Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Running for Higher Office: Case Studies

Puzzle: When will a member of the House of Representatives decide to run for Senate over for Governor?

"Political ambition" generically refers to either (1) a politician holding office deciding to run for a higher office, or (2) an individual who does not hold a political position to run for office.

Aldrich and Bianco note that when political ambition is cast in "utility maximization terms" (which I will extend from decision-theoretic framework to include game theoretic ones), it is called a Calculus of Candidacy. This is in analogy to Riker and Ordeshook's term "calculus of voting".1 See W.H. Riker and P.C. Ordeshook, "A theory of the calculus of voting" American Political Science Review 62 (1968) pp. 25–43; or their follow up book An Introduction to Positive Political Theory, Prentice Hall, 1973. As a decision theoretic problem (i.e., ignoring adversaries), it may be cast as maximizing the expected utility: \[EU(a_{k}) = \sum_{j}P_{jk}U(O_{k}) - C_{k}\] where \(a_{k}\) is the strategy of pursuing action \(k\), \(P_{jk}\) is the probability of outcome \(j\) given action \(k\), and \(C_{k}\) is the cost of taking action \(k\). The rational action then chooses the strategy which maximizes the expected utility of its outcome.

But how is this process exactly done? Is there any interaction with "party elites"? Does a person just wake up one day, and announce, "You know what? I think I'll run for governor starting today, because my expected utility of that course is maximized"? And is decision theory the right tool — will potential candidates need to consider potential primary challengers or the potential of defeating an incumbent? Aaron King's doctoral thesis examines these questions on the dynamics surrounding political ambition in greater detail.

This post will gather a few case studies, in preparation for future work trying to set up a game theoretic model for political ambition.

Case Studies

Case Study: Michael Punke and Montana's 2020 Governor Race. The initial decision to run, however, seems to involve some communication with "party elites", as Politico reports about Michael Punke considering a run for Montana's governorship (and the ambitions of Governor Cooney and Mayor Collins):

Punke, who has talked to leading Montana Democrats about his political ambitions but is not talking to donors at this stage, has described himself to potential backers in Montana as "rabidly centrist" and said that if he runs, he would likely focus on issues like health care and workforce development, said one source. He would also use his WTO trade experience as a selling point because some of Montana’s biggest industries are trade-dependent, like exports of agricultural products and copper and even tourism.

[...] The current Democratic governor of Montana, Steve Bullock, is term-limited and is expected to announce a run for president soon. Independent Helena Mayor Wilmot Collins and Democratic Lt. Gov. Mike Cooney are also seen as potential candidates for governor, though Collins said in March he was also considering the Senate race and appears ready to launch a campaign for that office.

The inferences we should draw from this reporting is: (1) there are "party elites" whom Michael Punke is courting prior to entering the race, (2) the considerations of possible opponents are taken into consideration in each actor's calculations.

Curiously, similar processes appear to unfold in the Republican side of the Montana senate race.2 DailyKos's daily election digest reports, MPR's Brian Bakst reports that Bill Guidera, a former executive at 21st Century Fox and News Corp, is considering seeking the GOP nod to take on Democratic Sen. Tina Smith. Guidera, who used to serve as the Minnesota Republican Party's finance chairman, doesn't appear to have said anything publicly yet, but Bakst acquired an email from someone he identified as a longtime friend and quasi-adviser who said that Guidera is thinking about running and holding a fundraiser. Bakst also adds that Guidera has been appearing at local GOP events and doing meet and greets.

Case Study: Bill Weld's 1996 Senate Decision.4This example is inspired from Kenneth A Shepsle's Analyzing Politics, first ed., pages 22–24. First elected in 1991 as governor of Massachusetts, Bill Weld's gubernatorial term came to an end with the November 1994 election. A popular Republican governor in a famously liberal state, Weld remedied the financial debts through a well-executed political squeeze play (thwarting the state legislature from borrowing more money or raising taxes with veto threats), restructuring the state's debts, and taking advantage of Medicaid loopholes to acquire $500Mn from the federal government. The sordid details and play-by-play are well documented in Richard Hogarty's Massachusetts Politics and Public Policy.

Weld was popular inside the state, and outside. It was whispered that party elites were entertaining the idea of Weld as the presidential or vice-presidential candidate in 1996. The governor was inevitably aware of these rumors, since the New York Times's conservative pundit William Safire endorsed such an idea in his 1993 op-ed piece What about Weld, which could be sustained by holding public office. (If you don't know who Mr Safire is, please read Rick Perlstein's Nixonland; it's a wonderful book, and explains only parts of Mr Safire's connections with, and sway among, conservatives and Republican party elite.)

But, things were not so straightforward. Senator Ted Kennedy's term was coming to an end, and Sen Kennedy faced re-election in the November 1994 election as well. Or retirement. In his term, Sen Kennedy faced a number of contraversies ranging from his personal life to his handling of Clarence Thomas's nomination to the supreme court. The GQ's 1990 profile, Ted Kennedy on the Rocks, did little to help. The Boston Globe later reflected, Not surprisingly, many thought the senator would announce that he wasn't running for reelection in 1994, that it was time to get his personal house in order. In fact, Kennedy was already gearing up for the toughest race of his Senate career. The senator announced his intention to run for re-election early in Spring of 1994, entering the race as an especially disadvantaged incumbent.

Governor Weld could either risk challenging the vulnerable Sen Kennedy for the senate seat or run for re-election as governor of Massachusetts. Political observers agreed any race between Kennedy and Weld for the senate would be a toss-up,5For example, The New Republic reported there were more independent voters than registered Democratic voters in 1994. There is a big bloc of voters, as high as 40 percent of the electorate, that is no longer available to Kennedy, a Boston pol who is advising the senator's campaign confided. If anyone runs a minimal campaign, he'll get at least that much of the vote. Such, at least, was the specious reasoning of political operators at the time. but the governor's race would be a lock. Regardless of the choice, Weld needed to hold one of these offices to be considered as presidential (or even vice-presidential) material.

Framed thus, we would expect the decision Weld would make should be to run for re-election as governor in 1994, and enjoy a chance to join the GOP's ticket for the 1996 presidential race.

Well, Weld did run for re-election in 1994, winning 71% of the popular vote. A year afterwards, on November 29, 1995, the governor made his intentions clear to run in 1996 against the junior senator John Kerry after securing the blessings of financial backers and GOP party elites.6The only source I could find documenting this was the Boston Herald's article, Weld expected to launch bid today dated November 29, 1995. Curiously, the article notes, Weld advisers also noted that Weld came to the brink of the presidential race and the 1994 Senate race before bowing out.

Further, that article notes how Weld secured the blessings of Republican donors and party elites: Weld, who was scheduled to be in Manhattan this morning to meet with campaign fund-raisers, reserved a hotel function room in Boston this afternoon in anticipation of announcing his entrance to the race. [...] Today's New York meeting is one last step toward a possible Weld candidacy. New York has been an important factor in the Weld fund-raising equation — accounting for as much as 15 percent of the $6.5 million Weld raised between the 1990 and 1994 gubernatorial elections. While this morning's breakfast was depicted as a critical factor in Weld's decision, a negative outcome is unlikely. Sources close to Weld noted that the people attending the New York event include the governor's two brothers, his sister, and former Harvard classmates. [...] According to sources, Weld has already begun to assemble a fund-raising team, a critical issue since his longtime chief fundraiser, Peter J. Berlandi, has opted for a limited-duty role in the Senate race. According to sources, two Boston attorneys — Weld campaign treasurer Sandy Spaulding and 1992 congressional candidate Michael Crossen — are likely to assume key roles. Sources also said veteran Bay State GOP fundraiser Priscilla Ruzzo, a staffer for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, may be "loaned" to Weld during a startup phase. (LexisNexis saved the article, and I quote from LexisNexis's saved transcript, which may very well be in error.) The Atlantic summed up the elite opinion, Is it the wrong race? Is it the wrong year? Is Kerry the wrong target? The right race, this theory goes, was the last Senate race in Massachusetts. The right year was 1994. The right target was Senator Edward M. Kennedy.

Puzzle. What interactions occurred between election day 1994 and November 25, 1995 which led Weld to prefer challenging Sen Kerry over alternative actions?

Case Study: Claire McCaskill's Senate Run.7This example is inspired from Kenneth A Shepsle's Analyzing Politics, second ed., pages 21–23. Shepsle cites Jeff Goldberg's Central Casting article from The New Yorker, too. Claire McCaskill after graduating law school in 1978 began practicing law until she ran and won a set in Missouri's state House of Representatives. She then ran for Kansas city's county prosecutor in 1988 and won, ran for state auditor (which she viewed as a stepping stone towards governorship) in 1998 and won. Then, in 2004, McCaskill primary challenged the sitting Democratic governor Bob Holden. And won...the nomination. Alas, Roy Blunt (the Republican nominee) prevailed in the governor's race. But McCaskill defeating a sitting governor in the primary was historically unprecedented in Missouri.

But, The New Yorker informs us, In 2006, the two senior Democrats in the Senate, Schumer and Harry Reid, persuaded her to run against a Republican incumbent, Jim Talent. Her timing was good: President Bush’s dismal approval ratings helped the Democrats pick up enough seats to win majorities in both houses of Congress. McCaskill won a narrow victory. (McCaskill claims this as well in her memoir, Plenty Ladylike: A Memoir.)

Observation. "Elder statesmen" of the party [e.g., Reid and Schumer] seemingly count as "party elites" for certain races, like for the Senate.

But in 2014, Sen McCaskill considered running for Governor in 2016 instead of re-election for Senator in 2018. It had been a dream, for Claire McCaskill, to be governor of Missouri, ever since she was in high school. The New Yorker put it this way: By the time McCaskill was in ninth grade, at Hickman High School, in Columbia, she had set her sights on becoming the first female governor of Missouri. Whether this dream was real or imagined, the source or an excuse of, McCaskill's ambition for governorship was evident at the time.7The New York Times reported after the 2018 election, The loss likely marks the end of life in public office for Ms. McCaskill, a singular figure in Missouri politics who began her public career more than three decades ago in a male-dominated State Capitol and outlasted most of her Democratic peers. She has long coveted the state’s governorship, having narrowly lost a bid in 2004, but on Tuesday night, she signaled that she had run her final race, though she said she would be unencumbered in speaking her mind. (emphasis added)

The New Yorker noted about McCaskill's initial run, In 1998, McCaskill ran for state auditor, an office that she saw as a stepping stone to the governorship. And later in that same article, As recently as 2015, she considered returning to Missouri for another try at the governorship. Her mind naturally goes to practical details rather than to big concepts. Her idea of governing is to spend money wisely, punish misbehavior, and give people what they need in order to get through their daily lives.

Whether Sen McCaskill had greater ambitions beyond the governor's mansion remains as unclear as how McCaskill's ambitions evolved over time.

Ultimately, McCaskill sat down and did the calculus sometime in Winter of 2014–2015, and concluded in January 2015 that, for the trajectory McCaskill had in mind, running for re-election in 2018 was more optimal than running for Governor in 2016.8 McCaskill told KCUR in an interview in January 2015, At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself if the job you're thinking about going for is better than the one you have, and can you do more? She reaffirmed this stance with St. Louis Public Radio on January 15, 2015 and with Politico on January 12, 2015.

Puzzle. Did Claire McCaskill plan with Missouri state party elites or her colleagues in the Senate? Or did she arrive at this conclusion on her own?

Conclusion

We have examined a few "case studies" in political ambition. Our case studies have been "broad" rather than "deep": we had a writer aspire for governorship, a governor challenge a sitting senator, a senator with frustrated aspirations for governorship. For completeness, we should also consider a state legislator with ambitions for (1) the House of Representatives, (2) governorship, (3) Senate. But also we should consider individuals with presidential ambitions.

Fowler and McClure's Political Ambition (1989) examines a single congressional district with an open seat, specifically how state legislators determine whether to run for that open seat or not. (This is an example of a "deep" case study which is not "broad".)

We also didn't examine sufficient cases to see if the examples given are a sufficient representative sample. The gender and race of the candidates may impact the dynamics. RL Fox investigated the impact of gender on political ambition.

Although we are critically dependent on newspaper reporting, we have tried to identify a few of the key elements in the decision to run for higher office. The flaw with this approach is obvious: we lack information about "behind the scenes" interactions among key actors. But I'm not a journalist or a political scientist: I don't have the time, energy, or patience to do the investigative dirty work.

Future work could include setting up a game theoretic model of political ambition, further case studies, and possible ways to empirically test various aspects of political ambition or at least determine indicators of political ambition.

References

  • John H. Aldrich, William T. Bianco, "A game-theoretic model of party affiliation of candidates and office holders". Mathematical and Computer Modelling 16 (1992) pp. 103–116, doi:10.1016/0895-7177(92)90090-8
  • G. Black, "A theory of political ambition: Career choices and the role of structural incentives". American Political Science Review 66 (1972) pp. 144–159
  • Scott Gates and Brian D. Humes, Games, Information, and Politics: Applying Game Theoretic Models to Political Science. University of Michigan Press, 1997. See esp. ch. 3.
  • Linda Fowler and Robert McClure, Political Ambition: Who Decides to Run for Congress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989.
  • David Rohde, "Risk-bearing and progressive ambition: The case of members of the United States House of Representatives". American Journal of Political Science 23, 2 (1979) pp. 1–26 [jstor]
"Thick Description" Reading
Initial Decision to Run
  • RL Fox, JL Lawless, "Gaining and losing interest in running for public office: The concept of dynamic political ambition". Journal of Politics 73, no. 2 (2011) 443-462. Eprint.
  • Aaron S. King, Unfolding Ambition in Senate Primary Elections: Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of Candidacy Decisions. Lexington Books, 2017. Appears to be a cleaned up version of King's doctoral thesis.
  • Jennifer L. Lawless, Becoming a Candidate: Political Ambition and the Decision to Run for Office. Cambridge University Press, 2012.
  • Daniel Markham Smith, Succeeding in Politics: Dynasties in Democracies, PhD Thesis at UC San Diego, 2012.
at
Labels: , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)