in an area like this. And this is the wrong district to run in when your name is Carlos.

I also think that Cole is tough to run against. His military experience canceled out Del Toro's. And he may be ultra conservative, but he's more consistent and principled in his (crazy) views than most Republicans in Richmond. Cole was one of the very few to vote against the abuser fees. I think a well-funded challenger would have had an easier time taking out Bill Howell this year.

The campaign staff he put together was experienced and very professional, but they were mostly from NOVA and maybe didn't understand the district. Although you can hardly blame Carlos since this area has very slim pickings when it comes to those types, and NOVA is spilling over with Democrats. (And in their defense, they probably could have easily gotten Oleszek elected in Fairfax.)

The person who's going to win this seat has to be someone with very deep roots in the community, and is a proven vote getter in the area. Someone like a Hap Connors, who got a ridiculous 76% of the vote in his Spotsylvania district.

Without the Stafford County Republican turnout generated by this 65-35 HOD race, we would have won the Pollard-Stuart race.

Party leaders need to exercise better strategic judgment next time.  Carlos is a great candidate, but just not the right fit for Stafford County as it is presently comprised.

than he did in 2005 against Feldbush.

He has lived in Stafford quite a while and involved himself in the community heavily...Boy Scouts, juvenile diabetes association, etc.  As to the composition of Stafford, there are Democrats there, they just need to be id'd, followed, and then gotten out to vote.

This needs to be an organized ground game, with distributed volunteer coordinating efforts.  I think it is the same fight we are having in Prince William.  We need the voters who voted for Webb last year to come out and vote in off year elections too.

"We need the voters who voted for Webb last year to come out and vote in off year elections too."  True Soctt, but the local committees and the candidate's campaign staff have to do that job.  It's a given that voting is not their priority; we have to reach out to them (early iding of Dems). 

First of all, Carlos Del Toro received fewer votes than Chuck Feldbush because fewer votes were cast in 2007. The actual percentages were almost the same, 37.71% for Del Toro to 37.46% for Feldbush. This information seems to show that Howell knew what he was doing when he drew the district more than anything else.

Second, the apparent financial advantage shown on VPAP is inflated because of the manner in which a candidate is required to report the state party's donation of their bulk rate for mailing. In fact, almost $100k less was raised in this race, but the cost of printing and mailing each piece was reported as an in kind donation from the state party, then taken back out again as an expense. No doubt, Commander Del Toro held a fundraising advantage, but it was not as large as you claim.

Third, the notion that Commander Del Toro "lost" the race for Albert Pollard is ridiculous. Even if you discount the fact that Del Toro was in his race almost THREE MONTHS BEFORE POLLARD, the fact is that Pollard did not perform as well in the areas of his strength to overcome his weaknesses. Pollard lost 10 precincts in Stafford where there was NO overlap with Del Toro, all of King George and Prince William precincts (no overlap), and lost Catlett in Fauquier- where there was no overlap by approximately the same percentage as the two that did overlap. This arguement doesn't hold water, and only serves to discourage potential candidates in the future. Running for office is a daunting enough process without fighting members of your own party.

In fact, if you trust other elected and party officials, this campaign was generally regarded as one of the best run in the state this year. A gerrymandered district is the biggest criminal here.

Amy LaMarca
Senior Adviser
Del Toro for Delegate

As one who lives in the Fredericksburg region Carlos couldn't have been more energetic or professional about his campaign.

Only one incumbant was displaced in the Fredericksburg area. That factor is the single biggest issue here for better or for worse.... Incumbants win over 90% of the time.

This worked against Carlos Del Torro in his Delegate race and worked for Ed Houck in his Senate race.

And by the way if all you NOVA Dems want to provide some constructive help for the Democratic Party cause .... FOCUS IN ON THE SPECIAL Congressional Election for the 1st CD.  THAT WILL TAKE A LOT OF EFFORT and Hi Vis ground pounding by our best elected officials (Webb, Kaine, former Gov Warner, etc.).

Carlos and his team did what they could ... to suggest they influenced the Pollard race is a bit insulting ... Ben's trademark.

To state that Del Toro got fewer votes than Feldbush because of the gerrymander and a smaller voter turnout strains credulity.  I'm one who is a student of politics, have been for years, and I know one thing for certain:  When you have $450,000 to spend and get the same 37% as an unknown who spent $15,000, the explanation has to be deeper than the gerrymander and voter turnout.

After all, in 2004 Kerry/Edwards got 2,347 88th District votes in Spotsylvania County vs. Del Toro's 1,165 votes.  So Democratic votes are there, it's a matter of dredging them out.  You can always say "Well, Kerry's was a presidential election and Del Toro's wasn't."  But there was a lot of interest in this election, a lot at stake for the Democratic party of Va., the Republican Party is in disrepute and their scandals are waiting to be exploited by clever campaigning, and there was a hellova lot of money raised on this side of the aisle.

I haven't compared potential Dem votes for Del Toro in the remainder of the 88th vs. what Kerry got, but I'm sure there would have been enough to overcome Cole, had the potential voters been targeted by a computerized ID system (which by now we should have) and spoken to in person or on the phone by teams of volunteers from the counties. This is what Republicans do, and very successfully, considering the BS they must sling to get voters.

The $450,000 (O.K., let's call it $350,000) should have ENSURED a greater voter turnout for Del Toro, had the money been used effectively!  What else was the fundraising for, to change the Republicans' minds about freedom of choice and other Rightist hackneyed beliefs?  That would be near impossible, as any Progressive political operative knows.  You raise money just as you RaiseKaine:  to get out the base.  Here, it WAS NOT DONE.  The question is Why?

Snolan is correct that a grassroots effort is needed, and I saw no indication of such a concerted effort, at least in my county in this election.  As for the Party in Richmond, I, a registered Dem since, it seems like, 1850, received little or nothing concerning anything that would get me to the polls on time, had I been eligible to vote for Del Toro.  The VA HQ has business to oversee what the county committees are doing to elect candidates by providing intelligent support and correcting wrong turns taken by the candidates and the county committees.  Or else, what are they there for and why should we support them?

Finally, to state that Del Toro's campaign was one of the best run seems kind of CYA-type blather by people who should know better.  If you use the gerrymander as an excuse for poor showing, then you must note that Feldbush faced the SAME challenge. With $425,000 (O.K., $325,000) less in his coffers than had Del Toro, with a mere $15,000, Feldbush performed no worse than Del Toro.  In fact, much better, in Spotsy.

And we should note that you cannot use lower voter turnout as an excuse for poor performance when you've raised all that moola to get a higher voter turnout.  And Del Toro is a very, very attractive candidate (even if his name is Carlos, Chris). 

So let's then face reality.  The State Party must step in lest we stay mired forever in the status quo that none of us wants.

Then, from Ms. LaMarca's comments above and others, the 88th should not run another Democrat in this area since the amount of money you spend will always get you the same results...which I don't buy into. 

In other words, if an attractive candidate with great funding, in an region that obviously has untapped Democratic voters (i.e., Kerry 2004) can't do any better than a guy running a campaign on $15,000 and a prayer, then why did Del Toro run?  He knew the gerrymander existed.  And he knew there would be a low off-year election turnout.  But he had the money to get out the votes, he had the committees who should have handed over a base of known Democratic voters, and he had the DCCC "promoting" his candidacy.

It just doesn't add up.  He was a good candidate and not being a Carl instead of a Carlos is a limp excuse for losing.  I still contend that something is very amiss in this region, and it's not the candidate.  Rather, it's the lack of  organized grassroots operation (be it committees, the DPVA, etc.) THAT is the elephant in the room that everyone ignores. 

Diane, I have huge respect for you - but please remember that this was also not even a Governor's race.  In 2005 we had Kaine vs Kilgore to help draw more people out, and Deeds vs Bolling.

The 4th year in the 4 year cycle is usually the lowest turnout.

and I always look for your excellent comments and diaries. 

Let me say this, though.  In Spotsylvania, where I live, there were only two Democrats running this year:  Edd Houck and Carlos Del Toro.  No one else runs as a Democrat.  Even Hap Connors, a well-known Democrat (Supervisor) in the county runs as an Independent even though he was the Executive Director of the South Carolina Democratic Party! As I've diaried many times on RK, there is something seriously wrong with a local committee when well-known Dems can't run as a Dem nor use that committee for serious help.

 

If someone didn't see any evidence of a grassroots effort during this campaign, they were blindfolded for 6 months.  What an insult to the candidate, staff and volunteers that blanketed the district.  I'd laugh if my feet didn't still hurt.  Amy, Matt and Melissa - you are terrific.  It was inspirational to work with you.  I am shell-shocked by the results, but I can assure all readers it wasn't from a lack of the right effort.  Carlos, you are a hero.

be construed as an insult to the candidate.  Carlos was the best and most-qualified candidate this district ever had and he energized everyone.  The problem has never been Carlos. 

Stafford and Spotslyvania Counties are 60% Republican leaning. Fredericksburg is the reverse more or less (60% Democratic leaning). Most of Del Toro's potential constituents live in the Stafford area.... home of some strong state Republicans.

He ran against an incumbant. Incumbants like it or note aren't easily unseated. The money and volunteer leg-work were more than ample and well spent. But the Democratic candidate lost anyway. The percentage results weren't much different than say Mr. Shawn O'Donnell's results as a 1st District Congressional Candidate.

Now you can theorize all kinds of stuff ... from having a name like "Carlos" to being too negative in one's campaign ads ... but the staff and volunteers worked hard ... they campaigned well. Really as an observer Cmdr. Del Toro ran a campaign worthy of a federal race...

But he didn't unseat an incumbant.  Chris Yak - Yakblouski the Republican Challenger to Ed Houck didn't beat that incumbant either. Chris Yak had the balls to (or lack of brains) to send out a mailer with him hugging GEORGE ALLEN!!!  ... who won 60% of the vote in the Webb Allen contest for that district.

Still Ed Houck won .... a long time conservative democratic incumbant won ... and whom the locals (as well as the Freelance Star) are comfortable with.  If the VOTERs wanted change in this election  cycle then more than 30% would have come out to vote.  Over 50% voted in the Webb Allen cycle.

It's just crazy to blame the Del Toro campaign for anything.... other than to have the gump-tion to run up stream.... against the tide ... inspite of the odds (you pick the metaphor).

Okay, you say it's just crazy to blame the Del Toro campaign for anything.  I can't agree with you nor argue your point because as a Democrat in Spotsylvania I had no insight into the campaign other than receiving 2 or 3 e-mails asking that I go on a Potomac cruise for a very steep price!  That's it...even though I had worked on the 2005 Feldbush campaign (and won 1st District grassroots award that year) and had volunteered in January to work on the Del Toro campaign.  When I asked the Spotsy Democratic Committee for help for Del Toro, I was told by the Vice Chair that they would not help me (as he had told me during the 2005 campaign saying ..."she is on her own and the Committee will do nothing to support Feldbush").  I was told by the State Party that the Del Toro campaign team was satisfied with the help they would be getting from the Spotsy committee members.  Seems odd since I couldn't ever find EVEN ONE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE'S NAME on the Spotsylvania Democratic Committee's website!!!  I heard there was a Spotsylvania fundraiser for Del Toro but it was by invitation only.

Give me a break.  Carlos was a fine candidate and
I believe worked incredibly hard.  The others helping him....well.

PS  An incumbent Republican supervisor LOST in
Spotsylvania who was an incredibly conservative Republican. He was replaced handily by a candidate who is very progressive and will be making an incredible difference in local politics!  He had a great team working for him and clobbered the incumbent! 

This is an interesting discussion and I see some parellels between this race and the race I was working in.  Bottom line, both districts are very Republican.

Any challenger faces a tough fight against an incumbent.
A challenger from the party not preferred by the district is facing a doubly hard fight.

We all worked our butts off and we did good work.  We did not win, but we learned and we know more now.  We used some new techniques, some worked, some did not.  We know more now.

Having said that - we need to be more organized on the future, and turn the grass-roots efforts we do have into field campaigns for the 2008 elections (or the special election in the 1st C.D. if you are close to there).

I know we lost a lot of time traveling between efforts in our campaigns in PWC.  We need to improve conference calling and online communications to cut out some of the travel time.  Distribute the materials for volunteer nights and get people more time doing activities than traveling to them.

If the excuses for a lightweight showing are:  you can't beat an incumbant; Shawn O'Donnell didn't do any better in the 1st; the grassroots effort was great but the voters didn't turn out--then all I can say is that it takes a truly irrational person to run as a Democrat in this area.

Shawn O'Donnell's underfunded candidacy was almost non-existent and if you compare his funding to Del Toro's, it makes Del Toro's showing even worse.  Please!  As for the shoe leather spent, what did it get?  You all are totally ignoring the fact that a guy with $15,000, running 2 years ago when the Republicans had better press, did as well as a guy with 450 grand when the Republican name is MUD.

No one is blaming the campaign for not working hard--those who did.  What I'm saying is look at the bottom line objectively.  The previous comment again uses the excuse that Spotsy is mostly Republican, but we nevertheless put forth a great fight, a GREAT campaign, but, hey, you cannot beat the odds.  Using that reasoning as an excuse for the loss, doesn't it follow, as I've said, that it would be irrational to run if you can't beat a Republican incumbent in a Republican district?  Let's face it by being honest, the campaign was not great in that it did not Get Out The Vote and it achieved NO greater result than the underfunded Feldbush campaign.

I don't doubt people worked hard, how many there were.  I doubt that they worked smart, in that (1) they should have known better what they were up against, and (2) they should have learned from the prior campaign to unseat Cole.

And I fully believe we should run candidates against Republican incumbents, even in entrenched Republican areas.

Del Toro had an uphill battle to begin with but lost big for a couple of reasons:  1. The use of the "Commander" title in every piece of literature backfired.  I think that using it a few times would have been okay to get across the message that he served.  2.  The negative Cole lit. was too much. I am glad that he focused on Cole's ineffectiveness and now everyone knows, but I think that the negativity actually motivated the GOP to come out in force.  This could have led to a better GOTV for the GOP than for the Dems and that could have contributed to a Pollard loss. 

The negativity did not motivate the GOP to come out in force.  That doesn't make sense.  They came out because they wanted to win.  Do you think if Del Toro had said nothing they would have stayed home?

I know this:  to win an election each county local committee must be ready with a list of guaranteed Democratic voters to give each candidate that runs in their county.  In January (or all along) committees should have devoted their time to calling registered voters and identifying the Democrats.  Then they should followup with letters, more phone calls, and on and on until you get to the election and you get these Democrats to the polls. It's how it works:  read books on how to run a campaign, read the DPVA Leadership Manual.  That's how it works.  It's hard work but it's what guarantees the vote. 
 

Comparing Del Toro's results with Feldbush's from two years ago is a little like comparing scores for different football teams.  Just because one team does well against a good team does not always mean they will beat a weaker team by a higher score.  Cole hardly campaigned at all against Feldbush two years ago; he did not attend any candidate forums, did few (if any) community events, and spent little money.  This time he ran scared; he raised more money than he ever had (even though it was still less than Del Toro), he did a lot of mail and radio ads, and even went out door knocking.  I have met both Feldbush and Del Toro, and Del Toro is a far better candidate.  Two years ago Cole coasted to a 62-38 victory with little effort against Feldbush.  This year he had to campaign very hard to get close to the same results against Del Toro. 

Del Toro has nothing to be ashamed of; he ran a great campaign against an entrenched incumbent in a republican district.  He joins a long list of distinguished Democrats that could not carry that district including: Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, and Jim Webb.  I salute Del Toro for at least making a serious run and putting a scare into Cole and the Stafford republicans!

The major difference between 2007 and 2005 is that the Republican Party today is in total disrepute and disarray, and this should have ensured that any Democratic candidate with the kind of money Del Toro raised, should have been able to get out a large vote.  That they didn't is proof alone that his campaign lacked proper guidance and/or support from either the DPVA, the local committees, or the Democratic House Caucus or some campaign-based reason.

The fact is that there are "x" number of potential Democratic voters in the 88th District, as seen by Kerry's and Gore's results when the Republican Party had credibility.  Certainly, with $450,000 we should have expected more aggregate votes for Del Toro than Feldbush got with his measly $15,000.  It doesn't matter how Cole campaigned.  (Facts:  in 2004 Kerry got 44,543 votes in Fauquier, Stafford and Spotsylvania; in 2000 Gore got 55,926 votes from the same counties).  The potential votes are there.

It seems patently obvious that the major thrust that the Del Toro's campaign lacked was properly targeting the identifiable Democrats who voted for Kerry and Gore.  These potential votes should have been identified and contacted many times over the course of these seven years.

In summary, I stress that Cole got out less votes than he did 2 years earlier, less votes against a more formidable opponent.  This alone shows that the opportunity was there for a win by a man with $450,000 in the coffers.