Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman could be the next governor of California
For a party that relies heavily on the votes of white males, the Republicans now find their hopes of overturning the Democratic majorities in Congress in November’s midterms unusually dependent on women. And many are not happy with the phenomenon of Sarah’s sisters: the right-wing female candidates inspired by Sarah Palin. Ferociously anti-incumbent and anti-Obama, the women who have emerged through the populist Tea party movement are a force to be reckoned with. The question is whether they will do the Republicans more harm than good; polls suggest that they are better at winning primaries to become the party’s candidate than they will be at winning election in the autumn. Take the case of Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the senate. Reid looked unlikely to keep his Nevada seat as the mainstream Republican candidates were trouncing him in the polls. But after early favourite Sue Lowden suggested voters barter chickens for healthcare, Tea party-endorsed Sharron Angle won the nomination. Reid faces a much easier fight against Angle, who wants to scrap social security for younger workers, abolish the education department and put prisoners through a drug rehabilitation programme devised by Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard. The new female candidates may represent victories for plutocracy rather than feminism. Meg Whitman (former CEO of eBay) and Carly Fiorina (former CEO of Hewlett Packard) won the Republican nomination for, respectively, governor and senator in California partly because their personal wealth meant their campaigns were better funded. Neither is remotely as radical or as angry as the Tea party insurgents. And California, the only state to be represented by two female senators, Democrats Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, is hardly new territory for women politicians, even if it has a macho male governor in Arnold Schwarzenegger. In any case, the gender of candidates may not matter, as midterms often serve as a referendum about a particular topic. But what might that be? The Republicans want the midterms to be about health reform; the Tea party wants them to be about debt; environmentalists want them to be about BP and big oil; and many Dems want them to be about the banks and Wall Street. They may all be disappointed. This year is only the second time since records began that the unemployment rate will be over 8 per cent as votes are cast. The last time was 1982, in the depths of Ronald Reagan’s recession. And were jobless figures still measured as they were then, unemployment would be over 16 per cent. It is hard to see any other issue being so important. The race to hold primaries In 2008, the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination ploughed through the yuletide snows of Iowa for the earliest caucus in history on 3rd January, followed on 8th January by the earliest primary, in New Hampshire. The early timing gave Barack Obama a crucial advantage in Iowa, as his hordes of student volunteers were on holiday and free to campaign. At present, both Democrat and Republican party officials in the various states set the dates of their primary or caucus. The earlier the vote, the more influential the state tends to be in picking the candidate—plus the more advertising revenue it receives. And the more dependent a candidate is on a local official to recruit supporters, the better that official’s chance of getting a job in a future administration. This, of course, has led a race to be first, with primaries being pushed back further and further. It has to stop sometime, and both the Democrats and the Republicans are now trying to impose some order. Their proposals differ, but both parties agree on the main principles. New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and Iowa (which for historical reasons go first, and would fight to the death any attempt to change this) have to hold their votes after 1st February. The rest of the states have to hold them after the first Tuesday in March. In a way, this a power grab by the national committees at the expense of the state parties. The Democratic National Committee is proposing extra delegates for states which agree to the new rules—a carrot rather than the stick it tried last time, when Michigan and Florida held primaries early. The DNC initially refused to count their delegates but eventually allowed them half-votes at the convention. After the last election, the Republicans formed a “change commission” to reform the system. Under its new plan, states that agree to wait until May or June could hold winner-take-all contests instead of awarding delegates proportionately. This could make these states decisive in the contest. State officials, who tend to be loyalists, like the way this more formal process could protect them against insurgent campaigns (such as the Tea party). The White House has yet to comment on the plans but backs reform. Under the new proposals, Obama might never have won the nomination. But he’s the incumbent now, and the one who needs to hold off the insurgents. Google’s friends at the top Google boss Eric Schmidt was one of Obama’s first supporters and the president is said to have his number on speed-dial. Schmidt has lots of friends in the White House, including former Googlers Andrew McLaughlin (deputy IT tsar), Katie Stanton (head of the citizen participation programme) and Sonal Shah (head of the White House Office of Social Innovation). Google used to spend no money on Washington lobbying. According to the group Consumer Watchdog, it spent $4m last year. Such efforts can pay off. The Federal Trade Commission initially opposed Google’s $750m purchase of AdMob, a mobile advertising start-up, but it has now approved the deal. Even for Google, that’s a good return on capital.
For a party that relies heavily on the votes of white males, the Republicans now find their hopes of overturning the Democratic majorities in Congress in November’s midterms unusually dependent on women. And many are not happy with the phenomenon of Sarah’s sisters: the right-wing female candidates inspired by Sarah Palin. Ferociously anti-incumbent and anti-Obama, the women who have emerged through the populist Tea party movement are a force to be reckoned with. The question is whether they will do the Republicans more harm than good; polls suggest that they are better at winning primaries to become the party’s candidate than they will be at winning election in the autumn. Take the case of Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the senate. Reid looked unlikely to keep his Nevada seat as the mainstream Republican candidates were trouncing him in the polls. But after early favourite Sue Lowden suggested voters barter chickens for healthcare, Tea party-endorsed Sharron Angle won the nomination. Reid faces a much easier fight against Angle, who wants to scrap social security for younger workers, abolish the education department and put prisoners through a drug rehabilitation programme devised by Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard. The new female candidates may represent victories for plutocracy rather than feminism. Meg Whitman (former CEO of eBay) and Carly Fiorina (former CEO of Hewlett Packard) won the Republican nomination for, respectively, governor and senator in California partly because their personal wealth meant their campaigns were better funded. Neither is remotely as radical or as angry as the Tea party insurgents. And California, the only state to be represented by two female senators, Democrats Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, is hardly new territory for women politicians, even if it has a macho male governor in Arnold Schwarzenegger. In any case, the gender of candidates may not matter, as midterms often serve as a referendum about a particular topic. But what might that be? The Republicans want the midterms to be about health reform; the Tea party wants them to be about debt; environmentalists want them to be about BP and big oil; and many Dems want them to be about the banks and Wall Street. They may all be disappointed. This year is only the second time since records began that the unemployment rate will be over 8 per cent as votes are cast. The last time was 1982, in the depths of Ronald Reagan’s recession. And were jobless figures still measured as they were then, unemployment would be over 16 per cent. It is hard to see any other issue being so important. The race to hold primaries In 2008, the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination ploughed through the yuletide snows of Iowa for the earliest caucus in history on 3rd January, followed on 8th January by the earliest primary, in New Hampshire. The early timing gave Barack Obama a crucial advantage in Iowa, as his hordes of student volunteers were on holiday and free to campaign. At present, both Democrat and Republican party officials in the various states set the dates of their primary or caucus. The earlier the vote, the more influential the state tends to be in picking the candidate—plus the more advertising revenue it receives. And the more dependent a candidate is on a local official to recruit supporters, the better that official’s chance of getting a job in a future administration. This, of course, has led a race to be first, with primaries being pushed back further and further. It has to stop sometime, and both the Democrats and the Republicans are now trying to impose some order. Their proposals differ, but both parties agree on the main principles. New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and Iowa (which for historical reasons go first, and would fight to the death any attempt to change this) have to hold their votes after 1st February. The rest of the states have to hold them after the first Tuesday in March. In a way, this a power grab by the national committees at the expense of the state parties. The Democratic National Committee is proposing extra delegates for states which agree to the new rules—a carrot rather than the stick it tried last time, when Michigan and Florida held primaries early. The DNC initially refused to count their delegates but eventually allowed them half-votes at the convention. After the last election, the Republicans formed a “change commission” to reform the system. Under its new plan, states that agree to wait until May or June could hold winner-take-all contests instead of awarding delegates proportionately. This could make these states decisive in the contest. State officials, who tend to be loyalists, like the way this more formal process could protect them against insurgent campaigns (such as the Tea party). The White House has yet to comment on the plans but backs reform. Under the new proposals, Obama might never have won the nomination. But he’s the incumbent now, and the one who needs to hold off the insurgents. Google’s friends at the top Google boss Eric Schmidt was one of Obama’s first supporters and the president is said to have his number on speed-dial. Schmidt has lots of friends in the White House, including former Googlers Andrew McLaughlin (deputy IT tsar), Katie Stanton (head of the citizen participation programme) and Sonal Shah (head of the White House Office of Social Innovation). Google used to spend no money on Washington lobbying. According to the group Consumer Watchdog, it spent $4m last year. Such efforts can pay off. The Federal Trade Commission initially opposed Google’s $750m purchase of AdMob, a mobile advertising start-up, but it has now approved the deal. Even for Google, that’s a good return on capital.
