Newsday has a great feature on how Long Island voted in the 2010 campaigns. It's worth taking a look. You can see that there was a decent amount of ticket splitting across many races in Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
http://www.newsday.com/how-long-island-voted-1.2417655?raceID=8
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
RSG is nominated for the second year in a row. 'Best Public Relations Firm'.
Please vote for Roosevelt Strategy Group under the category best public relations firm.
http://bestof.longislandpress.com/vote/
Thank you Long Islanders and the Long Island Press for this recognition!
http://bestof.longislandpress.com/vote/
Thank you Long Islanders and the Long Island Press for this recognition!
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Sabato's Crystal Ball: Using the Generic Ballot to Forecast Gubernatorial Elections
Here's an interesting article from Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball - enjoy.
Using the Generic Ballot to Forecast Gubernatorial Elections
Alan I. Abramowitz, Senior Columnist
August 12th, 2010
Governors are key players in the American federal system. In addition to administering complex bureaucratic organizations with vital responsibilities and multi-billion dollar budgets, they are expected to propose their own legislative programs, work closely with their state’s congressional delegation, communicate their goals to the public, and lead their state parties in elections. Moreover, in recent years the nation’s statehouses have frequently served as launching pads for presidential campaigns. Four of the last six presidents served as governors before moving on to the White House and several of the leading contenders for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination are current or former governors.
Given the vital role of governors in American politics, it is somewhat surprising that political scientists have paid scant attention to gubernatorial elections. While there is a vast literature on congressional elections, only a handful of studies have focused on gubernatorial elections, perhaps because they appear to be so idiosyncratic—shaped by local candidates and issues. But appearances can be deceiving. I present evidence in this article that gubernatorial elections are strongly influenced by national political tides and that their outcomes can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy by the same factors that predict the outcomes of congressional elections.
Since the end of World War II there have been dramatic changes in the frequency and timing of gubernatorial elections. During the late 1940s, 22 of the 48 states elected their governors every two years and about as many gubernatorial elections took place in presidential election years as in midterm election years. Over time, however, there has been a shift from two-year to four-year terms for governors with the large majority of gubernatorial elections taking place in midterm election years. Today only Vermont and New Hampshire continue to elect their governors every two years, 34 states elect them in midterm election years only, 11 states elect them in presidential election years only, and 5 states—Virginia, New Jersey, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Kentucky—elect them in odd-numbered years.
As Larry Sabato documented in Goodbye to Good-Time Charlie, his pathbreaking 1978 book on the postwar transformation of the American governorship, the decision to hold gubernatorial and other statewide elections in midterm years was intended to insulate these contests from the potentially destabilizing effects of presidential coattails and other national political forces. However, the evidence in Figure 1 suggests that this effort has not been successful. This graph displays the change in the number of Republican governors in the 16 midterm elections between 1946 and 2006. The results show that despite the shift in the timing of gubernatorial elections, these contests have continued to be affected by national political tides. There have been dramatic swings in the outcomes of these elections with Republicans gaining as many as 10 statehouses and losing as many as 12 in a single year.
Figure 1. Net Change in Republican Governors in Midterm Elections, 1946-2006
Source: Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to U.S. Elections
Just as with seats in Congress, there is a strong tendency for the president’s party to lose governorships in midterm elections. Republicans gained governorships in 6 of 8 midterms under Democratic presidents and lost governorships in 7 of 8 midterms under Republican presidents. In general, the results of these gubernatorial elections corresponded fairly closely to the results of the U.S. House elections held at the same time—the correlation between the change in Republican governors and the change in Republican House seats is a strong .74, which is quite impressive considering the relatively small number of gubernatorial elections.
The results in Figure 1 suggest that gubernatorial elections are affected by the same national political forces that affect congressional elections. In order to test this hypothesis, I conducted a regression analysis of gubernatorial election results for the 16 midterms since the end of World War II. The dependent variable in this analysis is the change in the number of Republican governors in the election. The independent variables are the number of Republican seats up for election, to measure exposure to risk, the party of the president, coded as 1 for Republican presidents and -1 for Democratic presidents, and the Republican lead or deficit on the Gallup generic ballot question in early September, to measure the national political climate. The results of the regression analysis are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1. Results of Regression Analysis of Gubernatorial Seat Change in Midterm Elections, 1946-2006
Source: Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to U.S. Elections
Note: Dependent variable is change in number of Republican governors
These results clearly support our hypothesis: the outcomes of gubernatorial elections are strongly influenced by national political forces. All three predictors have strong and statistically significant effects. The variable with the largest influence on seat swings in gubernatorial elections is exposure to risk: the number of seats Republicans hold going into the election. The more seats Republicans hold, the more seats they can expect to lose or the fewer seats they can expect to gain. In addition, the party of the president has a substantial effect. Republicans can expect to gain about 3 seats in midterms held under Democratic presidents and lose about 3 seats in midterms held under Republican presidents after controlling for the effects of the other predictors. Finally, the national political climate, as measured by the Republican lead or deficit on the Gallup generic ballot question, has a significant effect on the outcomes of gubernatorial elections. A 10 point swing in margin, such as going from a 5 point deficit to a 5 point lead, would be expected to produce a net shift of about 2 gubernatorial seats.
The 2010 Forecast
We can use the results in Table 1 to forecast the outcome of the 2010 gubernatorial elections. The values of two of the three predictors in the model are already known: there is a Democratic president and Republicans currently hold 17 of the 37 governorships up for election this year. Only the result of the early September Gallup generic ballot question is not yet known. Therefore, Table 2 displays conditional forecasts of Republican seat gains depending on the generic ballot result.
Table 2. Predicted Results of 2010 Gubernatorial Elections based on Early September Generic Ballot
Source: Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to U.S. Elections and data compiled by author
The data in Table 2 indicate that Republicans are likely to gain between 4 and 7 governorships in this year’s elections. Since they currently control 23 statehouses, this would leave them with between 27 and 30 governorships. Since the Gallup generic ballot question has been averaging close to a tie over the past few months, the most likely outcome at this point would appear to be a Republican gain of 5 governorships which would give the GOP control of 28 of the nation’s 50 statehouses.
Using the Generic Ballot to Forecast Gubernatorial Elections
Alan I. Abramowitz, Senior Columnist
August 12th, 2010
Governors are key players in the American federal system. In addition to administering complex bureaucratic organizations with vital responsibilities and multi-billion dollar budgets, they are expected to propose their own legislative programs, work closely with their state’s congressional delegation, communicate their goals to the public, and lead their state parties in elections. Moreover, in recent years the nation’s statehouses have frequently served as launching pads for presidential campaigns. Four of the last six presidents served as governors before moving on to the White House and several of the leading contenders for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination are current or former governors.
Given the vital role of governors in American politics, it is somewhat surprising that political scientists have paid scant attention to gubernatorial elections. While there is a vast literature on congressional elections, only a handful of studies have focused on gubernatorial elections, perhaps because they appear to be so idiosyncratic—shaped by local candidates and issues. But appearances can be deceiving. I present evidence in this article that gubernatorial elections are strongly influenced by national political tides and that their outcomes can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy by the same factors that predict the outcomes of congressional elections.
Since the end of World War II there have been dramatic changes in the frequency and timing of gubernatorial elections. During the late 1940s, 22 of the 48 states elected their governors every two years and about as many gubernatorial elections took place in presidential election years as in midterm election years. Over time, however, there has been a shift from two-year to four-year terms for governors with the large majority of gubernatorial elections taking place in midterm election years. Today only Vermont and New Hampshire continue to elect their governors every two years, 34 states elect them in midterm election years only, 11 states elect them in presidential election years only, and 5 states—Virginia, New Jersey, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Kentucky—elect them in odd-numbered years.
As Larry Sabato documented in Goodbye to Good-Time Charlie, his pathbreaking 1978 book on the postwar transformation of the American governorship, the decision to hold gubernatorial and other statewide elections in midterm years was intended to insulate these contests from the potentially destabilizing effects of presidential coattails and other national political forces. However, the evidence in Figure 1 suggests that this effort has not been successful. This graph displays the change in the number of Republican governors in the 16 midterm elections between 1946 and 2006. The results show that despite the shift in the timing of gubernatorial elections, these contests have continued to be affected by national political tides. There have been dramatic swings in the outcomes of these elections with Republicans gaining as many as 10 statehouses and losing as many as 12 in a single year.
Figure 1. Net Change in Republican Governors in Midterm Elections, 1946-2006
Source: Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to U.S. Elections
Just as with seats in Congress, there is a strong tendency for the president’s party to lose governorships in midterm elections. Republicans gained governorships in 6 of 8 midterms under Democratic presidents and lost governorships in 7 of 8 midterms under Republican presidents. In general, the results of these gubernatorial elections corresponded fairly closely to the results of the U.S. House elections held at the same time—the correlation between the change in Republican governors and the change in Republican House seats is a strong .74, which is quite impressive considering the relatively small number of gubernatorial elections.
The results in Figure 1 suggest that gubernatorial elections are affected by the same national political forces that affect congressional elections. In order to test this hypothesis, I conducted a regression analysis of gubernatorial election results for the 16 midterms since the end of World War II. The dependent variable in this analysis is the change in the number of Republican governors in the election. The independent variables are the number of Republican seats up for election, to measure exposure to risk, the party of the president, coded as 1 for Republican presidents and -1 for Democratic presidents, and the Republican lead or deficit on the Gallup generic ballot question in early September, to measure the national political climate. The results of the regression analysis are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1. Results of Regression Analysis of Gubernatorial Seat Change in Midterm Elections, 1946-2006
Source: Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to U.S. Elections
Note: Dependent variable is change in number of Republican governors
These results clearly support our hypothesis: the outcomes of gubernatorial elections are strongly influenced by national political forces. All three predictors have strong and statistically significant effects. The variable with the largest influence on seat swings in gubernatorial elections is exposure to risk: the number of seats Republicans hold going into the election. The more seats Republicans hold, the more seats they can expect to lose or the fewer seats they can expect to gain. In addition, the party of the president has a substantial effect. Republicans can expect to gain about 3 seats in midterms held under Democratic presidents and lose about 3 seats in midterms held under Republican presidents after controlling for the effects of the other predictors. Finally, the national political climate, as measured by the Republican lead or deficit on the Gallup generic ballot question, has a significant effect on the outcomes of gubernatorial elections. A 10 point swing in margin, such as going from a 5 point deficit to a 5 point lead, would be expected to produce a net shift of about 2 gubernatorial seats.
The 2010 Forecast
We can use the results in Table 1 to forecast the outcome of the 2010 gubernatorial elections. The values of two of the three predictors in the model are already known: there is a Democratic president and Republicans currently hold 17 of the 37 governorships up for election this year. Only the result of the early September Gallup generic ballot question is not yet known. Therefore, Table 2 displays conditional forecasts of Republican seat gains depending on the generic ballot result.
Table 2. Predicted Results of 2010 Gubernatorial Elections based on Early September Generic Ballot
Source: Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to U.S. Elections and data compiled by author
The data in Table 2 indicate that Republicans are likely to gain between 4 and 7 governorships in this year’s elections. Since they currently control 23 statehouses, this would leave them with between 27 and 30 governorships. Since the Gallup generic ballot question has been averaging close to a tie over the past few months, the most likely outcome at this point would appear to be a Republican gain of 5 governorships which would give the GOP control of 28 of the nation’s 50 statehouses.
Monday, August 16, 2010
RSG, Finalist as "Best" Public Relations Firm on Long Island for 2009
Let's match it again for 2010!
Roosevelt Strategy Group has been working diligently for our clients since 2001, let's keep the momentum going, please nominate today;
http://longisland.upickem.net/engine/Welcome.aspx?contestid=18983
Roosevelt Strategy Group has been working diligently for our clients since 2001, let's keep the momentum going, please nominate today;
http://longisland.upickem.net/engine/Welcome.aspx?contestid=18983
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
A Free Speech Landmark
Freedom has had its best week in many years. On Tuesday, Massachusetts put a Senate check on a reckless Congress, and yesterday the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision supporting free political speech by overturning some of Congress's more intrusive limits on election spending.
In a season of marauding government, the Constitution rides to the rescue one more time.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote yesterday's 5-4 majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which considered whether the government could ban a 90-minute documentary called "Hillary: the Movie" that was set to run on cable channels during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Because it was funded by an incorporated group and was less than complimentary of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, the film became a target of campaign-finance limits.
The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act, aka McCain-Feingold, banned corporations and unions from "electioneering communications" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Yesterday, the Justices rejected that limit on corporate spending as unconstitutional. Corporations are entitled to the same right that individuals have to spend money on political speech for or against a candidate.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote yesterday's 5-4 majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which considered whether the government could ban a 90-minute documentary called "Hillary: the Movie" that was set to run on cable channels during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Because it was funded by an incorporated group and was less than complimentary of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, the film became a target of campaign-finance limits.
The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act, aka McCain-Feingold, banned corporations and unions from "electioneering communications" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Yesterday, the Justices rejected that limit on corporate spending as unconstitutional. Corporations are entitled to the same right that individuals have to spend money on political speech for or against a candidate.
Justice Kennedy emphasized that laws designed to control money in politics often bleed into censorship, and that this violates core First Amendment principles. "Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence," he wrote. The ban on corporate expenditures had a "substantial, nationwide chilling effect" on political speech, he added.
In last year's oral argument for Citizen's United, the Court got a preview of how far a ban on corporate-funded speech could reach. Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart explained that, under McCain-Feingold, the government had the authority to "prohibit the publication" of corporate-funded books that called for the election or defeat of a candidate.
That was a shock and awe moment at the Court, as it also should have been to a Washington press corps that has too often been a cheerleader for campaign-spending limits. Mr. Stewart was telling a truth already familiar to campaign-finance lawyers and the speech police at the Federal Election Commission. Former FEC Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky recalled yesterday that in 2004 the agency investigated whether a book written by George Soros critical of George W. Bush violated campaign laws. Liberals as much as conservatives should worry about laws that allow such investigations.
The Court's opinion is especially effective in dismantling McCain-Feingold's arbitrary exemption for media corporations. Thus a corporation that owns a newspaper—News Corp. or the New York Times—retains its First Amendment right to speak freely. "At the same time, some other corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet in its ownership structure, would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about the same issue," wrote Justice Kennedy. "This differential treatment cannot be squared with the First Amendment."
For instruction and sheer entertainment, we also recommend Justice Antonin Scalia's concurring opinion that demolishes Justice John Paul Stevens's argument in dissent that corporations lack free speech rights because the Founding Fathers disliked them. "If so, how came there to be so many of them?" Mr. Scalia writes, in one of his gentler lines.
The landmark decision—which overturned two Supreme Court precedents—has already sent the censoring political class into orbit. President Obama was especially un-Presidential yesterday, putting on his new populist facade to call it "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies" and other "special interests." Mr. Obama didn't mention his union friends as one of those interests, but their political spending will also be protected by the logic of this ruling. The reality is that free speech is no one's special interest.
New York Senator Chuck Schumer vowed to hold hearings, and the Naderite Public Citizen lobby is already calling for a constitutional amendment that bans free speech for "for-profit corporations." Liberalism's bullying tendencies are never more on display than when its denizens are at war with the speech rights of its opponents.
Perhaps one day the Court will go even further and overturn Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 decision that was its original sin in tolerating limits on campaign spending. The Court did yesterday uphold disclosure rules, so a sensible step now would be for Congress to remove all campaign-finance limits subject only to immediate disclosure on the Internet. Citizens United is in any event a bracing declaration that Congress's long and misbegotten campaign-finance crusade has reached a Constitutional dead end.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Newsday | NY fallout as Scott Brown wins Mass. Senate race
43 m ago By Dan Janison, Newsday, Tuesday January 19th.
The Republican Scott Brown won the Massacussetts Senate seat vacated with the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy -- dealing a clear blow to President Barack Obama in his role as national party boss.
From Sen. Charles Schumer, Democrat, whose partisan listen-up contrition is interesting:
“The country is speaking to us, and we will hear them in the agenda we pursue over the next year. Our focus must be on jobs, the economy and delivering for the middle class.”
From Anthony Manetta, who heads the Roosevelt Strategy Group in Babylon, which advises political campaigns:
"The Republican current that started with the Gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey, then making a stop over in Nassau County with Ed Mangano's win, is not only continuing but still gaining momentum as evident in Massachusetts. The Republican voter seems to not only be voting Republican again, but voting with ferocity."
This analysis by Gerald Seib in the Wall Street Journal is worth a look for the survey information it includes.
From the newspaper's edition earlier today:
"The Democratic party's problems, crystallized in the last-ditch scramble to save Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat in a special election Tuesday, can be traced to a simple mistake: Many in the party misread voters' desire to switch parties in recent years as an ideological shift to the left."
"The Democratic party's problems, crystallized in the last-ditch scramble to save Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat in a special election Tuesday, can be traced to a simple mistake: Many in the party misread voters' desire to switch parties in recent years as an ideological shift to the left."
"In fact, there is little sign that Americans' ideological tendencies changed much at all, even as voters gave control of Congress to Democrats in 2006 and handed President Barack Obama and the rest of his party a massive victory in 2008. Ideologically, the country remained throughout this period what it was at the outset: a center to center-right nation."
Monday, January 11, 2010
RSG brings on Fortune 100 Sales Pro Berkeley Swezey
Roosevelt Strategy Group is proud to announce that Berk Swezey has joined the RSG team
Berkeley Swezey is an accomplished corporate executive whose talents have earned him a reputation as an industry leader for over forty years in sales and organizational management.
Mr. Swezey has an extensive background in corporate sales and finance having held high profile positions with a number of top companies in including IBM, Erisco and FISERV, this is in addition to helping start-up companies grow from the ground up. Berkeley has owned his own insurance agency and is one of the founders of Swezey Commercial Real Estate.
While employed by IBM in the area of sales and sales management, Berk specialized in selling financial hardware and software systems to Wall Street brokerage houses and other financial institutions throughout the country, eventually focusing his efforts on Credit Unions Nationwide. Swezey, well known for successful seminar sales, set National sales records that have not been broken to date. In addition, during his tenure as a member of their Headquarters Staff Support, he was instrumental in creating and managing National sales contest, training programs and customer service conferences attended by 30 to 40 financial institutions and their 500-600 employees.
After IBM Berkeley joined as one of the 13 stockholders of the then privately held company Erisco Incorporated, a leading provider of employee benefits software to Fortune 1000 companies. Berkeley was responsible for managing the National sales effort that resulted in Erisco’s gross revenue increasing from $2 million to $24 million dollars in five years. He also established a customer service department and developed and instituted customer service programs that increased customer satisfaction from 8% to 94% within the first 10 months of its inception. In addition he hired and trained the sales force, established and produced a workshop series and seminars for Fortune 1000 prospects, and managed the integration of major financial institutions. Berkeley’s efforts were a driving factor in Dun & Bradstreets acquisition of Erisco.
A graduate of Colgate University, Mr. Swezey subsequently attended St. John’s School of Law. He served his country for two years earning an honorable discharge from the army and the community in various capacities, including tenure on the Village of Freeport Board of Trustees. Berkeley Swezey is married with three grown children and resides in Babylon New York.
Mr. Swezey's work will be centered on improving the sales and customer service operations for RSG's management consulting clients.
Berkeley Swezey is an accomplished corporate executive whose talents have earned him a reputation as an industry leader for over forty years in sales and organizational management.
Mr. Swezey has an extensive background in corporate sales and finance having held high profile positions with a number of top companies in including IBM, Erisco and FISERV, this is in addition to helping start-up companies grow from the ground up. Berkeley has owned his own insurance agency and is one of the founders of Swezey Commercial Real Estate.
While employed by IBM in the area of sales and sales management, Berk specialized in selling financial hardware and software systems to Wall Street brokerage houses and other financial institutions throughout the country, eventually focusing his efforts on Credit Unions Nationwide. Swezey, well known for successful seminar sales, set National sales records that have not been broken to date. In addition, during his tenure as a member of their Headquarters Staff Support, he was instrumental in creating and managing National sales contest, training programs and customer service conferences attended by 30 to 40 financial institutions and their 500-600 employees.
After IBM Berkeley joined as one of the 13 stockholders of the then privately held company Erisco Incorporated, a leading provider of employee benefits software to Fortune 1000 companies. Berkeley was responsible for managing the National sales effort that resulted in Erisco’s gross revenue increasing from $2 million to $24 million dollars in five years. He also established a customer service department and developed and instituted customer service programs that increased customer satisfaction from 8% to 94% within the first 10 months of its inception. In addition he hired and trained the sales force, established and produced a workshop series and seminars for Fortune 1000 prospects, and managed the integration of major financial institutions. Berkeley’s efforts were a driving factor in Dun & Bradstreets acquisition of Erisco.
A graduate of Colgate University, Mr. Swezey subsequently attended St. John’s School of Law. He served his country for two years earning an honorable discharge from the army and the community in various capacities, including tenure on the Village of Freeport Board of Trustees. Berkeley Swezey is married with three grown children and resides in Babylon New York.
Mr. Swezey's work will be centered on improving the sales and customer service operations for RSG's management consulting clients.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Winners
RSG wishes to congratulate our firm's winners during the 2009 Election Cycle. RSG provided general strategy, direct mail, creative media and get out the vote consulting for multiple campaigns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)