IBRG Election Report: The Power of Democracy and a Nation of Change

ibrgIndiana Business for Responsive Government (IBRG), the non-partisan political action program of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, scored a very successful general election; 57 of 59 IBRG-endorsed candidates facing opposition were victorious, including Republicans and Democrats. Twenty additional endorsed candidates did not face general election challenges.

Eleven new legislators won with IBRG endorsements. IBRG was significantly engaged in support of five top-target candidates in open seat races, as well as successfully defending six pro-economy incumbents seriously challenged with defeat.

In a stunning Indiana election, Republicans swept all statewide races by significant margins, led by a 20 percentage point victory by Donald Trump. Not only wasn’t the scale of these win margins predicted in polling, but once again the final outcome defied expectations just months – even weeks – ago of a coming “market correction” in the GOP’s state legislative super-majority seat counts.

In the General Assembly, Republicans seriously exceeded expectations again in a volatile election environment. In the House, Democrats were able to pick-off just one first-term incumbent Republican legislator in Lake County (after an unprecedented multi-race battle in northwest Indiana for weeks), with the result being a 70-30 GOP majority next year.

In the Senate, Republicans actually managed to expand their majority by another seat to a 41-9 majority. They did so by defending two very competitive open seat races in Indianapolis and by picking up an open seat in LaPorte, largely by default from Democrats.

Twelve new members were elected to the House and nine new members to the Senate. One additional Senate seat will become vacant with a resignation and be filled by a local caucus later this year. This turnover in new seats rivals the huge numbers out of the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.

It seems that every national election in recent times has been labeled “historic” (among many other adjectives) before and after the votes are cast. Without question, the 2016 elections fit that label, but it’s really more than that. A fundamental realignment of the American electorate is well underway, driven by major upheavals and demographic shifts in this nation.

Read the full report. The report includes election results, statistics, and information on key races and new legislators. It will be updated periodically as final tallies and additional analyses are added.

2016 Primary Illustrates Rapidly Changing State, National Political Landscape

60498552To describe the 2016 primary elections in Indiana as anything less than dramatic and jarring seems an understatement. Two years ago, record low turnout tipped the balance to ideological sub-groups of motivated voters. This year, unprecedented turnout in both parties was the environment.

In the same election where Hoosier voters overwhelmingly chose “anti-establishment” leaders in Donald Trump (R) and Bernie Sanders (D) in their respective party primaries for president, Hoosier Republicans preferred by a 2-1 margin Todd Young over the conservative, Freedom Caucus poster-boy Marlin Stutzman. This seeming contradiction carried down into state legislative races.

A large majority of Hoosiers detest the federal government, distrust both political parties, and want someone or something to lash out at. With Republicans in charge of both houses of the General Assembly by strong quorum-proof majorities, if you’re looking for some political payback in Indiana, the Republicans are the ones calling the shots.

In the 2016 primary elections, only one Democrat incumbent legislator faced a primary election challenger. However, 14 Republican legislators faced primary election challengers. The 2016 primary elections – just like in 2014 – were about the Republicans.

Two years ago, candidates at the primary election faced a likewise frustrated and ideologically-driven electorate feeding tough challenges from the right. In 2014, the very low turnout election resulted in highly-energized subgroups of voters – those angry and motivated to vote against someone – to turnout to vote. This year, huge volumes of new GOP primary voters, motivated by the presidential race and “anti-establishment” anger, washed over races like tsunamis of discontent.

In state legislative races, incumbents and new candidates alike who distinguished themselves in both aggressive personal contact with voters, organized and efficient campaign operations and who positioned themselves solidly to the right or left with their party’s bases were generally successful. There were exceptions, but this continues to be the formula to win in primary elections.

A fundamental, foundational shift appears to be underway in the Hoosier electorate. This is not unique to Indiana, but the state does appear to continue to be on the cutting-edge of political conflict and change. A relatively “conservative” state in terms of culture and political attitudes, Indiana has not been a sleeper state in terms of policy and political conflict.

Back-to-back legislative battles over highly-charged social issues of abortion, LGBT civil rights protections, RFRA, and gay marriage aren’t the only policy battlegrounds. Infrastructure, tax cuts, education reforms, right to work, and more have been a focus.

There hasn’t been much “sleepy Indiana” to be found in policy debates or political activities in the state for some time. The ingredients of conflict in this political soup are a product of significant and often rapid changes in our culture, society, economy and workplaces. Our political system is where these competing priorities and often difficult personal and societal transformations are debated and competed over at the ballot box.

Indiana Business for Responsive Government (IBRG), the non-partisan political action program of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, was heavily engaged in the primary election cycle to help elect pro-jobs, pro-free enterprise candidates to the Indiana General Assembly. Unlike most other PAC programs, IBRG is not in the business of “picking the winners,” but being there to defend incumbents with strong voting records and to challenge those who do not.

IBRG continued its record of election successes with 18 of 22 endorsed primary election candidates winning.

Three Strikes, Virginians are Out (of Options)

Usually the only time you see three red X’s in a row is if you’re watching "Family Feud" and the family up to bat just struck out.

This time, however, a newspaper in Virginia has used the symbols to declare their endorsement of gubernatorial candidates. As in: none of them. Not the Republican candidate, current Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli; not the Democratic candidate, Terry McAuliffe; and not the Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis.

It’s a first for the Richmond Times-Dispatch, which recently outlined in an editorial the newspaper’s move not to endorse anyone in the upcoming race for the state’s highest office. The reasons the editorial board gave were broad: for instance, “The major-party candidates have earned the citizenry’s derision. The third-party alternative has run a more exemplary race yet does not qualify as a suitable option. We cannot in good conscience endorse a candidate for governor.”

Read the full editorial for more on the three candidates in the race and the newspaper’s decision.

There are a few themes, however, in the article that are worth highlighting. One such theme: the Democratic candidate lost out on the nomination for the same office years prior, when he and his opponent “spent the campaign spitting on each other.” For that reason, the editorial board notes that he “is not the conciliator necessary in times as nasty as these.”

Hear that refrain that is so prevalent on the national level these days? Refusing to compromise for the greater good – it sounds so familiar.

Then there’s the take on the Republican candidate. The newspaper takes issue, offense actually, at the man’s social issues, such as abortion and homosexual rights. The focus on social issues is also a common source of frustration for the (increasing number of) Americans that consider themselves moderates.

“Cuccinelli’s hostility to marriage equality offends. The rights applying to human beings by definition apply to homosexuals. The concerns relating to Cuccinelli do not relate to McAuliffe and Sarvis.”  

And then there’s the Libertarian candidate. The newspaper notes that he has no experience that would parlay into a governorship of a state (even though the candidate was kept from participating in any of the televised debates so far, so how he stacks up against the other two is mostly a mystery). Instead, the editorial goes on to mention that it takes issue with the libertarian ideology and that the candidate would “be in over his head.”

Smart political candidates will take heed of this clear example of what Americans are fed up with and stay away from the paltriness, pigheadedness and cronyism that is so prevalent in politics these days.

All I can say is: Good luck, Virginia. 

U. of Colorado Study: Romney Will Win Popular Vote

Campus Reform reports that a well-known University of Colorado study often respected for its accurate predictions reveals a 77% chance Mitt Romney will win the popular vote this November. However, as we know, the electoral college doesn’t always deliver the most popular president (and 77% isn’t exactly a sure thing). It’s simply food for thought, and a strong reminder to get to the ballot box and support your preferred candidate.

The University of Colorado (CU) prediction renowned for perfect accuracy will predict a popular-vote win for Mitt Romney later this month, Campus Reform has learned.

The poll has accurately predicted every presidential election since it was developed in 1980. It is unique in that it employs factors outside of state economic indicators to predict the next president.

CU Political Science Professor Dr. Michael Berry, who spoke with Campus Reform at length on Tuesday, said there is at least 77 percent chance that Romney will win the popular vote.

Professor Michael Berry from the University of Colorado told Campus Reform in an exclusive interview that there is a 77 percent chance Romney will win the popular vote.

“Our model indicates that Governor Romney has a 77 percent likelihood of winning the popular vote,” said Berry.

That number is significant, not only in its size, but because of the fact that only four presidents since the nation’s founding have won the presidency without capturing the popular vote, the last being George W. Bush in 2000.

Berry noted his model has never been wrong at predicting the outcome of a presidential election.

“For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner,” he said.

Berry also acknowledged that while his poll is accurate, however, that his model does not “calculate a specific confidence level for the Electoral College result.”

The study, conducted every four years, is non-political and employs historical data as well as current unemployment numbers and income levels.

In the crucial swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, a recent poll reveals that a majority of voters believe the health of the economy is the most important issue of this election.

Additionally, more than double of the respondents in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll trust Romney over Obama to fix the economic state of our country (63%-29%).

Along with the economy, unemployment adds an element which only increases the probability of the CU prediction.

“The apparent advantage of being a Democratic candidate and holding the White House disappears when the national unemployment rate hits 5.6 percent,” Berry said.

Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder adds, “the incumbency advantage enjoyed by President Obama, though statistically significant, is not great enough to offset high rates of unemployment currently experienced in many of the states.”

Note: Our comments section is currently down due to a troublesome spam issue. Please post comments on the link to this blog post on our Facebook page.

Chamber Endorses Mary Ann Sullivan for State Senate

The Indiana Chamber of Commerce announced today its endorsement of State Rep. Mary Ann Sullivan (D-Indianapolis) in her general election challenge to incumbent State Sen. Brent Waltz (R-Greenwood) for the Indiana Senate District 36 seat.  The endorsement was made by Indiana Business for Responsive Government (IBRG), the non-partisan political program of the Indiana Chamber.

“It is not an exaggeration to describe Mary Ann Sullivan as one of the hardest-working, open-minded and honorable members of the General Assembly,” said Kevin Brinegar, president of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce. “Sullivan is passionate about public service and public policy work. She has earned significant, bipartisan support among business and community leaders who believe it is time for a change in representation in Senate District 36.”

Sullivan currently serves in the Indiana House of Representatives, District 97 and was first elected in 2008.  She serves on the Commerce, Small Business and Economic Development Committee, Environmental Affairs Committee and Government and Regulatory Reform Committee. She is also a nationally-recognized leader in charter school and education reform efforts.

“I am honored to be endorsed by the Indiana Chamber, the state’s leading organization representing business,” said Sullivan. “I’m excited about Indiana’s future and I’m ready to continue to work hard to find real solutions and get things done. I’m not interested in the politics of division. I’m interested in working together to grow our economy and improve the quality of life for those I hope to represent. The south side deserves to have a true advocate in the Indiana General Assembly.”

Senate District 36 includes portions of Center and Perry townships in Marion County and a portion of northern Johnson County.

The Indiana Chamber has been the state’s leading business organization for 90 years, representing over 800,000 Hoosier workers through nearly 5,000 member companies across Indiana.

Parties Fight for U.S. Senate Majority

Republicans are vying hard to capture 51 seats in the U.S. Senate. Likely holding onto their House majority, a Senate victory would prove incredibly useful for them — even moreso if Mitt Romney were to win the Presidency, in what remains a very tight contest. Indiana is now a focal point as Richard Mourdock and Joe Donnelly are also in a remarkably close race. Brandon J. Gaylord of the Daily Caller opines on the chances of both parties:

Until “legitimate rape” became part of the political lexicon, the Republican path to a Senate majority was straightforward. Take the four Democratic seats in Nebraska, North Dakota, Missouri, and Montana, while accepting a loss in Maine, for a net of +3 Senate seats. This would create an even 50/50 split in the Senate. From that baseline the GOP would have needed to hold Scott Brown’s seat and win just one of the toss-ups in Wisconsin or Virginia. Other, less favorable options were open in Florida and Ohio.

In the past month, much has changed on the Senate landscape, but I’m still projecting the GOP will pick up three seats this November. Missouri is no longer a GOP lock. In fact, it barely qualifies as a toss-up. However, Republicans have expanded the map to compensate for the loss of one of their most favorable pick-up opportunities. In Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson survived his primary and is a consistent favorite over the Democrat, Tammy Baldwin. Josh Mandel in Ohio and Linda McMahon in Connecticut have drawn even with their Democratic opponents in recent polling. The races in Virginia and Massachusetts have hardly budged and remain true toss-ups.

Democrats have also received encouraging news. Besides a much better chance to keep Missouri, Bob Nelson is maintaining his lead in Florida, although his numbers are still very shaky for an incumbent. Democrats are also hopeful that a new round of polling will validate favorable surveys taken over the summer in Indiana and North Dakota. Despite Republicans being expected to win in North Dakota and Nebraska, Democrats believe they have superior candidates and fundraising. In Nevada, Shelley Berkley’s ethics problems have not yet hurt her campaign. She consistently trails her Republican opponent, incumbent Dean Heller, by less than five points.

Fewer Voters Blame Pres. Obama for Gas Prices

Personally, when I see a hyperpartisan political opponent of a sitting president prattle on about how he’s responsible for high gas prices, I generally roll my eyes. (Truth be told, I generally roll my eyes when hyperpartisan people say anything.) It just seems like there are a lot of factors — OPEC-related and the like — that are out of America’s hands (although President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline likely won’t help matters). But according to a recent Washington Post article, fewer voters appear to be blaming the President for lofty costs at the pump:

Back in September 2005, gas prices surged to $2.90 per gallon across the country ($3.50 in today’s dollars), largely because Hurricane Katrina had shut down production across the Gulf of Mexico — an event that couldn’t plausibly be blamed on Bush. Yet 28 percent of Americans still blamed the president anyway. (Of course, one explanation is that voters were expressing discontent with the way the Bush administration handled the aftermath of Katrina.)

This time around, meanwhile, gas prices are even higher — the national average is now $3.74 per gallon — largely due to tight supplies and tensions between the United States and Iran (and the latter situation is something the White House actually is heavily involved with). Yet only 18 percent of Americans say the president’s responsible for pump prices. The number of Americans who are refusing to assign blame has jumped. Who knows? Perhaps after years of high gas prices a sense of fatalism has set in.

This jibes with political science research finding that, for the most part, a president’s re-election doesn’t hinge on the price of gasoline. Of course, that doesn’t mean that gas prices are meaningless — or that Obama can breathe easy about the situation. If spiking oil prices end up biting into economic growth, then the president’s prospects for re-election really would start sinking. As always, the economy matters a lot.

Is the Electoral College Flunking?

I enjoyed this video about the perils of the Electoral College. Even better, the narrator referred to us as Hoosiers and not "Indianans." Thanks, guy! (However, when the video mentions Hoosiers, it shows a map of Illinois. Baby steps, I suppose.)

The video was made by a group called Americans Elect. If you’re not familiar with this organization, I suggest you give them a strong look. Their purpose is to help America circumvent the insular partisan process used to determine viable candidates, and help us actually elect the person we think is best for the job. Ideal for people like me, put off by the simplistic concept of "ideology," both parties, and the farsical production the primary process has become (opinion and contemptuous disposition are mine, not necessarily the Chamber’s).

Crowd-funding a Hot Topic for Government, Businesses

Legislation is going through the United States Congress to make it easier for small businesses in America to benefit from crowd-funding. The Wall Street Journal blog relays:

The U.S. House advanced legislation this week that would make it easier for smaller companies to raise money from investors.

House lawmakers, in overwhelming bipartisan votes, completed work Thursday on four bills as the measures drew interest in the Senate. President Barack Obama also signaled support for at least one of the bills.

Among other things, the House by a vote of 413-11 approved a bill to make it easier for companies to advertise private offerings with wealthy investors and voted 407-17 to allow startup companies to raise up to $10,000 from individuals over the Internet.

Supporters hope the bills, if signed into law, will help small firms grow in size and hire new workers.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.), who is weighing introducing capital formation legislation in the Senate, said there is widespread need for Congress to act. “Everywhere I spend time across the state I talk to small business owners and entrepreneurs that need access to capital to grow and create jobs,” Ms. Gillibrand said.

The advertising provision would end a Securities and Exchange Commission ban on “general solicitation” that effectively limits the ability of companies to reach out to potential new investors. “Under the current ban, if you have a good idea but you don’t have a prior relationship, it cuts off a whole section of investors,” said Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) said in an interview.

The Internet bill would allow startups to use “crowd-funding” methods to tap thousands of investors for very small amounts of shares without the firm having to register first with the SEC. Introduced by Rep. Patrick McHenry (R., N.C.), the bill would allow startups to raise up to $2 million through Internet solicitations and social networking and online sites designed for capital raising.

Signing While Intoxicated

Fortunately, this story isn’t from Indiana…

I know that government officials at all levels are sometimes accused of being "drunk with power," but one New New Mexico mayor takes it to a new level. The Chicago Sun-Times reports:

Mexico border town mayor and congressional candidate Martin Resendiz was drunk when he signed nine contracts with a California company that is now suing the city for $1 million, according to a deposition in the case.

“The day I signed, I had way too much to drink. It was after 5 p.m. and I signed it (the contracts) and I didn’t know what I was signing,” Sunland Park, NM, Mayor Martin Resendiz wrote in response to questions from lawyers for the architectural design firm Synthesis+. “My sister had to pick me up.”

The lawsuit claims the company is owed $1 million for work performed under the nine contracts, according to a report Thursday in the Albuquerque Journal. Sunland Park contends the contracts were not valid because they weren’t approved by the City Council.

Resendiz, a former El Paso, Texas, police officer and Sunland Park municipal judge. He has been mayor since March 2008 and has said he plans to seek the Democratic nomination to challenge Republican U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce.

Resendiz could not be reached Thursday morning but his office said it expected to issue a statement later in the day.

According to a transcript of Resendiz’s June 2010 deposition by attorney Victor Poulos, Resendiz acknowledged signing the documents in May or June 2008 after several hours of drinking with Sythesis+ executives at Ardovino’s Crossing, an Italian restaurant in Sunland Park. Among the executives present was architect Daniel Soltero.

“Again, this was after two or three hours of us drinking, not exactly the best time to do business, not exactly the best time to read over legal documents, which he (Soltero) did not portray at any time to be legal documents,” Resendiz said according to a transcript of the deposition.

City Councilor Daniel Salinas, who was also deposed, said under oath he was at the restaurant meeting and was also inebriated.

Synthesis+ officials said the mayor signed the documents in July 2008 at the Sunland Park city hall and that the mayor was sober.

Poulos said it was the first time in his 33 years of practicing law that someone had acknowledged signing a contract while drunk.