White House Chiefs of Staff, 1969-2017

Below is a list of modern White House Chiefs of Staff (1969-2017) compiled for a book I am co-authoring on the topic.

Chief of Staff                                     Tenure             President                     Party

Harry Robbins (H.R.) Haldeman        1969-73           Nixon                          Republican

Alexander M. Haig, Jr.                       1973-74           Nixon                          Republican

Donald H. Rumsfeld                          1974-75           Ford                            Republican

Richard M. Cheney                             1975-77           Ford                            Republican

William Hamilton M. Jordan              1979-80           Carter                          Democratic

Jack H. Watson, Jr.                             1980-81           Carter                          Democratic

James A. Baker III                              1981-85           Reagan                                    Republican

Donald T. Regan                                 1985-87           Reagan                                    Republican

Howard H. Baker, Jr.                          1987-88           Reagan                                    Republican

Kenneth M. Duberstein                      1988-89           Reagan                                    Republican

John H. Sununu                                  1989-91           G.H.W. Bush              Republican

Samuel K. Skinner                              1991-92           G.H.W. Bush              Republican

James A. Baker III                              1992-93           G.H.W. Bush              Republican

Thomas F. McLarty III                       1993-94           Clinton                        Democratic

Leon E. Panetta                                  1994-97           Clinton                        Democratic

Erskine B. Bowles                              1997-98           Clinton                        Democratic

John D. Podesta                                  1998-01           Clinton                        Democratic

Andrew H. Card, Jr.                           2001-06           G.W. Bush                  Republican

Joshua B. Bolten                                 2006-09           G.W. Bush                  Republican

Rahm I. Emanuel*                              2009-10           Obama                         Democratic

William M. Daley                                2011-12           Obama                         Democratic

Jacob J. Lew                                       2012-13           Obama                         Democratic

Denis R. McDonough                         2013-17           Obama                         Democratic

Reinhold R. “Reince” Priebus            2017                 Trump                          Republican
John F. Kelly                                       2017-p             Trump                          Republican

* After Emanuel left his post to run for mayor of Chicago, Senior Adviser Peter M. Rouse served as interim chief of staff from October 1, 2010, to January 13, 2011.

White House Deputy Chiefs of Staff, 1981-2017

Below is a list of individuals who have served as deputy chief of staff in the White House from 1981-2017. I compiled this information for the book I am co-authoring about the White House Chief of Staff and Office of Chief of Staff. This chart does not exist elsewhere as far as I know.

President	Chief of Staff	Deputy Chiefs of Staff[1]
Ronald W. Reagan	James A. Baker III [01/20/81-02/02/85]	Michael K. Deaver [01/20/81-05/10/85]
	Donald T. Regan [02/02/85-02/27/87]	Michael K. Deaver [01/20/81-05/10/85] W. Dennis Thomas [07/15/85-05/87][2]
	Howard H. Baker, Jr. [02/27/87-07/01/88]	Kenneth M. Duberstein [03/23/87-07/01/88]
	Kenneth M. Duberstein [07/01/88-01/20/89]	M.B. Oglesby, Jr. [07/05/88-01/20/89]
George H.W. Bush	John H. Sununu [01/20/89-12/16/91]	Andrew H. Card, Jr. [01/20/89-02/03/92][3] James W. Cicconi [01/89-01/91][4]
	Samuel K. Skinner [12/16/91-08/23/92]	Andrew H. Card, Jr. [01/20/89-02/03/92] William Henson Moore, III [02/03/92-08/23/92]
	James A. Baker III [08/23/92-01/20/93]	Robert B. Zoellick [08/23/92-01/20/93]
William J Clinton	Thomas F. McLarty III [01/20/93-07/17/94]	Mark D. Gearan [01/20/93-05/93] Roy M. Neel [05/93-11/93] Philip Lader [12/93-10/03/94] Harold M. Ickes [01/03/94-01/20/97]
	Leon E. Panetta [07/17/94-01/20/97]	Harold M. Ickes (Policy and Political Affairs) [01/03/94-01/20/97] Philip Lader [12/93-10/03/94] Erskine B. Bowles (White House Operations) [10/03/94-01/11/96] Evelyn S. Lieberman (White House Operations) [01/11/96-12/96]
	Erskine B. Bowles [01/20/97-10/20/98]	Sylvia M. Mathews [01/97-05/98] Maria Echaveste [05/29/98-01/20/01] John D. Podesta [01/97-10/20/98]
	John D. Podesta [10/20/98-01/20/01]	Maria Echaveste [05/29/98-01/20/01] Stephen J. Ricchetti [11/98-01/20/01]
George W. Bush	Andrew H. Card, Jr. [01/20/01-04/14/06]	Joseph W. Hagin (Operations) [01/20/01-07/20/08] Joshua B. Bolten (Policy) [01/20/01-06/26/03] Harriet E. Miers (Policy) [06/27/03-02/03/05] Karl C. Rove (Policy) [02/03/05-08/31/07]
	Joshua B. Bolten [04/14/06-01/21/09]	Joseph W. Hagin (Operations) [01/20/01-07/20/08] Blake L. Gottesman (Operations) [07/20/08-01/20/09] Karl C. Rove (Planning) [02/03/05-08/31/07] Joel D. Kaplan (Policy) [04/19/06-01/20/09]
Barack H. Obama	Rahm I. Emanuel [01/20/09-10/1/10]	James A. Messina (Operations) [01/20/09-01/26/11] Mona K. Sutphen (Policy) [01/20/09-01/26/11]
	William M. Daley [01/13/11-01/27/12]	Alyssa Mastromonaco (Operations) [01/27/11-present] Nancy-Anne DeParle (Policy) [01/27/11-01/25/13]
	Jacob J. Lew [01/27/12-01/25/13]	Alyssa Mastromonaco (Operations) [01/27/11-present] Nancy-Anne DeParle (Policy) [01/27/11-01/25/13]
	Denis R. McDonough [01/25/13-01/20/17]	Alyssa Mastromonaco (Operations) [01/27/11-05/14] Anita J. Decker Breckenridge (Operations) [05/14-01/20/17] Rob Nabors (Policy) [01/25/13-04/02/15] Mark B. Childress (Planning) [01/12-05/22/14] Kristie Canegallo (Implementation) [05/22/14-01/20/17]
Donald J. Trump	Reinhold R. “Reince” Priebus [01/20/17-present]	Joseph W. Hagin (Operations) [01/20/17-present] Katie Walsh (Implementation) [01/20/17-present] Rick A. Dearborn (Policy) [01/20/17-present]

---

[1] Unless otherwise indicated, staffers had the formal title “deputy chief of staff.”

[2] Official title was “Assistant to the President.”

[3] Official title was “Deputy to the Chief of Staff.”

[4] Official title was “Deputy to the Chief of Staff.”

Ohio, the Battleground States, and Candidate Visits During the 2012 Presidential Election

Here is some travel data from the 2012 presidential election. As you can see, Ohio led the way in combined candidate travel, followed by Virginia, Florida, Iowa, and Colorado.

Battleground state travel for 2012:

	Obama	Biden	Obama-Biden Total	Romney	Ryan	Romney-Ryan Total	Campaigns Combined
CO	15	1	16	7	8	15	31
FL	15	4	19	13	9	22	41
IA	12	3	15	11	7	18	33
MI	2	0	2	2	1	3	5
MN	1	0	1	0	1	1	2
NV	10	1	11	5	4	9	20
NH	7	1	8	6	2	8	16
NM	1	0	1	1	0	1	2
NC	5	1	6	3	0	3	9
OH	21	3	24	15	16	31	55
PA	2	0	2	4	2	6	8
VA	21	3	24	11	9	20	44
WI	8	3	11	3	3	6	17

First term travel by POTUS to Ohio has steadily increased since the early 1980s:

Reagan	9
Bush 41	18
Clinton	18
Bush 43	30
Obama	37

Gerrymandering Future Presidential Elections

Every decade in years ending in zero, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. House of Representatives is reapportioned to account for population shifts within the country. As part of that process, many states choose, and some are forced, to redraw or redistrict the legislative lines of both the state and U.S. congressional districts. If this process proceeds in a state dominated by one party and not subject to a non-partisan commission, it usually results in obvious and exaggerated partisan gerrymandering—lines drawn to benefit one political party at the expense of the other. This process is considered constitutional as long as it does not harm the interests of minority or ethnic groupings.

Such was the case in Ohio, a state carried by Democrat Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, and a state where 38% of voters in 2012 identified as Democrats (compared to 31% identifying as Republican) according to 2012 exit polls. Because of the gerrymandered congressional redistricting process carried out by the Ohio Republican Party in the Buckeye State in 2011, 12 of Ohio’s 16 (or 75%) U.S. congressional districts are held by Republicans representing relatively safe districts. Ohio voters have little chance to affect the outcome of congressional elections during the general election season. Most observers know, before the election even occurs, which party will win which congressional district. Regardless of which party benefits from gerrymandering, such a situation in a swing state like Ohio is an abomination. Ohio is not alone and a number of states were gerrymandered in an extreme fashion in 2011 (including Illinois which had Democrats drawing the lines).

As harmful to representative democracy as gerrymandering of legislative districts is, a new movement to essentially gerrymander future presidential elections is beginning. In a number of swing states in which the state legislature and gubernatorial office is controlled by the GOP, efforts are beginning to change the way electoral votes would be won and accounted for. In all states except Maine and Nebraska, electoral votes are currently awarded in a winner-take-all format—i.e., whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote in a particular state wins all the electoral votes. However, in a number of battleground states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin there have been rumblings from GOP elected and election officials that perhaps it is time to alter that accounting method. In Virginia, a full-fledged effort is underway. Why? Because these swing states, despite their swing state status, have been trending towards the Democratic Party for a number of years and all were won by Obama in the last two elections. By shifting the awarding of electoral votes from a winner-take-all format to one based on the winner of gerrymandered congressional districts, a state party could alter the outcome of a presidential election in that state and potentially change the outcome of the presidential election in the country.

Using Ohio as an example, had such a congressional district system been in place for 2012, President Obama would have received just six of Ohio’s eighteen total electoral votes—he carried the four Democratic districts and would have received two more electoral votes (representing Ohio’s two senate seats) for carrying the whole state. Add up potential electoral vote losses in other swing states for Obama and it is a matter of basic arithmetic that the 2012 electoral vote total would have been much closer than the 332-206 result. In fact, Huffington Post crunched the numbers for the entire country. In 2012, had all states utilized the congressional district method currently used by Maine and Nebraska, the electoral vote result would have been: Obama 265 - Romney 273. This despite the fact that Obama would have won a clear popular vote victory. 

Will this effort to gerrymander the presidential election succeed? With media attention and increased public awareness, such schemes to game future presidential elections will likely fail. But it is unclear whether this issue will receive the attention it deserves over the next three years to stave off a successful effort.

A version of this blog post appeared on Politix.

The Obama-Romney Post-Election Meeting: No Bromance Expected

Politico Arena Topic: A Romney-Obama Friendship?

The meeting between Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama is the political equivalent of two head coaches of rival sports teams shaking hands after the conclusion of a heated game. Just like the Yankees and Red Sox or Packers and Bears, the handshake means nothing except to signify that at the end of the contest, the combatants can be somewhat civil towards each other but the rivalry will continue.

Unlike John McCain who continued in his capacity as a U.S. Senator following his 2008 defeat, Mitt Romney has no position in government and thus will have absolutely no impact on policy or politics. Democrats won’t need to listen to him and Republicans won’t want to.

I also do not foresee Obama and Romney becoming bosom buddies down the road as Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton did. The 2012 election was a particularly bitter contest (not that all presidential elections aren’t tough) and both candidates seemed to have a high level of disdain for one another. In the end, the meeting will make for a nice photo-op but will disappear quickly from the public consciousness as focus will turn back to the fiscal cliff Washington is staring at through the windshield.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment

Romney in a Bind(er) with Women

Politico Arena topic: Will women overlook Romney's 'binders' comment?

Women are one of the key demographic groups in the 2012 election. They vote at a higher rate than men—they composed 53% of the electorate in 2008 and 54% in 2004. In 2008, Senator Barack Obama was able to win the White House largely because of a 13 point margin among women. Senator John Kerry lost narrowly in 2004 largely because the gender gap closed to only 3 points. Until President Obama underperformed in the first presidential debate, he enjoyed a very large advantage among women ranging from 10-20 points in public opinion in many surveys. That gap narrowed in the days following the debacle in Denver.

Governor Mitt Romney’s comment in the second presidential debate that in an effort to find qualified women for his gubernatorial administration he collected “binders full of women” has been panned and it’s veracity questioned. Besides becoming a hash tag sensation on Twitter and fodder for late-night comics, political observers have brought new focus to Governor Romney’s policies on gender. And that focus has revealed positions that are sure to enlarge the gender gap. Mitt Romney’s position on the Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Lilly Ledbetter), the first piece of legislation signed into law by President Obama, has been: I’ll get back to you. His shifting positions on contraception and abortion from when he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate, to when he was Massachusetts governor, to when he was a Republican primary candidate, to when he was a general election candidate, can be described as nothing but Etch-a-Sketch.

But perhaps Governor Romney’s biggest problem is his own party. The modern Republican Party is openly hostile to women’s rights on a number of issues. From opposition to legislation mandating equal pay for equal work for women, to support for legislation in numerous states mandating transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking abortions, to a Republican Party platform that says no abortions, no exceptions, many believe the GOP is on the wrong—and extreme—side of women’s issues. Governor Romney’s biggest problem with America’s women is being the nominee of a party viewed as wildly out of touch with the mainstream values of a majority of those women. Proudly carrying the banner of Republican Party orthodoxy on gender issues may be fine in a primary battle, but is very problematic in a general election and may well cost Romney the White House come election day.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment.

VP Debate 2012: High Expectations and Underestimating the Opponent Can be Perilous

Politico Arena Topic: Could Biden hit Ryan too hard?

There is no question that Team Obama needs a solid debate performance from Vice President Joe Biden in the VP debates. After a week of stories following President Barack Obama’s weak performance at the Denver Debate, a strong Biden showing would help staunch the bleeding. Democrats hope that Biden can land some punches and counter-punches on the Romney-Ryan agenda that President Obama failed to land or even throw. Especially facing the architect of the GOP’s budget, Biden will be expected to take Representative Paul Ryan to task for his plans on Medicare, Social Security, and a host of other controversial policy ideas.

The Vice President has one very large advantage going into the October 11 debate: expectations are very low for him. Known for his verbal gaffes, Biden is neither feared nor respected by Republicans, particularly by the VP nominee himself. Long-time Republican strategist Ed Rollins epitomizes this view when he told Fox News this summer that Ryan “is going to wipe up the floor with Biden in the debates.” However, high expectations and underestimating your opponent can be perilous heading into a debate—just ask Team Obama.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment

Mitt Romney and the Challenge of Being Likable

Politico Arena Topic: Was Ann Romney's Convention Speech a Game-Changer?

Ann Romney’s speech highlighted what we already knew—that she is a decent speaker who could potentially play the role of first lady effectively. The speech was by no means a “game changer” however. The most important speech of the convention has yet to happen. Mitt Romney’s speech will be the most watched, observed, and dissected speech at the GOP convention. Like any nominee trying to knock off an incumbent president, Governor Romney must demonstrate that he offers a different and better vision for America than the current president. He must convince wavering independents and Obama supporters from 2008 who are having buyer’s remorse to come to the Republican side. His task is made more difficult by the hard right stances of the Republican Party platform and utterances of GOP office holders and candidates in recent weeks that have received such negative publicity with the potential to turn off moderates and many women. Romney’s own sprint to the right during the GOP nomination process and his selection of running mate Paul Ryan with his unwavering social conservatism no doubt complicate this process.

Perhaps most challenging for Romney is that he must connect with the average American. The likeability gap between President Obama and Governor Romney is very real—he must close that gap as much as possible if he is to win the election. Americans prefer to cast a vote for someone they like. A candidate perceived as aloof and not being able to identify with the middle class of the country will struggle in the end. So Mitt Romney’s biggest challenge is to achieve what Ann Romney attempted to do last night—to convince America that despite his privileged upbringing and sheltered life, he can identify with the hopes, dreams, challenges, and struggles of everyday Americans. Perhaps most importantly, he must demonstrate that he actually cares about those same people.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment

Paul Ryan: An Unconventional VP Choice for a Conventional Campaign

Politico Arena Topic: Is Paul Ryan a Good VP Choice?

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is an unconventional choice for a vice presidential running mate and certainly qualifies as a “bold” one. Time will tell if it is a good pick. Not many individuals from the U.S. House are chosen for the #2 slot—the last time that happened was 1984 with Walter Mondale’s selection of Geraldine Ferraro. House members usually lack the visibility and experience on the national stage that a senator or governor possess. But Ryan is different. He has become one of the leading voices of the new Republican Party—one of the 40-something “young guns” redefining the party’s brand of fiscal conservatism. He is a wonkish Gen Xer—a stark contrast with the man who picked him. Ryan is bright and has spent most of his adult life on Capitol Hill, including nearly 14 years as a member of the House—no Palin problem here (you can’t see Russia from his Janesville District but on a clear day you may be able to see Rockford).

The “Ryan Budget,” with its blend of fiscal austerity and massive cuts to the domestic safety net combined with compassion for the top earners and DoD, will now become a central focus of the campaign. To a great extent, this is something both liberals and conservatives relish—a real debate about the future priorities and values of the American economy. And up to this point, it is something the Romney campaign has been loath to explore in any way but the most vague and vacuous. That will now change.

From an Electoral Map perspective, the Ryan pick may put Wisconsin back in play—a state where President Obama has had a consistent if small lead in the polls throughout the campaign. Ryan’s Catholic upbringing and social conservatism will help the Romney campaign with Midwestern Catholics and perhaps other religious conservatives still uneasy about Romney’s faith. Without a doubt the Ryan pick energizes a GOP base sorely in need of energizing. Ryan gives the base a reason to vote FOR Romney instead of just AGAINST President Obama. But Ryan is a double-edged sword—those very reasons he may energize the base may be the same reasons he turns off independents and seniors in crucial swing states. The Obama campaign will not miss an opportunity to remind seniors in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Iowa—three of the top five states in terms of proportion of seniors per capita—what the Ryan Budget means for the future of Medicare. Thus, putting Wisconsin in play may ultimately come at the expense of handing Florida to Barack Obama in 2012—a trade the Obama campaign would make any day.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment

Romney's Tax Returns and the Politics of Perception

Politico Arena Topic: A Taxing Dilemma for Romney?

In 1968, Republican presidential candidate George Romney initiated the practice of releasing tax returns by making 12 years available to the public. Forty-four years later, his son, Mitt Romney, reluctantly made available only 1 year and that was only after withering criticism from his GOP rivals for the nomination. In 2008, when he was being vetted as a running-mate, Romney handed over 23 years of returns to the McCain campaign. No one knows for sure what the McCain people saw, but we are certain that Romney was not chosen.

By not releasing more returns, Romney leaves the impression that he has something to hide. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t. But in politics, perception is reality, especially at the presidential level. During a presidential campaign, transparency is the best policy because the questions will continue and the negative attention will not cease unless the campaign makes a good-faith effort to clear up any questions. Even members of Romney’s own Republican Party are questioning his motives in not releasing more returns—a sure sign that this tax return controversy will only get worse. President Obama did not put the birther nonsense to rest until the state of Hawaii released his long-form birth certificate in April 2011. That contrived controversy has now all but gone away except for the handful of nut jobs and conspiracy theorists like Donald Trump, Joe Arpaio, and Orly Taitz who can’t seem to let it go (and may also believe the world is flat and that the moon landing never happened).

For Romney, it is best to put that information out now, deal with the negative fallout during the summer, and have the issue behind him when he picks his running-mate and goes to the convention. By waiting, he only risks blunting the momentum he will need coming out of Tampa in the sprint toward election day.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment

Obama's Swing State Travel Log

During presidential election years, I get asked by the media quite a bit about Ohio's role as a battleground or swing state. Besides the fact that Ohio is known as the "Mother of Presidents" with a direct connection to 8, in the modern era Ohio maintains its strategic importance to fashioning an electoral vote majority. If it wasn't important, presidential contenders and their campaign surrogates wouldn't visit Ohio as much as they do.

This concept of presidential travel and the electoral map motivated me to actually look at the data. What I present below is just a first swipe--I haven't drilled down into the numbers much. And, this is the beginning of what I hope will be a long-term project tracking the travel destinations of presidents, presidential candidates, and their surrogates.

President Obama's First Term Travel to 13 Swing States I have identified for 2012 election (as of July 13, 2012):*

Colorado: 10/4
Florida: 18/5
Iowa 10/4
Michigan 10/3
Minnesota: 6/1
Nevada: 10/4
New Hampshire: 6/2
New Mexico: 3/1
North Carolina: 10/3
Ohio: 22/6
Pennsylvania: 19/2
Virginia: 49/9
Wisconsin: 8/1

*First number is total separate trips to state; second number is separate trips to state in 2012 so far.

Although Virginia is the most visited battleground state by President Obama, many of those visits were in conjunction with his role as Commander-in-Chief and other official duties (e.g. visits to the Pentagon, CIA, etc.). Also, given Virginia's proximity to the White House and ease of travel to get there, it is unsurprising that it ranks first.

Ohio, it should surprise no one, ranks second, with Pennsylvania close behind. Obama has made 22 total visits to the Buckeye Battleground and 6 in 2012 alone with another one scheduled for this coming Monday in Cincinnati.

Another question intrigued me: how does Obama's travel to Ohio compare to other recent presidents in their first term? I did a quick check and here's what I came up with:

Reagan: 9
GHW Bush: 18
Clinton: 18
GW Bush: 30

It seems that even as Ohio's electoral vote totals have declined over time, Ohio is becoming increasingly popular with sitting first-term presidents.

More to come on this topic as the campaign season rages on.

The Invisible Massachusetts Governor

Politico Arena Topic: Is Mitt Romney Avoiding Massachusetts?

The Romney campaign seems intent on emphasizing Mitt Romney’s time as a venture capitalist with Bain rather than his time as chief executive of a large Northeastern state (of course, no else is supposed to talk about Romney’s time with Bain). His reticence to highlight his years as Massachusetts governor is indicative of the Romney campaign’s fear of alienating the Republican base who loathe the more moderate actions and policies of Governor Romney. The Romney campaign is reluctant to reminding social and religious conservatives that he was once a supporter of abortion rights and creator of Romneycare upon which the Affordable Care Act is in part based.

So…if Romney is left to campaign without touting his record as governor, he must campaign as the candidate from Bain. The question is: will his record as a venture capitalist capture the hearts and minds of independent voters? The answer is probably not, especially when independent voters, who are largely not paying attention right now, realize that the purpose of a venture capitalist is to make money—lots of it—for investors, and not to create jobs, a top priority for most Americans in 2012. And when these same voters come to realize that Romney’s job creation consists primarily of the stablemen who care for his horses, the domestic help caring for his several homes, and the workers installing elevators for his numerous automobiles, they may switch their allegiance to his opponent faster than you can transfer money into a Cayman Islands bank account.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment.