To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

1980 United States Senate election in New York

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1980 United States Senate election in New York

← 1974 November 4, 1980 1986 →
 
Nominee Al D'Amato Elizabeth Holtzman Jacob Javits
Party Republican Democratic Liberal
Alliance Conservative
Right to Life
Popular vote 2,699,652 2,618,661 664,544
Percentage 44.88% 43.54% 11.05%

County results

D'Amato:      40-50%      50-60%      60-70%

Holtzman:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%

U.S. senator before election

Jacob Javits
Republican

Elected U.S. Senator

Al D'Amato
Republican

The 1980 United States Senate election in New York was held on November 4, 1980. Incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Jacob Javits was defeated in the primary by Al D'Amato. D'Amato went on to win a plurality in the general election over Elizabeth Holtzman and Javits, who remained in the race as the candidate of the Liberal Party of New York.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    Views:
    973 730
    2 990 842
    226 502
  • Congressional Elections: Crash Course Government and Politics #6
  • The Rise of Conservatism: Crash Course US History #41
  • Getting to Grips with the Trump Phenomenon

Transcription

Hi, I'm Craig and this is Crash Course Government and Politics, and today we're going to talk about what is, if you ask the general public, the most important part of politics: elections. If you ask me, it's hair styles. Look at Martin Van Buren's sideburns, how could he not be elected? Americans are kind of obsessed with elections, I mean when this was being recorded in early 2015, television, news and the internet were already talking about who would be Democrat and Republican candidates for president in 2016. And many of the candidates have unofficially been campaigning for years. I've been campaigning; your grandma's been campaigning. Presidential elections are exciting and you can gamble on them. Is that legal, can you gamble on them, Stan? Anyway, why we're so obsessed with them is a topic for another day. Right now I'm gonna tell you that the fixation on the presidential elections is wrong, but not because the president doesn't matter. No, today we're gonna look at the elections of the people that are supposed to matter the most, Congress. Constitutionally at least, Congress is the most important branch of government because it is the one that is supposed to be the most responsive to the people. One of the main reasons it's so responsive, at least in theory, is the frequency of elections. If a politician has to run for office often, he or she, because unlike the president we have women serving in Congress, kind of has to pay attention to what the constituents want, a little bit, maybe. By now, I'm sure that most of you have memorized the Constitution, so you recognize that despite their importance in the way we discuss politics, elections aren't really a big feature of the Constitution. Except of course for the ridiculously complex electoral college system for choosing the president, which we don't even want to think about for a few episodes. In fact, here's what the Constitution says about Congressional Elections in Article 1 Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature." So the Constitution does establish that the whole of the house is up for election every 2 years, and 1/3 of the senate is too, but mainly it leaves the scheduling and rules of elections up to the states. The actual rules of elections, like when the polls are open and where they actually are, as well as the registration requirements, are pretty much up to the states, subject to some federal election law. If you really want to know the rules in your state, I'm sure that someone at the Board of Elections, will be happy to explain them to you. Really, you should give them a call; they're very, very lonely. In general though, here's what we can say about American elections. First stating the super obvious, in order to serve in congress, you need to win an election. In the House of Representatives, each election district chooses a single representative, which is why we call them single-member districts. The number of districts is determined by the Census, which happens every 10 years, and which means that elections ending in zeros are super important, for reasons that I'll explain in greater detail in a future episode. It's because of gerrymandering. The Senate is much easier to figure out because both of the state Senators are elected by the entire state. It's as if the state itself were a single district, which is true for states like Wyoming, which are so unpopulated as to have only 1 representative. Sometimes these elections are called at large elections. Before the election ever happens, you need candidates. How candidates are chosen differs from state to state, but usually it has something to do with political parties, although it doesn't have to. Why are things so complicated?! What we can say is that candidates, or at least good candidates, usually have certain characteristics. Sorry America. First off, if you are gonna run for office, you should have an unblemished record, free of, oh I don't know, felony convictions or sex scandals, except maybe in Louisiana or New York. This might lead to some pretty bland candidates or people who are so calculating that they have no skeletons in their closet, but we Americans are a moral people and like our candidates to reflect our ideals rather than our reality. The second characteristic that a candidate must possess is the ability to raise money. Now some candidates are billionaires and can finance their own campaigns. But most billionaires have better things to do: buying yachts, making even more money, building money forts, buying more yachts, so they don't have time to run for office. But most candidates get their money for their campaigns by asking for it. The ability to raise money is key, especially now, because running for office is expensive. Can I get a how expensive is it? "How expensive is it?!" Well, so expensive that the prices of elections continually rises and in 2012 winners of House races spent nearly 2 million each. Senate winners spent more than 10 million. By the time this episode airs, I'm sure the numbers will be much higher like a gajillion billion million. Money is important in winning an election, but even more important, statistically, is already being in Congress. Let's go to the Thought Bubble. The person holding an office who runs for that office again is called the incumbent and has a big advantage over any challenger. This is according to political scientists who, being almost as bad at naming things as historians, refer to this as incumbency advantage. There are a number of reasons why incumbents tend to hold onto their seats in congress, if they want to. The first is that a sitting congressman has a record to run on, which we hope includes some legislative accomplishments, although for the past few Congresses, these don't seem to matter. The record might include case work, which is providing direct services to constituents. This is usually done by congressional staffers and includes things like answering questions about how to get certain government benefits or writing recommendation letters to West Point. Congressmen can also provide jobs to constituents, which is usually a good way to get them to vote for you. These are either government jobs, kind of rare these days, called patronage or indirect employment through government contracts for programs within a Congressman's district. These programs are called earmarks or pork barrel programs, and they are much less common now because Congress has decided not to use them any more, sort of. The second advantage that incumbents have is that they have a record of winning elections, which if you think about it, is pretty obvious. Being a proven winner makes it easier for a congressmen to raise money, which helps them win, and long term incumbents tend to be more powerful in Congress which makes it even easier for them to raise money and win. The Constitution give incumbents one structural advantage too. Each elected congressman is allowed $100,000 and free postage to send out election materials. This is called the franking privilege. It's not so clear how great an advantage this is in the age of the internet, but at least according to the book The Victory Lab, direct mail from candidates can be surprisingly effective. How real is this incumbency advantage? Well if you look at the numbers, it seems pretty darn real. Over the past 60 years, almost 90% of members of The House of Representatives got re-elected. The Senate has been even more volatile, but even at the low point in 1980 more than 50% of sitting senators got to keep their jobs. Thanks, Thought Bubble. You're so great. So those are some of the features of congressional elections. Now, if you'll permit me to get a little politically sciencey, I'd like to try to explain why elections are so important to the way that Congressmen and Senators do their jobs. In 1974, political scientist David Mayhew published a book in which he described something he called "The Electoral Connection." This was the idea that Congressmen were primarily motivated by the desire to get re-elected, which intuitively makes a lot of sense, even though I'm not sure what evidence he had for this conclusion. Used to be able to get away with that kind of thing I guess, clearly David may-not-hew to the rules of evidence, pun [rim shot], high five, no. Anyway Mayhew's research methodology isn't as important as his idea itself because The Electoral Connection provides a frame work for understanding congressman's activities. Mayhew divided representatives' behaviors and activities into three categories. The first is advertising; congressmen work to develop their personal brand so that they are recognizable to voters. Al D'Amato used to be know in New York as Senator Pothole, because he was able to bring home so much pork that he could actually fix New York's streets. Not by filling them with pork, money, its money, remember pork barrel spending? The second activity is credit claiming; Congressmen get things done so that they can say they got them done. A lot of case work and especially pork barrel spending are done in the name of credit claiming. Related to credit claiming, but slightly different, is position taking. This means making a public judgmental statement on something likely to be of interest to voters. Senators can do this through filibusters. Representatives can't filibuster, but they can hold hearings, publicly supporting a hearing is a way of associating yourself with an idea without having to actually try to pass legislation. And of course they can go on the TV, especially on Sunday talk shows. What's a TV, who even watches TV? Now the idea of The Electoral Connection doesn't explain every action a member of Congress takes; sometimes they actually make laws to benefit the public good or maybe solve problems, huh, what an idea! But Mayhew's idea gives us a way of thinking about Congressional activity, an analytical lens that connects what Congressmen actually do with how most of us understand Congressmen, through elections. So the next time you see a Congressmen call for a hearing on a supposed horrible scandal or read about a Senator threatening to filibuster a policy that may have significant popular support, ask yourself, "Is this Representative claiming credit or taking a position, and how will this build their brand?" In other words: what's the electoral connection and how will whatever they're doing help them get elected? This might feel a little cynical, but the reality is Mayhew's thesis often seems to fit with today's politics. Thanks for watching, see you next week. Vote for me; I'm on the TV. I'm not -- I'm on the YouTube. Crash Course: Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support for Crash Course US Government comes from Voqal. Voqal supports nonprofits that use technology and media to advance social equity. Learn more about their mission and initiatives at Voqal.org. Crash Course is made by all of these nice people. Thanks for watching. That guy isn't nice.

Background

Even as early as his time in the U.S. House in the 1940s, Jacob Javits had been one of the most liberal members of the Republican Party.[1] However, his electability in an otherwise Democratic-leaning state and considerable influence within the Senate allowed him to maintain strength within the party,[2] and he had been able to win election to four terms in the Senate even as his views became less and less popular among Republican loyalists. By 1979, he had become the longest-serving U.S. Senator in New York state history.[2]

For years, Javits had been considered politically "invincible," but had become vulnerable in 1980 in part due to the rise of the Conservative Party of New York,[2] which had cut into the Republican base. Conservatives argued that no Republican could win a general election without their endorsement.[3] In 1970, liberal Republican Senator Charles Goodell lost re-election to Conservative James L. Buckley. In Javits's prior two re-elections in 1968 and 1974, he had been held to less than a majority by strong Conservative performances.

Javits also faced criticisms from liberals in the state over his tepid opposition to the Vietnam War nearly a decade prior; among other things, he had failed to co-sponsor Goodell's amendment to set a deadline for American withdrawal from Vietnam.[2] Javits had also been outflanked by Buckley in 1974, when the Conservative Senator called for the resignation of Richard Nixon while Javits demurred.[2]

Republican primary

Background

Before 1980, Javits had never faced a primary challenge. However, amid widespread speculation that he would not run, two challengers entered the race: Queens attorney James Eagan, a political unknown, and Hempstead supervisor Al D'Amato.[3] D'Amato, who locked up support from Republican leaders on Long Island and had strong ties to the Conservative Party which would ensure his cross-endorsement, was considered a serious threat.[3] On January 17, former Representative Bruce Caputo announced that he would enter the race for the Conservative and Republican nominations, assuming Javits ran.[4] Both he and D'Amato argued that a Conservative-Republican fusion would be unbeatable if Javits remained on the Liberal ticket.[4]

However, neither Caputo nor D'Amato were the Conservatives' first choice. Most speculation surrounded Representative Jack Kemp, a leading Conservative Party fundraiser and active supporter of Ronald Reagan's campaign for President.[5] Kemp was all but assured of the Conservative nomination if he desired it.[4] He told supporters that he would not challenge Javits,[3] but publicly said there was "a good chance" he would run if Javits retired.[4] The Conservatives withheld their formal endorsement from D'Amato, Caputo, or any other candidate in hopes that Javits would not run and Kemp would.[3]

Javits initially said he would announce his intent before February 12, but delayed that decision two weeks, citing his health. Javits also refused to fundraise before formally announcing his campaign despite changes in the law that would have allowed it.[3] When he did finally announce his re-election bid on February 25, Javits shocked supporters by revealing had been diagnosed with a form of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, better known as Lou Gehrig's disease, eighteen months earlier.[6] Javits said his diagnosis was "indolent." Dr. Jerome B. Posner of the Sloan-Kettering Institute confirmed that the disease would not affect Javits's cognition and said he believed Javits could serve out the six-year term.[6] (Javits ultimately died in March 1986, roughly one year before his term would have ended.)

Candidates

Withdrew

Declined

Campaign

Conservative nomination: D'Amato vs. Caputo

Javits's announcement livened the race, which instantly centered on his long record.[7] Though some continued to urge Kemp to run, he ruled himself out. Thus, the primary campaign essentially became a two-stage contest: between Caputo and D'Amato for the Conservative nomination and then between the Conservative choice and Javits for the Republican nomination, though Caputo pledged he would remain in the race if he lost the Conservative nomination, disputing the assumption that the two would split the anti-Javits vote.[7] Caputo, considered a "handsome, media-wise candidate" with "something of a national reputation,"[7] was considered a stronger opponent against Javits but faced an uphill battle against D'Amato, who was considered the more conservative of the two, although unknown outside of Long Island.[7] D'Amato campaigned on Caputo's support for the Humphrey–Hawkins Full Employment Act and opposition to the B-1 bomber.[7]

On March 22, the Conservative state committee gave their informal endorsement to D'Amato, pledging to formalize the nomination in June. There was considerable haggling over whether the committee would weight their votes by party support, which D'Amato favored since most of his strength was in the Conservative base of Queens, Nassau, and Suffolk. The final weighted vote backed D'Amato over Caputo nearly two-to-one.[8]

In preliminary speeches, D'Amato backers stressed his long standing in the Conservative Party and his ability to get on the Republican primary ballot without resorting to an expensive petition drive, since he had the necessary party committee support.[8]

1980 Conservative Party committee vote[8]
Party Candidate Votes %
Conservative Al D'Amato 155,877 65.63%
Conservative Bruce Caputo 80,587 33.93%
Conservative James Eagan 1,048 0.44%
Total votes 237,512 100.00%

After the announcement, Caputo said he would remain in the race. D'Amato said he would contest the general election even if he lost the primary.[8]

D'Amato vs. Javits

Few initially believed that D'Amato could unseat Javits in the primary.[9]

Results

Primary results by county.
Map legend
  •   D'Amato—70–80%
  •   D'Amato—60–70%
  •   D'Amato—50–60%
  •   Tie—50%
  •   Javits—50–60%
  •   Javits—60–70%
  •   Javits—70–80%
Republican primary results[10]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Al D'Amato 323,468 55.68%
Republican Jacob Javits (incumbent) 257,433 44.32%
Total votes 580,901 100.00%

Democratic primary

Candidates

Declined

Campaign

The Democratic field included four major candidates. Bess Myerson was the early favorite, having the support of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, New York City mayor Ed Koch, and Governor Hugh Carey.[7][11] Nevertheless, Myerson's campaign was reliant on her statewide celebrity status as a former Miss America winner and TV personality. If she faltered, most expected Representative Elizabeth Holtzman to take the lead. She had already unseated House dean Emanuel Celler in 1972, and as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, took a leading role in the Nixon impeachment hearings.[7] The third leading candidate, former mayor of New York City John Lindsay, was considered popular with minority voters but struggled to escape his controversial eight-year tenure as mayor, which some city residents blamed for the near-bankruptcy of the city in 1975.[7]

Holtzman rose quickly in the primary, despite her difficulty expressing criticism of Senator Javits, who remained popular with the same liberal Democrats who supported her campaign.[9] During the campaign, Holtzman boasted that she was "never been hand-picked by the bosses. I have never been hand-picked by anyone.", in a thinly-veiled dig to her opponents. Holtzman touted her legislative record, implicitly criticizing Myerson's lack of actual political experience,[9] and her support for women's rights, having secured an extension for the Equal Rights Amendment's 1979 ratification.[12] Myerson also struggled to define herself ideologically, and by late March Holtzman had already pulled ahead in at least one poll.[9]

Results

New York Senate Democratic primary election, 1980[13]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Elizabeth Holtzman 378,567 40.74%
Democratic Bess Myerson 292,767 31.51%
Democratic John Lindsay 146,815 15.80%
Democratic John J. Santucci 36,770 11.96%
Total votes 854,919 100.00%

Liberal nomination

Although Elizabeth Holtzman sought the Liberal Party nomination, the party stuck with Javits, a decision which was to prove pivotal in the general election.

General election

Campaign

D'Amato, also running on the Conservative line, proceeded to defeat Democratic U.S. Representative Elizabeth Holtzman and Javits, who ran on the Liberal Party ticket. In the traditionally liberal state of New York, Javits split the Democratic vote with Holtzman, to give D'Amato a close victory.[14]

Results

General election results[15][16]
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Republican Al D'Amato 2,272,082 37.77%
Conservative Al D'Amato 275,100 4.57% Decrease11.36
Right to Life Al D'Amato 152,470 2.53% N/A
Total Al D'Amato 2,699,652 44.88% N/A
Democratic Elizabeth Holtzman 2,618,661 43.54% Increase5.31
Liberal Jacob Javits (incumbent) 664,544 11.05%
Libertarian Richard Savadel 21,465 0.36% N/A
Communist William R. Scott 4,161 0.07% Decrease0.01
Workers World Thomas Soto 3,643 0.06%
Socialist Workers Victor A. Nieto 2,715 0.05% Decrease0.10
Write-in 73 0.00%
Majority 80,991 1.34%
Total votes 6,014,914 100.00%
Republican hold Swing

See also

References

  1. ^ Martin, Paul (September 7, 1956). "Javits' Record in House Lowest for GOP 'Unity'". Binghamton Press and Sun-Bulletin. Retrieved August 24, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
  2. ^ a b c d e Peck, Louis (April 29, 1979). "Javits: Feared but Respected". Binghamton Press and Sun-Bulletin. pp. 51, 54. Retrieved August 24, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g Zander, Dick (January 11, 1980). "The Riddle of Javits' Run". Newsday. Hempstead, NY.
  4. ^ a b c d e Zander, Dick (January 18, 1980). "Two Who May Challenge Javits". Newsday. Melville, NY. Retrieved August 24, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
  5. ^ a b c Peck, Louis (November 4, 1979). "Will Javits run for another term?". Poughkeepsie Journal. Retrieved August 24, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
  6. ^ a b Zander, Dick. "Javits To Seek 5th Senate Term". Newsday. Retrieved August 24, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h "Poughkeepsie Journal 02 Mar 1980, page Page 7A". Poughkeepsie Journal. March 2, 1980. p. 7A. Retrieved August 25, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
  8. ^ a b c d Zander, Dick (March 23, 1980). "D'Amato Gets Conservative Endorsement". Newsday. Retrieved August 25, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
  9. ^ a b c d Peck, Louis (March 31, 1980). "Holtzman: Can she distinguish herself enough to oust Javits?". The Ithaca Journal. p. 10. Retrieved August 25, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
  10. ^ "Syracuse Mayoral Primary Results - 9wsyr.com". Archived from the original on July 19, 2011. Retrieved June 26, 2013.
  11. ^ Lynn, Frank (September 24, 1982). "CUOMO BEATS KOCH IN DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY". The New York Times. p. 1. Retrieved August 8, 2021.
  12. ^ "HOLTZMAN, Elizabeth". US House of Representatives. Retrieved October 11, 2021.
  13. ^ "Our Campaigns - NY US Senate - D Primary Race - Sep 09, 1980".
  14. ^ Abramowitz, Alan; Segal, Jeffrey Allan (January 1, 1992). Senate Elections. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0472081926.
  15. ^ "Our Campaigns - NY US Senate Race - Nov 04, 1980".
  16. ^ "Statistics of the Congressional Election of November 4, 1980" (PDF). clerk.house.gov. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 20, 2022.
This page was last edited on 13 March 2024, at 18:07
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.