KFGO Blog

Hoeven: Will he or won’t he?  The media speculates but how about some analysis.

With the 2008 election safely in the rear-view mirror, the only two remaining print reporters actually reporting on ND politics, Dale Wetzel (Associated Press) and Brian Duggan (Bismarck Tribune), last week published competing stories about whether Gov. John Hoeven will challenge U.S. Sen. Byron Dorgan in November 2010. Although not direct quotes, the articles can be summarized as: “Hoeven not yet decided,” “Republicans want Hoeven to run,” “Dorgan and Hoeven: both popular with North Dakota voters,” and “Race could be expensive!” No news there.

Is Hoeven going to run?  No one knows today, not even John Hoeven (provided he is telling the truth that a decision has not been made). While politics does involve the intangibles of ego and ambition, a political decision like the one Hoeven faces is based mainly on hardball reality. And the three most significant realities are money, message, and timing…in that order. My speculation is that these are the questions John Hoeven is analyzing.

Money: Can John Hoeven raise the money? 

Fair speculation is that the total cost of a Dorgan/Hoeven race would be in the neighborhood of $20 million.  In the latest contribution reports, the Hoeven Committee had a little less than $70,000 on hand compared to $3.5 million for Dorgan. While Hoeven surely continues to raise money for his state political committee, we know that Hoeven has not yet filed the necessary legal paperwork to raise a dime for a U.S. Senate race. 

If you split $20 million 50/50, Hoeven must raise $10 million between now and Election Day 2010. In other words he must raise $24,000 dollars a day or over $710,000 a month.  To raise that kind of money, Hoeven, as a challenger, will have to sit almost 24/7 for 14 months in a fundraising room, calling donors and begging for campaign cash.

Undoubtedly Hoeven is looking for national help from the National Republican Senate Committee (NRSC).  Hoeven is probably telling the NRSC that if they want him to run for the U.S. Senate, they need to commit at least $5 million national dollars to his campaign, but getting the NRSC to invest that kind of money will be a challenge. The NRSC knows two things.  First, they have more vulnerable Democratic senate races than Dorgan’s to invest hard earned campaign dollars; for example, Senators Dodd and Reid.  Second, they also know the internals of the recent polling, which in no way shows a Dorgan/Hoeven race to be an easy victory for Hoeven, despite a press release to the contrary. (By the way, Gov. Hoeven, if the NRSC tells you they will give you $5 million … get it in the bank before you announce.)

Hoeven does have another source of campaign financing, his own money.  Will John Hoeven be willing to invest millions of his own money in a very tough Senatorial campaign with no sure bet on winning? Only John Hoeven and his father know the answer to that question, but my bet is not.

Score the money factor (double-weighted) for Dorgan.

Message: How does Hoeven convince the voters that he would better represent North Dakota?

Campaigns are about contrasts. To be a successful challenger Hoeven must explain how he would be an effective U.S. senator for North Dakota, but he also must convince a substantial portion of the 68 percent of the North Dakotans who voted for Dorgan in 2004 that they were wrong. 

So in preparing for this race, what has Hoeven done to distinguish himself ideologically or politically from Dorgan?  Where is the contrast?  It is nonexistent.

Much to the frustration of some in the state Republican Party and many Republicans in the legislature, Hoeven is no conservative. He has opposed initiated measures that would have cut state income taxes and curbed state spending. During his 2½ terms in office he dramatically increased the state budget and overall state spending. How does he run against federal spending excess when he consistently take the credit for federal dollars coming into the state?

So how do you handicap the message factor when, party identification aside, Hoeven’s policies are essentially identical to Dorgan’s? The easy answer is you handicap not by message but by the quality of the delivery. Dorgan is a gifted orator, one of the best in this country. Further, Dorgan is seasoned by years of having to defend his positions before less than friendly audiences and he is brilliant at it. 

Whatever you may think of him as a governor, Hoeven has never been a gifted speaker. Further, Hoeven’s political message skills have not improved since taking office because they have not been put to the test by any contentious political debate. Political communication is like a sport, you get better when you play tough competition. Hoeven could improve during the campaign, but there is no way in 14 months his communication skills will ever meet or exceed Senator Dorgan’s.

Score the message factor for Dorgan.

Timing:  What is the general political climate that could affect the race?

Hoeven’s big bet is that President Obama will be wildly unpopular in November of 2010 and, as a result, Hoeven will be swept into a U.S. Senate office simply by reminding people that he is a Republican. But Hoeven knows that bet may never pay off.  Where today we see vulnerability for President Obama because of the health care debate, the 2010 election will be about the overall economy of the country. If the economy is in a solid recovery, Hoeven runs the risk that satisfied North Dakotans will vote for the status quo: John Hoeven as governor and Byron Dorgan as U.S. senator. In their minds, North Dakotan will not be rejecting the popular Hoeven, they will be simply reinforcing their support for him as a governor. Game over.

 If the economy has not improved Obama may well suffer serious midterm losses, but it does not necessarily follow that North Dakota voters will follow that trend. The guilt by association bet is a big gamble given North Dakota voter’s historic willingness to separate their feeling about the president from their votes for U.S. senators.

 Score the timing factor as a tossup.  There are too many uncertainties about the economic recovery and about North Dakota voter’s reactions.

 If Hoeven analyzes the race as I have, does he still take a political chance, a la Kent Conrad vs. Mark Andrews in 1986, and run? 

For my two cents, the answer is no.  Conrad is a risk taker. Hoeven is not. Hoeven will not want to risk his political capital, and personal cash, on a low percentage gamble. The governor knows that after a hard-fought campaign, a greater percentage of North Dakotans will view him unfavorably. In that event, the next campaign might be a little tougher and Hoeven has gotten accustomed to easy campaigns.  Hoeven is only 52 years old.  Byron Dorgan is 67.  Hoeven has time on his side.

One thing is certain, while Hoeven delays his decision; any potential campaign is also delayed. Time in politics is, quite literally, money ($24,000 a day). The longer he waits to make a decision the less likely it is that he will run, and if he does run, the less likely it is that he will be successful. In any case, Hoeven would be wise to heed the advice of the state Republican Party chair who is telling him that “time’s a wasting.”

illustration by Steve Stark

Welcome to my maiden KFGO column.  Joel asked me to write this column because he thinks that I will write something really controversial and then all you will run to the internet to comment.  Your comments will talk about how darn stupid and confused I am. That will make Joel laugh and feel superior.  And it will give him more ammunition to give me a hard time when I am on “News and Views” with him, especially when you call in and tell him that I am right and he is wrong.  (He really hates that.)

So I thought that I would start a little easy; save my opinions for later; and, as Joe Friday once said, give you, the KFGO listeners, “Just the Facts” on health care in United States.

Health care spending in the United States is out of control and the future does not look better.
In 1970, total U.S. health care spending was about $75 billion, or only $356 per person. In 2007 health care costs have grown to $2.2 trillion, or $7,421 per person. The Congressional Budget Office projects that, without any reform, total spending on health care will rise from 16.5 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 2007 to 25 percent in 2025 and to 49 percent in 2082. North Dakota is not exempt from this trend. The growth in health care spending in North Dakota from 1991 to 2004 was 6.3% annually compared to national annual average of 5.5% during that same period.

While health care costs have gone up, so has the quality and amount of health care.
For example, the Washington Post reported the following facts in its Sunday paper:

“In the 1960s, the chance of dying in the days immediately after a heart attack was 30 to 40 percent. In 1975, it was 27 percent. In 1984, it was 19 percent. In 1994, it was about 10 percent. Today, it’s about 6 percent. …Over the same period, the charges for treating a heart attack marched steadily upward, from about $5,700 in 1977 to $54,400 in 2007 (without adjusting for inflation).”

This is just one example.  My stage 3 breast cancer survival makes me another improved health care statistics.

Even though we are number one in health care spending, the United States health care system is bested by 36 countries.
The World Health Organization (WHO) ranks the United States health system 37th among the major countries.  Further the United States’ WHO rank for “healthy live expediency” is 24th.  “Healthy live expediency” is defined as the average number of years that a person can expect to live in “full health” by taking into account years lived in less than full health due to disease and/or injury.  Infant mortality, life expectancy and survival-rates for heart attacks are all worse in the United State than the OECD average.  OECD represents the 30 most developed countries in the world.

Currently over 45 million US citizens (15%) do not have health insurance of any kind and public insurance is already provided to over 26% of Americans.
The nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, a leader in health care research, reports the following:

While over 53% of people in the U.S. receive health insurance as an employment benefit, employees’ wages have stagnated in part because of the rising cost of health care insurance.
Premiums for employment-based private insurance increased 114 percent from 1999 to 2007; during that same period wages increased 27 percent.  Because employers do not have unlimited resources for labor costs, wage increases employees might have received have been diverted, in part, to health insurance payments.

Rising health care costs hurt the United States businesses and their ability to be internationally competitive.
Health insurance drives total labor costs higher and reduces profitability for industries facing international competition. As a consequence, U.S. businesses have become increasingly uncompetitive.

Even if a citizen has health insurance, that is no guarantee a family will not be economically devastated by a health crisis.
In a study recently published in the American Journal of Medicine, a team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University reported the following:
• 62.1% of all bankruptcies have a medical cause.
• Most medical debtors were well educated and middle class; three quarters had health insurance.
• The share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 50% between 2001 and 2007.

Medical malpractice costs are not the reason for dramatically increased health care costs.
The Americans for Insurance Reform’s recent study reports that medical malpractice premiums are less than one-half of one percent of overall health care costs, and medical malpractice claims are a mere one-fifth of one percent of health care costs. It concludes that if Congress completely eliminated every single medical malpractice lawsuit overall health care costs would not substantially change.

Having made the case for reform, the big question is what should health care reform look like? Next week I will list my ideas for health care reform…then you (and Joel) can really have at it. And as you prepare to comment on this, remember the wise words, of the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

*BTW:  I know that the phrase “Just the facts, ma’am” was never actually spoken by Joe Friday.  The actual quote was, “All we want are the facts, ma’am”…so you do not know need to comment on how I did not even get that right.

Heidi Heitkamp is a lawyer and politician from the U.S. state of North Dakota. She was attorney general of the state from 1993 to 2001.  Heitkamp occasionally fills in as a guest host on KFGO.  Heitkamp also writes a weekly column for KFGO.com