The Sweep: Down to the Wire in Virginia

Plus: an update on the GOP Senate primary in Pennsylvania.

By , , and
36

Quick Hits

Everyone Has a Price: Tom LoBianco over at Vanity Fair had a juicy piece on the speaking fees that potential 2024 candidates are able to command these days. 

“Mike Pence getting paid upwards of $100,000 a speech. … By comparison, other 2024 hopefuls pull down much less. Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie earns between $35,000 and $45,000 per speech, according to a speaking-industry source. The source noted that speaking fees for politicos of all stripes are down significantly in the age of Trump, when conferences and colleges are shying away from controversial figures. It’s a far cry from just a few years before Trump stormed the national stage. Former first lady, senator, and secretary of state Hillary Clinton reportedly commanded $225,000 per gig heading into the 2016 election cycle. Even Trump himself, who floated his name as a presidential contender for three decades before diving in, apparently averaged $117,000 per speech. The one exception seems to be former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley, who previously requested a speaking fee of $200,000 and the cost of booking a private plane, according to the industry source. 

I guess we’ll find out just how well the market reflects demand, right?

Something Spooky: If you’re in the D.C. area and looking for candy, look no further than the U.S. Senate. But who will have the best candy? Who will hand out raisins … or floss? Will there be a partisan divide in treats? And what can we extrapolate to the 2022 midterms? We’ll report it all here next week!

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
36
By , , and
Comments (36)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Donna

    I really missed Chris Stirewalt's voice during election night, 2 November 2021. Nobody...nobody!...does informed and nuanced election night analysis like Mr. Stirewalt. Would have liked to have seen some "The Dispatch" live discussion tonight with Mr. Stirewalt taking the lead and Sarah Isgur throwing in; she's just smart and humorous. I will be very interested in post-election analysis from the whole crew later this week.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      It's coming!

      Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    “ But it is possible to be wrong in new and interesting ways. That distinction belongs to Ron Brownstein, senior editor at The Atlantic and senior political analyst at CNN.”

    Boom. Roasted.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Mandy

    I'm really disappointed with the way Chris minimized the need for voting rights legislation in this piece. The For the People Act has been pared down. The Freedom to Vote Act deserves a look. The longer we dismiss each others' concerns about election fairness, the harder we make it to actually correct course. Nobody would have to discuss blowing up the filibuster over this if people would come to the damn table and stop joking around about it like it's no big deal. If the states want to run their own elections, fine. Show me the evidence that they're willing do it without gerrymandering away my voice or ignoring my vote.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      So I am/was in favor of some of this stuff too. And I am becoming increasingly less sympathetic to minimizing federal involvement in elections. But what about the study i mentioned last week: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Mark Niesse writes that “Academic research shows that voter ID laws have little to no effect on turnout” and that “one nationwide study found that expansions of absentee voting in some states in last year’s election didn’t alter turnout.” Taken together, these studies show that “almost all voters who want to vote will find a way to cast their ballots despite tougher ID requirements, limits on ballot drop boxes and a shorter early voting period before runoffs.” If the problem is that people who want to vote are being prevented from voting, isn't important to first test whether that proposition is true?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Mandy

        Oh hey, Sarah - wow! Sure - I'm always going to be in favor of finding out what's true. But if we're going to hold ourselves to establishing a solid, data-driven reason for pushing back on the actions state legislatures are taking, wouldn't we have to take it a step further and reckon with whether or not there was a sound "why" for this wave of restrictions in the first place? Can the reasons for just a few simple federal standards be...

        ...because legal voters should be able to conveniently vote and others should not be able to vote at all?

        ...because legislators choosing their own voters is objectively unfair?

        ...because partisans running elections shouldn't be able to ignore what the people say?

        I know. It's ridiculous. But I can't (and I won't!) stop being Pollyanna. :)

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
          Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

          Totally agree--but when do you pick as your status quo? Take voter ID. Let's assume for a moment that Rs want to pass it in some states because fewer people voting helps them and Ds want to get rid of it in some states because they believe more people voting helps them. Except it turns out that neither of these are true. In Nevada, the voting population has grown by something like 30% and Dems are no better off. At the same time, voter ID states have hardly seem some wave of R victories either. So if both sides are pursuing a policy outcome that is a) partisan and b) incorrect, then should we have voter ID or not?

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Mandy

            That's a great example of an area where it's nearly impossible to move forward intelligently because partisans are fighting for/against policies based on assumptions that don't even line up with reality. With no openness to the possibility that our own assumptions are wrong and no desire to have nuanced conversations, we get stuck. And WTH is up with all of our positions boiling down to what we believe will help our team? Clearly we're all losing at this point. So to play out your scenario on voter ID as someone who wants to see improved access to the ballot box, I'd say something like...Rs can have voter ID as long as they'll take lots of forms of ID (student ID included) and make ID convenient and inexpensive to obtain. In return, I want nonpartisan redistricting. I find it kind of tough to make a good faith argument that either of these things is inherently unfair (again, as long as there aren't a bunch of roadblocks laid down to make it hard for voters to obtain ID). I don't have a lot of optimism that there's widespread interest in actually engaging with reality, but that's why I'm here at TD. Thank you for helping us to think harder and ask the right questions. :)

            Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    David M

    Great Sweep, thanks guys!

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    Ooooo the excitement in the air!

    Can you feel it Sarah ?!?!

    The political eyes all on Virginia!

    I am guessing g a Youngkin upset?!?

    It’s oooooooooon!

    Collapse
  6. Frederick F

    Politicians get paid how much to talk?! Thanks I hate it

    Collapse
  7. Marc Whipple

    I agree with Brownstein, and disagree with Chris. I think the Senate Democrats should continue to push for election reform. It is too important for American democracy to worry about short term politics. I hope Senate Democrats continue to push Manchin and Synema to eliminate the filibuster for election reform.

    Collapse
    1. Raincheck

      Partisan election reform, from either side, is not reform. It is an effort to create an advantage. If intelligent bipartisan reforms are up for vote, the product of a commission that isn’t running for office and trying to preserve their own seats, I’m all in.

      Collapse
      1. Marc Whipple

        There is very partisan election reform going on right now at the state level. In some ways, these state reforms are so partisan as to be a threat to American democracy. So there is no real possibility of bipartisan election reforms right now. There is just a choice between different partisan reforms. The Democrat's election reforms promote and expand fair ballot access. The GOP's election reforms do the opposite, by trying to fix election results. Easy choice.

        Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Dennis

    $100K to listen to Mike Pence? Just think how much Ambien that would buy.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Kenton A. Hoover

    Serious question: how many people go to campaign rallies this late to make up their minds rather than confirm their own views?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      So you’re right there’s zero evidence of persuasion but it does seem to have some effect on turnout—albeit quite small/

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kenton A. Hoover

        I was honestly asking a question, not asserting nor expressing an opinion. I appreciate your answer. I would think the effect would be impossible to model partially because it would depend so much on the person the rally was for – I don’t see Herbert Hoover commanding gigantic crowds.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Paul Hoover

          Kenton or Paul, on the other hand ... we could put some butts in the seats, man!

          Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Bill B

    I think it was Carville who made the observation that these days Republican focus groups feature everyone nodding at the same time to the same statements and features Democrats whining and complaining about ten different things they didn't get. The reason for that is that Democrats don't know how to sell themselves and selling is all that Republicans do.

    Perhaps it explains why Democrats always look like they're losing even when they're winning.

    Collapse
Load More