceived by some as an attempt to keep him out of Annapolis.
But in the end, the slate’s actions probably don’t matter all that much. Luedtke has the endorsements and is doing the work necessary to win. The other third-seat Delegate candidates have not put together solid campaigns yet and it’s getting late – maybe too late.
7. District 19 Delegate Open Seats
Previous Rank: #6
Marc
With Delegate Ben Kramer opting for reelection, District 19 had to settle for two open seats. Most of the five non-incumbents running have been hustling for months. Hustle is what they will have to do from now until September 14th. There is no favorite in this race and each candidate brings their own strengths and weaknesses.
If I had to give one candidate the edge, it would probably be Sam Arora due to his resources and door knocking thus far. I do not live in District 19, but I have not heard of any of the challengers doing as much as Arora yet. That said, Cullison and Hutchins have the Apple Ballot and Hoan Dang has been out and about for months. If you live in District 19, expect to hear your doorbell a lot.
Full disclosure, I donated to Sam Arora.
Adam
Ben Kramer will go back to the statehouse because of his name recognition from last year’s special election, his twin base in Leisure World and Kemp Mill, his famous surname and his family fortune. That leaves three competitive candidates for two seats.
Bonnie Cullison has lots of endorsements, is the only woman in the race other than late filer Vivian Scretchen and is a good speaker with a personality that should appeal to voters. She is the only candidate in the district who can claim to be a leader on the county’s number one issue – education. Her campaign took a long time to come together but we hear she is now out on the doors. Additionally, MCEA will be heavily invested in sending its former President to Annapolis. Jay Hutchins is a very likable person with a good biography and lots of endorsements, including the Apple Ballot. But some think he is not yet working hard enough to fend off Sam “Hunk of the Hill” Arora, who is coming on with a real head of steam. Arora has bundles of money, a whole bunch of campaign savvy and is out-hustling everybody. Any two of these three could win. One question still lingers: how will the intensely competitive Senate race affect the Delegate race?
More tomorrow!
Monday, July 12, 2010
Primaries to Watch IV, Part One
By Marc Korman and Adam Pagnucco.
Marc
Adam Pagnucco has been temporarily dragged out of retirement for another installment of Primaries to Watch. With the filing deadline behind us, the races are set for the September 14th primary.
Adam
Look folks, I am just as unhappy with the lack of mainstream media coverage of our council and state legislative primaries as you are, so I am going to help Marc with this series just this once. If there are any typos in my commentary, it means the Little Man has poured milk onto the keyboard. Off to the Top Ten most interesting primaries in MoCo!
Marc
Off the list:
District 39 Delegate Open Seat - There’s still plenty of action in District 39, but with Shane Robinson racking up endorsements, Bob Hydorn strong in Montgomery Village and the incumbents working hard, this is the calmest of the open Delegate seats. We only have ten slots and District 39 Delegate just does not make the cut.
10. Hopkins vs. Berliner
Prior Rank: #10
Marc
Ilaya Hopkins’ biggest coup since our last installment was securing the endorsement of Doug Duncan, still a strong name among Democratic primary voters. Berliner has taken Hopkins’ challenge seriously and they are both working the district hard. So far, the two have met for one debate which depending on who you talk to was a resounding victory for both candidates.
Berliner has done a good job of reminding folks about some of the good things he has done and has lined up lots of community support, got the Apple Ballot, and most recently was endorsed by the Washington Post. Hopkins has not needled Berliner as sharply as she probably needs to on some of his weak spots. She has the hot summer at door steps and at least two more debates to do so. As with most races, the next big milestone in this one will be the campaign finance reports. Hopkins is knocking on doors, but will she have the resources to compete with Berliner at the mailbox?
Full disclosure, I donated to Berliner in 2008 and serve on the Western Montgomery County Citizens Advisory Board with Hopkins.
Adam
Roger Berliner has run a classic incumbent campaign. First, he locked up a huge district resident supporter list a month before challenger Ilaya Hopkins announced. Next, he showed a cash balance of nearly $100,000 in his January campaign finance report. Then he began rolling out waves of endorsements. All of this persuaded MCEA to put him on the Apple Ballot because they figured he was going to win.
Ilaya Hopkins is not a bad candidate. To the contrary – she was one of the district’s most prominent civic activists and had a good deal of potential six months ago. But there’s nothing that most challengers can do when an incumbent without an obvious problem executes the above strategy as well as Berliner has. A challenger in Hopkins’ position has three choices: withdraw, run a polite campaign with an eye on the future, or go negative in a long shot to win. Hopkins appears to have picked the third option as she has hit Berliner again and again and even went after one of his supporters on her website. Adding to Hopkins’ problems is the impending mail barrage by District 16 Delegate candidates that will bury her literature under piles of other candidates’ pieces. Now that the Post has endorsed Berliner, this race is almost over.
9. Council District 2 Open Seat
Prior Rank: None
Marc
District 2 has seen a lot of action the past few weeks. The district went from a rematch between Sharon Dooley and Mike Knapp to a face-off between Delegate Craig Rice and Dooley, his former supporter. Now the race has been shaken up by the entry of two-time former Planning Board Chair Royce Hanson.
Each candidate has their strengths. Dooley has run for the seat before and knows the district well. Rice won a tough election in 2006 and picked up a lot of institutional support before Hanson got into the race, including the Apple Ballot. Hanson has some name ID, will have no trouble raising money, won the Post’s endorsement and will be an ace on development issues.
Now the weaknesses. Dooley may have topped out in the “slow growth” year of 2006 with around 35%. Rice won in 2006 on a Democratic wave and had poor fundraising. Hanson has not run for office since the 1960s and may not be prepared for a grassroots, door to door campaign.
Watching this one shake out will be great fun for political junkies all summer. One key issue will be whether Hanson comes off as a responsible, experienced voice or someone bitter and dismissive of his former bosses on the County Council.
Full disclosure, I donated to Rice’s Delegate campaign.
Adam
Royce Hanson is the most intriguing candidate in the county. He has not run for office since he lost to Charlie Gilchrist in the 1978 County Executive Democratic primary. Hanson is a living legend: the father of the Ag Reserve, the inventor of many of the county’s planning tests and procedures and arguably the leading advocate of smart growth (though some disagree over how that is defined). But there are so many questions. Will Hanson hit the doors? Where will his fundraising come from? What will his message be? What does he believe about non-land use issues? If he is elected, how will he get along with a County Executive and a County Council that he frequently disagreed with as Planning Chair? Will any of the county officials with whom he fought try to block him from being elected?
Delegate Craig Rice is a good campaigner with lots of endorsements. His state Legislative District (15) accounts for at least a third of Council District 2. But he is not a great fundraiser, does not know nearly as much about the county as Hanson and the candidacy of Poolesville Commission President Eddie Kuhlman could peel away some District 15 votes. Rice will have to work hard to beat Hanson. Sharon Dooley is a veteran civic activist who works hard for her community and on behalf of progressive causes. She has always had trouble raising money and now Hanson’s candidacy threatens to draw away a great deal of her environmentalist support.
More tomorrow!
Friday, July 02, 2010
How We Can Save Democracy in Maryland, Part Two
By Marc Korman.
In Part One, I reviewed District 14 Delegate candidate Eric Luedtke’s thesis about the need for campaign finance reform in Maryland and one idea for reform. Today I will look at a few more potential reforms.
Cultural Shift
District 16 Delegate candidate Ariana “Tornado” Kelly suggested to me that a cultural shift could be one solution. All Democrats use union shops for their printing. That is part of the Democratic Party culture. So why not make campaign finance part of the Democratic culture, at least for primaries?
At the federal level, Democrats used to have a public financing culture, at least for presidential candidates. From 1976 to 2004 using the public financing system established in the wake of Watergate was the norm for Democratic Presidential Primary candidates. That ended in 2004 when Howard Dean opted out. John Kerry followed suit, as did Obama and Clinton in 2008. Obama also became the first Republican or Democratic presidential nominee to opt out of the public financing system for the general election.
Locally, District 17 State Senate candidate Cheryl Kagan has made her “Clean Seventeen” pledge that limits her own donations. One legislative candidate told me privately they could try and make an issue out of having less funding than some of their opponents to appeal to progressives. District 16 candidate Kyle Lierman has pledged to take no state or federal PAC money. If these efforts prove effective, maybe that will start a trend of Democrats voluntarily embracing less expensive campaigns.
Unfortunately, past individual pledges have not led to a broader cultural shift. Jamie Raskin does not take corporate money and Marc Elrich does not take developer funds, but that has not started a stampede of candidates following their lead.
Better Transparency
The easiest reform would be to improve transparency. Except Clarence Thomas, who even believes disclosure is too much government regulation, people of all political stripes pay lip service to improving disclosure and transparency. At the federal level, Congressman Van Hollen’s imperfect DISCLOSE Act sought, among other provisions, to strengthen disclosures of who is funding political ads. Republicans, as has become typical, failed to put their money where their mouth was and all but two voted against it.
At the state level, there are some improvements that could be made. Although it would make the job of campaign treasurer more difficult, I would like to see a publicly accessible database showing donations in almost as real time as possible. If a candidate receives a donation, that should be uploaded within some set period of time so the public can see it if they choose to. Thanks to the University of Maryland the state already has a useful database for reports, but it should be shifted to real time. Maryland already has a fairly lax process for amending reports and that should continue for honest mistakes made in the name of faster reporting.
Short of that, there is currently a black hole in Maryland campaign finance reporting schedule between January and August. With an early September primary, where many of the political decisions are made depending on the district, that is most of the election. Maryland should require at least one additional report during that time so reports can be scrutinized and be a part of the political debate where appropriate.
Luedtke is right. We need campaign finance reform. These are just a few ideas, none mutually exclusive, to pursue that goal.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
How We Can Save Democracy in Maryland, Part One
By Marc Korman.
Recently District 14 Delegate candidate Eric Luedtke wrote about the need for campaign finance reform in Maryland. If the polls are to be believed, people from across the political spectrum agree with Luedtke’s diagnosis of the problem. I am certainly not alone in the progressive community in sharing his view. Here are a few ideas, big and small, to address the concerns.
Full disclosure, I gave a campaign contribution to Luedtke.
My own, less articulate take on Luedtke’s argument is that increasing costs of local campaigns presents at least three problems. One, it is much harder for good candidates to run as the barriers to entry rise. Fundraising is a big barrier to entry. Good candidates should be able to raise funds, but the numbers are becoming astronomical. This is not to knock anyone who has successfully raised a lot of funds because they are playing by the current rules. But it should be a catalyst for reform.
Two, there is a great fear of undue influence by donors. My own view, previously stated, is that donors are building long term relationships and are not usually paying by the vote but the negative implications of that are still real.
Three, raising money takes a lot of time. That is time incumbents should be working for their constituents and challengers should be trying to meet them.
So here are a few ideas for reform from the big down to the small. But note, what follows is not a complete list. Banning corporate contributions, closing the LLC loophole, or empowering localities to enact campaign finance legislation may be sensible reforms, but I do not discuss them here:
Constitutional Amendment
The problem with a lot of public campaign finance reforms, including one that was agonizingly close to reality in Maryland back in 2009, is that the Supreme Court has not been treating them well. Although the Court has upheld the core concept of voluntary campaign finance regimes, they have mutilated many important provisions. In 2008 for example, the Supreme Court struck down the so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment.” Although not part of a public financing scheme, the “Millionaire’s Amendment” was a piece of 2002 campaign finance reform legislation that allowed a candidate running against someone who contributed a certain threshold of their own money to raise above the fundraising caps in order to level the playing field.
More recently, the Supreme Court stopped Arizona from distributing matching funds given to candidates facing privately funded challengers, again expressing skepticism about allowing public policy or finance to level the playing field and a continued interest in interfering with state campaign finance programs.
In my view, such leveling mechanisms are absolutely necessary to any statutory public finance reform because you probably cannot compel participation in public financing under the Constitution today. Without a leveling mechanism, it would be too simple for a wealthy candidate to overwhelm a publicly financed one. They may not be able to outright buy the election (just ask Ross Perot), but few campaigns would be hurt by more mail or canvassers that money can pay for.
However, this could all be addressed by a carefully crafted Constitutional amendment expressly granting Congress or the states to regulate elections notwithstanding the First Amendment or even setting up a public funding structure. That way, public financing and other campaign finance reforms could not be struck down as unconstitutional.
There are currently five Constitutional amendments pending in Congress explicitly granting the power to regulate campaign finance. Of course, passing a Constitutional amendment is a heavy lift. The last Constitutional Amendment took 202 years to be enacted. But this should be the long term goal of reformers.
In Part Two, I will look at a few more ideas.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Is There Such A Thing as Too Young?
By Marc Korman.
I am a proud, young(ish) Democrat. I have given endless hours and more money than my wife is comfortable with in support of young candidates. My first piece written for MPW was about the generational shift in the Montgomery County Delegation between 2005 and 2007. But lately I have spent some time pondering if there is such a thing as being too young for elective office.
One of the candidates in the Republican primary for Comptroller, Brendan Madigan, is 18 years old and about to start his senior year of high school. Kyle Lierman, a Delegate candidate in District 16, is 23 years old. Scott Goldberg, another District 16 challenger, is 27 years old. Eric Luedtke, District 14 Delegate candidate, is 28 years old. Does any of this matter?
Both Lierman and Goldberg cite to the same Maryland leaders who held elective office early. Ben Cardin was elected to the Maryland House of Delegates when he was just 24 and became Speaker at 35. Steny Hoyer was elected to the State Senate at 27 and was the youngest Senate President at age 35.
Others have also been young. Martin O’Malley was in his late 20s when he was elected to the Baltimore City Council and mid-30s when he rose to Mayor. Jeff Waldstreicher was just 26 when he was elected to the House of Delegates. Jeannie Haddaway from District 37B on the Eastern Shore was 26 when she entered the House. J.B. Jennings from District 7 in Baltimore and Harford Counties was 28 when he was elected to the House of Delegates in 2002.
The Maryland Constitution sets a minimum age for the House of Delegates and Senate at 21 and 25 respectively. Interestingly, it does not set an age for Comptroller but it does require the Governor and Lieutenant Governor to be at least thirty. There is no minimum age requirement for Attorney General, but an AG does have to have practiced law in Maryland for ten years prior to their election which will boost the age of any candidate.
Of course, it is not the age that matters at all but the experience and judgment. John McCain demonstrated nicely that you can be a grizzled old man and still lack the latter quality. During the 2008 primary, Barack Obama was regularly compared to John F. Kennedy. Obama was actually a bit older. He was 46 during the primaries, the same age Kennedy was when he was assassinated almost three years through his term. In fact, Obama was also older than Bill Clinton was when he took office.
Obama’s problem was not his age, it was convincing folks he had the experience and judgment necessary to be President. To briefly compare records, Kennedy was a war veteran, three term House member, and serving his second Senate term when he ran. Bill Clinton had been Arkansas Attorney General and Governor for twelve years. In my own view, Obama never quite showed he had the experience people commonly look for in president, but he did a good job showing he had the judgment running a disciplined campaign and demonstrating knowledge and wisdom on issues.
That is what young candidates need to do. They need to share their story and explain what they have done in their lives thus far to prepare them and demonstrate they have the good judgment to serve. Outside of the limits set by the Maryland Constitution, there is no age requirement and candidates should run when they feel they are ready. Then it will be up to the voters to decide if the candidate has assessed themselves appropriately.
Full Disclosure, I have donated to Eric Luedtke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
