RK ARCHIVE - Race by Race, District by District, and What We Need To Do To Win

We had a damn good year in Virginia. Barack Obama officially turned Virginia into a purple state. Mark Warner crushed Gilmore, and showed us that the Republican die-hard base (those that will vote for anybody with an "R" at the end of their name) isn't as big as the GOP had hoped it was. And Democrats took the lead in the VA Congressional Delegation.

That's where I want to focus my efforts today. We've all heard enough about how Obama won Virginia, and we all know how Mark Warner beat Gilmore: an unstoppable force meets a very movable object. But I want to focus on where we failed and succeeded in Congressional races. What went right? What went wrong? How do we win in 2010? I want to go race by race in the Congressional races this year. Note, these are just the observations of a political enthusiast who has been raised in Virginia Politics. I welcome civilized debate. And nobody needs to take these criticisms personally; they are not meant to insult, but to help us improve. I welcome debate below.
District 1: Bill Day

I have to admit, I was impressed with the results. Bill Day came in late to the race, was barely funded, and was running against somebody who had been virtually running for re-election since the day after he was elected in 2007. However, this is a district where Barack Obama outperformed Day by a pretty sizeable margin, meaning that it is likely that Day's larger-than-expected tally was due to Obama aid. And a significant amount of voters split their ticket the Obama-Warner-Wittman way. The First District is a tough one: we have lost two races there in very good years for Democrats. Wittman was a brilliant choice for the special election in 2007, and appears to be a good fit for his constituents. But there are things we can learn from this race. Primarily, seeing as Day got a late start, we can see what our base is like in a year with a strong top of the ticket. This will be more help for 2012 than 2010, or course, where Webb and Obama will be up for re-election. Still, we're starting to experiment a bit in the First; it's like dipping your toe in the pool before you dive in to see how the water feels. I'm of the opinion we'll probably need to do a bit more toe dipping, and we'll need to do a lot more networking for the ground-game in this area, but there is a chance that in a few years we might be a bit more competetive in this district.

Virginia Beach, like Fairfax County, may soon be a District all to itself because of population. Understanding Nye's win, and how he can hold onto the seat in 2010, requires looking at the 2004 and 2006 races as well as 2008. Nye's victory has as much to do with Phil Kellam as it does with Thelma Drake. But let's go all the way back to David Ashe. I remember joining the online Democratic Community in Virginia in 2005, and contributors on Raising Kaine were referring to Ashe's 2004 loss as "close." I went out of my way to question people on whether or not they thought ten points qualified as close; my opinon was that it did not, especially since we had held the seat for many years with Owen Pickett, and Jody Wagner had barely lost to Ed Schrock. The truth was obvious, Ashe got beaten badly by a candidate who had only been the official nominee for two and a half months. I began advocating Phil Kellam for Congress: he had the resume, the financial support, and the connections in Virginia Beach, which makes up the vast majority of the District. I still stand by the call to support Kellam over Ashe in 2006; the polls at the beggining of the race having Kellam up over Drake by almost ten points verify it. But Kellam failed at what Nye excelled in: the campaign. Kellam's numbers steadily declined, and he ended up barely losing the race. Nye, conversely, started out solidly behind Drake, but ran a superb campaign. He took firm stances on his positions, and latched himself on to Mark Warner and the "change" meme that was so popular this year.

Now Barack Obama barely won the Second District this year, which is an impressive feat in such a heavily military district. And I'm sure increases in African-American votes (there isn't a significant college vote in the District) helped Nye. But Nye outperformed Obama, and won every locality in the Second. Nye's victory cannot be attributed to Obama. Drake's unpopularity combined with Nye's discipline as a campaigner were the keys to her fall. Now, for Nye to win in 2010, where rumors are that some Republican heavyweights down at the Beach want in, he'll have to do a few things: first, he must stay in the news. He's a relative unknown, even after the race. Secondly, he has to endear himself to military voters. Nye will be given a spot on the Armed Services Committee: USE IT. Be a constant supporter of active military as well as veterans. Jim Webb is starting to make serious inroads in this community, and Nye should work closely with the Senator on these issues. And third; remain fiscally conservative. Even though there is a small populist fervor in Virginia Beach, and Populism won out in other districts (particularly the Fifth), the fact remains that the Beach is primarily a business community. Note the election of Bank Industry Member Will Sessoms as Mayor over long-term Incumbent Myra Obendorf on primarily budget and spending issues. And Owen Pickett was one of the founding members of the Blue Dog Coalition. Though I believe Nye can stay relatively moderate on social issues, he must remain fiscally responsible on the economy. As Webb was a good choice for a Senate ally on military and foreign policy issues, I would suggest Nye align himself with Mark Warner on economic issues. I honestly believe Nye has a great chance of being re-elected. However, he must be careful. Virginia Beach has been getting better for Democrats, but it is STILL a Republican town.

The Third District is an example of Gerrymandering at the very worst. Take a look at a picture of it: African-American areas are carved out an isolate to protect Republicans. The GOP sacrificed the district to the Democrats by making it a district primarily based on race, which in my mind is pretty vile. That being said, Bobby Scott is a tremendous representative. The district couldn't ask for more.

This race, more than any other, is a product of Barack Obama's success. I had suspected that Obama would do well in the Second. I had thought he might win, though I gave McCain the benefit of the doubt due to Military voters. And the Fifth District turned out exactly as I had thought it would; a McCain victory, but Obama made serious in roads. The Fourth caught me off guard: Obama won it by about a percentage point. Andrea Miller never really had a legitimate shot at victory; Forbes is well liked in the Fourth. Hell, I met him at the shadplank once, and he seemed like a very likeable person. But she did better than at least two candidate who were given much more hype on the blogs. This, to me, is representative of what a good top of the ticket can do for a bottom. This might not be the best race for 2010, but there might be a pretty significant shot in 2012 with Obama and Webb to at least keep the GOP on their toes. Getting this race within 10 would be a huge accomplishment. The problem is that any candidate who could make a legitimate run at Forbes knows that it is likely a suicide mission. This district, like the first, shows some potential, but not likely for a few years. The best the Democrats in the Fourth District can do is start planting the seeds by continuing to build the grassroots.

I have commented on how Glenn Nye ran a great campaign. As a matter of fact, I think he ran the third best Campaign in Virginia this year. And I think the second best was probably Barack Obama, who had incredible GOTV. But the best campaign, buck for buck, in the Commonwealth was Tom Perriello. Virgil Goode is practically an institution in the Fifth District. He's represented the district for over a decade as a Democrat, an Independent, and a Republican. Although I thought Perriello had incredible potential, even I thought that victory, though possible, was highly unlikely. Goode was a favorite son, and though he had said some things that made people uncomfortable, those very same things were in line with what many people in the Fifth actually thought. But Tom Perriello proved to be an able fundraiser and an even more skilled campaigner. And his message was perfect for going after the scandal-plagued Goode.

Now some people give Obama credit for Tom's win. I'll admit, Obama may have been a key factor for Perriello. The Fifth District has a significant student population due to the Universtiy of Virginia (cough cough GO HOKIES cough), and sizeable African-American community. However, the increases by Obama weren't as significant as some have suggested: African-American turnout grew 1%, and youth turnout was another 1%. So Obama's candidacy may have given a small boost to Perriello's turnout, and it is possible that 1-2% increase might have been what pushed Periello over the edge. But those who focus on that are missing the point: Al Weed lost to Goode by almost 20 points. Even taking away the 2% that Obama might have given Perriello, that still makes it 49-51 in Goode's favor. Yes, Perriello might have gotten a little boost from Obama this year, but it was Perriello who took a race not even remotely competetive in 2006 and made it a virtual tie. With a race this close, you can point to a lot of factors. But the truth of the matter is that the reason this race was one is the result of one candidate: Perriello. However, because of the closeness of the race, and the chance that Obama may have been an important reason for victory, winning re-election will count significantly on who the GOP nominee is in 2010, and if Perriello can replicate turnout. Goode will no doubt want a chance for a rematch in 2010, and will count on Obama not being on the top of the ticket. However, many other Republicans in the General Assembly will see this as their one and only shot at higher office, and may seize it. I actually believe Goode would be the toughest 2010 opponent for Perriello, while new blood will be easier to define on our terms. Perriello must also not forget that he represents a conservative district, and must remember to moderate his stances. He must also keep alive that economic populism that was so popular in the Fifth this year. Like Nye, Perriello must also keep himself in the news. As a newcomer who was elected in a very Democratic year to represent a District that usually votes red, Perriello must be in the news for being independent, and for fighting for his district against either party. Those looking for liberal representaion might end up disappointed; if Perriello goes hard to the left, he'll be looking at one term. And for an elected-official with so much potential, and in my mind could one day be seen in an even higher office. that would be a real shame.

This is a hard one for me to analyze without a smug sense of satisfaction, because I have a pretty strong urge to say "told you so." Sam Rasoul himself, on this blog, called me a coward when I said I didn't think he could get close, let alone win. For advocating support of his temporary opponent Drew Richardson, I was subject to ad hominem attacks on my character by Rasoul's supporters. Needless to say, I was not happy, and due to that event found it hard to support Sam in the election. Now, most candidates have what I like to call "teh hardcorz", or online supporters who would eat molten rock for their guy and/or gal (I'm still debating some Kucinich people over what I see as the absurdity of the proposed "Department of Peace"), and Rasoul was no exception. In fact, I think at the beginning of the year Rasoul had a more prominent online presence than any congressional candidate running (save maybe Leslie Byrne). Now, I'll admit, Rasoul is a very charming guy in person. And I can see why he inspired supporters as he did; his personality combined with the fact that Dems hadn't challenged Goodlatte in a long time was probably very moving. And unlike his Democratic opponent, Rasoul had a passion to run, while Richardson appeared much more like the reluctant candidate.

But let me post a link to Rick Howell's bit on this race: http://rickhowellspeaks.blogsp... Notice how Rick has taken some hits for his opinions. I'd also ask you to notice that most of the attackers have been strong Rasoul supporters since day one, at least one of whom went after me early last year for going Nostradamus on everybody and predicting these results pretty accurately. I must admit, however, that I have some disagreements with Rick. First of all, I think he places too much importance on Democratic loyalty and activism. Let's face it, Democrats are the minority in the sixth. You could get 100% of the Democratic vote, but unless you win a significant majority of Independents and cut into GOP vote, you can't win. My problem with Rasoul wasn't his supposed lack of Democratic credentials. My problem was with his lack of congressional credentials, which Rick does mention, and I think should've been the focus of his op-ed. He was too young, and most importantly, without enough life experience. Glenn Nye was young, he had already freed hostages from terrorists. Perriello was young, he had already started faith based organizations while serving many years out of the country as a missionary. Sam Rasoul could point to some small businesses, but in the end there was nothing exemplarary about them. Nothing to really make him stand out as a citzen that was above ordinary. I've always said that if you're running for office, you better be so damn good at your profession that you can better serve your community by bringing what made you so good into the government (great lawyers could make great legislators, fantastic businessmen/women could make great administrators, etc.) Rasoul was primarily running on charisma, and you can't win a race in a red district with virtually no money on charisma alone. I think that Democrats, in general, had a pretty good slate this year, and that was the reason that Virginia was the best state (or commonwealth, in this case) overall for Democrats out of all 50 in November. In only two races could I say "wrong candidate, wrong campaign." This was one of them. Sam Rasoul seems like a nice enough fellow, even if his supporters could get pretty rabid from time to time. But he just wasn't a qualified candidate. Barack Obama did better in this district, and Mark Warner won it. That means there was a significant Obama-Warner-Goodlatte vote. That's just absurd, especially on Obama. Anybody who voted for Barack Obama should've seen some conflict in voting for Goodlatte, a polar opposite. But that just goes to show what kind of race that was.

I'm not sure if I agree with Rick's committee plan for identifying candidates, but at least he's trying to identify the problem, and I think the criticism he's getting for it is unfounded. You have to be able to admit when your candidate of choice screws up. I will admit that Phil Kellam, a friend who I wish all the best to, ran a poor campaign and lost what should've been an easy Democratic pick-up. It was painful, but it happened, and we had to identify where Phil made his errors. Ben Tribbett correctly identified back in 2007 that a Democrat who ran a nose-to-the-pavement grassroots campaign could win, and he was right. We need to identify why Rasoul lost, and it seems to me that the reason wasn't lack of online support, or party disunity, but just not being qualified for the position. Do I think Rasoul should be banished from politics? No. If he's still got the itch, there is probably something for him to run for. But Congress? Not a chance. Not now, at least.

As much as I hate to say it, Eric Cantor is a rising star amongst the Republicans, and should the Republicans take back the House in the near future, he may very well end up as Speaker. Cantor has a lot of what Republicans are looking for: he's from a Southern state, so he keeps with Republican electoral strategy. He's very conservative, and appealing to the base. Finally, he's Jewish, and Republicans are usually of the belief that minority voters will vote for their own minority out of habit (example Michael Steele for RNC Chair). Anita Harke, from what I can tell, ran a solid campaign on VERY limited resources. But frankly, Cantor may be the one Republican that we don't have the ability to defeat right now. I really believe that the First, Fourth, and maybe (with some better lines after fair redistricting) even the Sixth, could sometime in the next two decades become competetive with the right candidates and the right message. But Eric Cantor has this seat for as long as he wants it. The only way we have a shot? If he moves on to bigger and better things.

The District is, like the third, carved out by the GOP to be their sacrificial lamb. They don't expect to win it. I really think that Jim Moran, in a more competetive seat, would have too much controversy sorrounding him to win. But this seat is so Blue that the primary is the real election. The general is just for show.

My secondary congressman. Though I claim residency and vote in the Second, and if you ask me I'll tell you my Congressman is Glenn Nye, I will admit that because I live out in Blacksburg most of the year, I have more contact with Rick Boucher than I do any of our other congressional delegation. Rick gets some harsh words occassionally from environmentalists, and got ripped for not supporting Waxman's takeover, but let me just say this: it's a bit different when you live out here, people. NoVAns and some Hampton Roads bloggers attack Coal like nobody's business. But come take a visit out here: coal is a way of life. It's all people know, and it is what people want to keep doing. Without if, thousands would be out of a job. I watched a debate last year in 2007 between a strong Democrat who lived just outside of Blacksburg and a member of the Virginia Tech Environmental Coalition. I won't lie to you, it got loud. Though I agree we need to start shifting over the cleaner and safer energy, the lack of respect some people (especially those who don't even live out here) show for a culture and life that they don't share is insulting. This battle for energy shift can't be won by brute force, no more so than the War on Terror can be won that way. This requires diplomacy, and it requires patience. Boucher has been an expert on this, and because of it has the admiration and respect of all his constituents. So much so that in a year when Obama got trounced out here, Boucher ran without opposition. Congressman Boucher is a wonderful representative for the working men and women of his district, and my only hope is that he doesn't retire for a long, long time. This is a seat Rick will hold easily until he retires, and even after he does we have some conservative Democrats in the General Assembly who could run for this seat and win. But once Rick retires, it becomes a battleground. And it will require heavily on Democratic activists conceding that we'll need a Blue Dog-style Democrat to keep the seat.

What can I realistically say that hasn't be said already? We had a very long, thorough conversation on this on Josh's "post-mortem." I agree with much of what he said. Apparently, he hurt some feelings in the process. Judy Feder, like Rasoul, just doesn't seem to fit this district. Again, like in the sixth, I have to bit my tongue on the "I told you so", but this one it is a bit easier to do. I was on Mike Turner's side in the primary (though I had no vote, so my support always felt unnecessary and invasive), but Feder's people for the most part were civil in their debate over who would be the better nominee. At least, nobody called me a coward or an idiot. I suggested voters in the Tenth should go with Turner based on the idea that Judy, while an amazing fundraiser, just doesn't seem to click in the tenth. I don't know why, but she doesn't. Some people have said it's sexism, other claim that she comes across as too liberal and partisan (that was my suggestion), others claim that her campaigns have just been to negative. I'm not entirely positive. All I know is that it is very rare for a candidate to do worse his/her second time around. Hell, even Al Weed did better in 2006 than 2004. Now, I'm not going to compare Feder to other races, suffice to say that both Warner and Obama comfortably carried the Tenth. Feder should've atleast had enough coattail effect to pull the race into single digits. The Tenth, much like the eleventh, third, and second, is seeing an increase in voters, and most of whom seem to be inclined to support Democrats. The Eleventh District, where most of the Dem blogosphere in Virginia resides, is an example of how effectively one can take advantage of that growth. And Second District Dems haven't been too shabby either. But Feder failed in the Tenth on this one. These voters should've been ripe for the picking. Instead, Feder actually lost support from 06, which means one of two things: either Independents, and some Democrats, who backed her in 06 backed Wolf in 2008, or that new voters registered by Obama and Warner backed Wolf due to a bad campaign by Feder. I find the first option to be very unlikely.

Now, I do understand this voter-ticket separation of top from bottom better in this race than in the sixth. After all, Obama ran as a pragmatic, post-partisan candidate, and Wolf has worked very hard to gain the reputation of a moderate. A centrist Independent in this race could've very easily voted Obama-Warner-Wolf without seeing any problem. However, that's an issue that any candidate needs to address in 2010. I would suggest that if you want to make Wolf look extreme and out of touch, you should run to the middle. But running in the center, you make your "center-right" candidate look "solid right". By running a more liberal candidate like Feder, you give your opponent the advantage of appearing more centrist, and therefore expanding his pool of potential voters. And though the tenth is slowly turning blue, it is still on the purple side. The wider your pool is, the better your shot at victory.

I don't think Feder is without use, however. Anybody who says that is just trying to piss people off. Democrats in the Tenth should find some party fundraising position. She's fantastic at raising money, and just because she shouldn't be the candidate herself doesn't mean she can't contribute. But there have even been some rumors, like one on NLS, that Feder wants a THIRD shot at Wolf. Seriously? Democrats, please, step away. Feder is the second of only two Virginia candidates this year that I can say without hesitation "wrong candidate, wrong campaign." Feder's attempts to go after Wolf have been without any notable success. Be it the candidate's fault, or the campaign's fault, it certainly isn't the District's fault. Yes, Wolf is a long-time incumbent, and victory there may be simply impossible until he leaves office. But we can certainly do better than a 20 point loss. We've seen Feder's strategy, and it has failed. A lot of you that ridiculed Mike Turner for calling himself a Blue Dog (which I also label myself) and trying to run a campaign from the center. Maybe, in 2010, we give something like that a shot. We'll undoubtedly have less money, and no top of the ticket. It would be interesting to see if we could do better solely on a message change.

It is no secret I supported Leslie Byrne in the primary. A lot of people at the Beach who knew me we very surprised, as Gerry Connolly seemed much more like my type of candidate (at least as far as the issues go). I'll admit, I didn't donate to Leslie because of the issues. It was out of respect and thanks for what she did to help Jim Webb in 2006. Without her help, I'm not sure Webb would have won the primary, and we wouldn't have taken back the Senate. So for that, her courage to step up and support a guy who was taking criticism for being a former Republican, I supported her. When she lost the primary, I was comfortable with Connolly's attempt for Congress, much more so than my friend Ben Tribbett.

In this race, much like the eighth, the primary was the real "decision 08". Connolly was never threatened by Fimian, and it is very likely Byrne would've beaten him as well. This is a district that, as long as the candidate is not a nutjob, will be safe for Democrats for years to come. Who knows, in ten years, this district may be as reliably blue as Moran's. There isn't much to correct here: reliable GOTV, solid candidate. Though clearly I had hoped Leslie would win, I feel Connolly will be a fine representative for Fairfax for years to come.

All in all, Democrats have made substantial steps to turning Virginia into a real "blue state." However, there are things that we all need to remember.

One: this is not a mid-atlantic state, as some have suggested. Sure, it might be one in Northern Virginia. But it is also a Southern State, as well as an Applachian State. Virginia is a mix of all these things: of Maryland, Kentucky, and North Carolina. As such, we cannot expect to run a Maryland race in a North Carolina district. If the area is Southern, run like a Southerner. And Southerners aren't always as liberal (or "progressive") as you'd always hope. But to universally call Virginia a mid-atlantic state now that Obama has won it is folly. We must recognize the potential, and the flaws, in individual districts, and we must campaign accordingly. Not all candidates work for all districts, and not all platforms work in every locality.

Second: we have to be smart, and follow Obama's lead; pragmatism first. Democrats are at their best with people like Obama, who appoints Republicans if they're right for the job. Like Warner, who worked with Republicans in the GA to get fix the financial crisis. Like Webb, who deliberately went out of his way to get Republican support for his GI Bill. Partisanship is as much a curse as a blessing, and if we are to really be the change we promised the country, is must come secondary to progress. The people are counting on us to fix their economy and protect the future of this country. Now is not the time to get caught up on hot button issues or to be distracted by labels. It also means accepting that not all Republicans are bad. In fact, some of them are good. Rather than attacking all Republicans all the time, maybe we should occassionally focus efforts on helping Moderate Republicans in districts that Democrats can't win. Follow the President-Elect's lead: now is the time for our party to become post-partisan.

Third: Last but not least, we need to always remember never to eat our own. I've heard plenty of Democrats say they'd rather lose with a Progressive Democrat than win with a Blue Dog. That's just stupid. Would you rather have half a cookie, or none at all? This has been killing Republicans recently. They're falling behind in the General Assembly because of this (wave at us, Senator Miller!). They're in the middle of a civil war between the Business Conservative and the Socially Right-Wing. Democrats have a tendency to do this. Idiots at the "Open Left" (not a fan) have decided to try to primary all Blue Dogs (Bush Dogs, as they call 'em) for not being liberal enough. However, remember that many of these members continue to win in districts that both Bush and McCain won. Liberals, you know that you represent the more active wings of the party. Though I have read studies suggesting in Virginia that there are more Moderate and Conservative Democrats than Liberals, the fact remains that the Liberal base is far more active. Now is not the time to primary Democrats for not being 100% in line with whatever you think. Now is the time to expand the tent. Thousands of fiscal conservatives are out in the dark, as evident by Obama's support amongst them. Now is the time to real them in, to show them that we accept differing views. Now is the time to be big tent. There are multiple wings of the party, not just the "Liberal Progressive" wing. Just because we're beginning to win doesn't mean you purge anybody you fell is unworthy. Please, for the sake of the Commonwealth and the Country, let's not give Republicans they opening they need to undo all our hard work.

Thanks to everybody who has listened and debated with me for these years. It has been a blast. May God Bless you all, and may God continue to bless the Commonwealth, and the United States of America.

Comments

The 10th District (Evan M - 12/2/2008 5:05:09 PM)

I think Wolf is beatable. We just need to define him earlier and better than we did, and we need a candidate who can work the grassroots like the Obama campaign did in the 10th. Also, don't discount the effectiveness of Wolf's franking-privilege mailings. I must've gotten a dozen of them and they were good.

Judy would have been a great Congresswoman, and I was a huge supporter, but I think she's had two chances and a 20 point defeat should be a signal to us in the 10th to go a different direction. Maybe that's Mike Turner (a great guy who I had the honor of working with on many elections in Loudoun), maybe it's someone we don't know yet, but a different direction.

I think Wolf will feel his age if a candidate gets out and makes him work earlier and harder than he has in previous elections. Frank Wolf is reelected on constituent service, institutional memory and the fact that he looks like everyone's favorite grandfather. If we can show that he's ineffective and incapable of delivering for the 10th District (which he is!), we can and will defeat him.

Thanks, Dan (aznew - 12/2/2008 10:32:53 AM)

I have really appreciated your efforts this year. they have been amazing.

I do want to make one point about Tom Perriello. You write:

Those looking for liberal representaion might end up disappointed; if Perriello goes hard to the left, he'll be looking at one term.

As the say on the SCOTUS, I concur in part, and I dissent in part.

Those who think Perriello will be at all traditionally ideological in the sense of being liberal, moderate or conservative, were not paying attention to him during the campaign. Much of Perriello's campaign was predicated on his very rejection of this approach toward governing. Indeed, this approach, and the labling it inevitably produces ("tax and spend liberal!") is a big reason why the GOP is a party in decline that is probably headed toward a generation of minority status (unless Democrats mess it up) on a national level, and possibly headed for break up. So I agree with the first part of this sentence.

But as for the second part, to the extent that you are suggesting that Perriello vote in a calculated manner designed to ensure his reelection, voters will see through that. When everything is pushed aside, what Tom offered the voters here was, first, honesty and integrity, and second, a promise to be pragmatic, to solve problems rather than represent a ideology. If he can keep that promise, he will be fine. As soon as he appears too calculating, he'll get tossed out on his ear.

In any event, the economy will obviously dominate for the next Congress. The divide won't be so much ideological as it will be strategically political. I would expect the GOP strategy for the next two years will be simply to oppose every Democratic initiative they can without getting run over, and then hope the economy stays crummy anyway.

Excellent Analysis as usual (realist - 12/2/2008 11:20:49 AM)

Dan, you are the kind of person that scares me :-p. If people would listen to you there would be a permanent Democratic majority. Actually if people like you were running the show I wouldn't mind a democratic majority.

Since you are in the majority now the infighting between the liberals and moderates will escalate. And the political cycle will continue. This governors race will be extremely bloody. Its very interesting with the wildcard thrown in. I still see Moran winning and I am cautioulsy optimistic McDonnell will beat him. Deeds on the other hand would be a very tough race.

The whole coal/enviromental issue is also important to bring up. Some of you do indeed need to get out more and see how the WHOLE state operates. Its all about balance.

In closing a sincere thanks to RK. Most of the diaries and comments were very though provoking. Allen was an intellectual lightweight, I can say I told you so on Kaine and Obama is the intelligent pragmatic moderate candidate I knew he was. Lowell good luck with your job search. You were a much needed voice of reason on energy. Its obvious you know what you are talking about.

I would love to say to the community the Republican party is still able to morph into what it used to be. Sure some of you are hard core dems but for many of you the Republican brand left and failed you. Maybe finally after 4 years of serious losses there will be some change.

All the best

Novamiddleman/redrealist/virginiacentrist/some other handle I forgot :-p

Fiscally Conservative (tx2vadem - 12/2/2008 12:56:00 PM)

Great analysis, I just had to laugh at the fiscally conservative advice for Nye though. Various calculation put the cost of the financial market bailout in excess of $7 trillion dollars. And we expect next year for the federal deficit to balloon to anywhere between 5% and 8% of GDP. In times like these, it's hard to see how anyone could remain fiscally conservative.

Cutting the deficit either through increased taxation or reduced government spending would be imprudent at the moment. Reducing the national debt is not feasible anytime soon. And though he can scour the federal budget to eliminate waste, that would do little to reduce the deficit in light of these huge expenditures (will it be 300, 500 or 700 billion economic recovery/green growth bill that comes out next year?). Because in the end the biggest line items are entitlement (mandatory) expenditures, Defense, and interest payments (mandatory). Of the first two, which can be immediately changed, I don't see Nye touching either. Entitlements are a touchy subject especially when 401ks/401c3s/IRAs are yielding so little these days. And the big push will be to expand entitlement spending by providing universal health care coverage. And touching the Defense budget when representing a state that benefits so greatly from Defense and Homeland Security spending seems like political suicide to me.

Money needs to flow from the feds because they are the only people spending right now. We need to up reimbursements to states, so that Virginia does not need to make deep cuts. If we could just get more money for Medicaid from the feds, that would be a Godsend. In addition to all those other federal dollars that need to flow to support tons of other economic recovery initiatives.

Though I guess he could get some street creds as a fiscal conservative by supporting an elimination of earmarks. That wouldn't do enough to help even PAYGO provisions, but it is perception that matters. And I would love to see earmarks go.

It's also worth noting (Silence Dogood - 12/2/2008 1:22:20 PM)

that the economic situation in Virginia Beach is substantially more dire than many realize, particularly with respect to the housing market. Among homeowners who purchased in the past couple of years, the market has the worst rate of upsidedown mortgages in the country (a little bit above one in three homes is now worth less than the remaining balance on the mortgage, largely because the bottom finally dropped out in the market but also because a substantial number of homeowners in the market continued to purchase with shockingly low downpayments). The eventual consequence of economic developments like this a slew of foreclosurers, which further depresses the housing market, which in turn drives down home values and pushes more mortgages upside down. Deflation will further exacerbate the problem.

Conditions in the district will necessitate that Nye hang his political future in 2010 on his economic credibility, and I would suggest that of all the possible things he could do to demonstrate economic leadership in Washington on behalf of his constituents, relying exclusively on the free-market and beating the fiscal conservative drum will probably not save him any more than it saved Thelma Drake. Whatever he decides to do, he needs to improve his communications and ensure that he is articulating his vision of economic leadership clearly, as that will be what he is challenged on by his opponent.

In the old primary (DanG - 12/2/2008 4:45:59 PM)

Back in 2006, yes, I was in Lieberman's corner. As was Barack Obama. As was Bill Clinton. And like both of them, I ended up endorsing Ned Lamont in 06 after he won the primary (though I'll admit, I didn't do any work on his behalf, and didn't donate money). The primary reason for this switch was because I knew how Lamont would vote, while I was genuinely nervous that after being rejected by Democrats that Joementum might caucus with the other party.

Am I a fan? No. But I was of the opinion that he should keep his chairmanship. I'll admit, in the midst of the campaign, I wanted blood. But after the victory, I calmed down, and realized that we can't cut away support and hope to pass all the crucial legislation we need this year. Joe will vote with us on all but the war, and with a Democratic President, there is only so much he can do to stop us there. Joe was a disappointment, certainly. But we can't afford to disenfranchise anybody we disagree with.

I don't think so (DanG - 12/2/2008 8:09:43 PM)

I posted prior to the primary, encouraging Democrats to stop eating their own.

When Barack Obama first went to Congress, what Senator do you think he went to when he wanted to learn the ways of the Senate? That's why Joe's endorsement of McCain was probably a particularly hard blow of Obama. I don't think Obama had any reason to go support Joe other than his own desire to see his friend remain in the senate. And I don't fault Senator Lieberman for his strong support of Israel. I too am a strong supporter. I happen to think, though, that he is going about it the wrong way. Rather than securing Israel's future, he has endangered it with neoconservative policy.

Why would Obama think supporting Lieberman proved he was a friend of Israel? (aznew - 12/2/2008 9:55:41 PM)

A week or two ago, someone here described Lieberman as the Senator from Israel. I let it slide.

But do you really think Obama figured to himself, "Hey, I want to show Israel I support them, so I'm going to find the most nebbishy Jew I can in public life and go support him?"

Or would Obama's support for any Jewish senator have sufficed? Arlen Spector? Perhaps he could have come here to Virginia and stumped for Eric Cantor. Hell, even George Allen!

NP, I don't think there is any mean intent on your part at all, but all too often I see the attitude of Lieberman=Jew=Israel, and it just doesn't work like that.

Most of the Democratic establishment supported Lieberman in his primary against Lamont. I just don't understand why you might single out Obama as having done so for a transparently superficial reason.

In the Sixth (Cliff Garstang - 12/2/2008 4:49:32 PM)

You're welcome to your opinion and so is Rick Howell, although my disagreement with Rick is not such much what he believes but how he chose to express his views, and when and to whom he expressed them. Obviously, we in the Sixth did not nominate the winning candidate, but I believe the candidate we nominated (in an open process in which anyone could have run) did better against Goodlatte than Rick Howell's candidate would have. We'll never know for sure, but having seen them both in action I think I'm right. Sniping from Democrats didn't help the cause.

Rick's committee idea is being criticized because there already is such a committee. You say "you have to be willing to admit when your candidate of choice screws up" but I've yet to see any indication of what Sam did wrong in his campaign other than be too young and inexperienced. What you and Rick have said, repeatedly, is that Sam was the wrong candidate. That's apparently true, since he didn't win, but it isn't terribly helpful or insightful. As it has in the past, the Sixth District Committee will work hard to find the best candidate available to run for the seat.

You also make some attempts at analysis of the Obama-Warner-Rasoul vote differentials, but if you take a closer look you'll see that Rasoul tracked Obama pretty well, though several points behind. The conclusion to draw there is that there was a substantial McCain-Warner-Goodlatte vote because Warner has a broader appeal than either Obama or Rasoul did in the Sixth. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a racial element involed in addition to other factors. That Obama did better in the district than Rasoul is no surprise either, given the resources available. Is that Rasoul's fault? The Democratic Party chose to spend it's money elsewhere. That, too, is a factor.

So I'm not sure what lessons you're offtering us here. We need to nominate a strong candidate? I think we know that.

But you didn't (DanG - 12/2/2008 5:33:56 PM)

So I'm not sure what lessons you're offtering us here. We need to nominate a strong candidate? I think we know that.

Then why didn't you? There were arguments from people within and outside the Sixth, from those in power and those not in power, that Sam Rasoul shouldn't have run for Congress. Many of them told him to start small and run for something else for just that reason. Why else do you think they said that? For craps and giggles? I'm not as big a fan of "knocking down the gate" as many activists online; people in positions of power are in those positions for a reason. Sam was not a strong candidate, no matter how convinced "teh hardcorz" online were. Like I said, he's very charming and very persuasive in person, so I can see how people buy into it. But there was nothing in his resume to suggest he had a legitimate shot at breaking 40%, let alone winning. Now, I don't think Drew Richardson could've won either, but I do think he would've done better. His resume (I think I remember him saying he was former FBI) was much better suited for the district. The candidate went through multiple campaign managers, and from everything I've heard had an "unstable campaign" which is standard for a lot of first time campaigners. The discipline of Perriello and Nye is one of the most impressive parts of their win.

I admit, Cliff, I am reluctant to debate you on the pros and cons of the Rasoul Campaign because frankly you're one of "teh hardcorz." Way back in the beggining, you were solidly behind Sam's choice to run. What can I tell you to convince you? The Sixth District needs to choose legitimate candidates based on resume as well as charisma? That stability is essential to a campaign, but one must be fluid enough to shift when the hits keep coming? (From Rick's editorial, "His resistance to the advice of others extended even to his campaign staff. He went through several campaign managers and other staffers, never keeping anyone for very long.")

And one more point. Regardless of how you attempt to spin it, the fact is that Obama did moderately better than Rasoul, so race can't be the only significant reason behind Sam's loss. Some people that we're comfortable voting for Obama were uncomfortable voting for Rasoul. One of my major reasons for pointing this out was to take at least a little wind out of sails of the race argument. There was some reason that Rasoul failed to use any real coattails. Since you insist it wasn't that the candidate simply came off unprepared and unqualified, I leave it up to you to decide what it was for yourself.

My complaints about "candidate screwing up" do exist, as mentioned immediately above. But you're right: my complaints are only barely aimed at Rasoul himself because I believe he was in well over his head. My criticisms are aimed at those who promoted him as the candidate of choice. What I should've said was Democrats in the Sixth who promoted Rasoul as a legitimate opponent for Goodlatte need to admit when they screwed up.

We aren't in complete disagreement (Cliff Garstang - 12/2/2008 6:08:04 PM)

The Sixth District Committee interviewed a number of potential candidates and the late David Layman spoke with a many other possible candidates. For a variety of reasons, only 2 chose to run for the nomination--Sam and Drew. I agreed with the advice given to Sam that he should seek lower office first and that his resume was thin and his age was a negative. But in the nomination race I supported Sam over Drew because I thought Drew's negatives were tougher to overcome than Sam's. That's debatable, but I think it's clear that neither was ideal. When Sam became the nominee he had my full support. If that makes me hardcore, sobeit. We had a nominee and every Democrat should have supported that nominee or kept his or her mouth shut.

Your assumption that Drew would have done better than Sam is hard to debate also, but I think you're wrong. Resume isn't everything. It's a very good thing to have but it simply is not enough. Activists in the Sixth District weighed these factors and for most of us the choice was clear--as between these two candidates.

I freely admit that the Sixth District needs to nominate strong candidates. And so, yes, if there is a screw up here then it is the District Committee that is at fault. That isn't what you said in your review post, though. You talked about the candidate's srew-ups, and I didn't see anywhere that you mentioned what those screw-ups were other than being inexperienced. I also agree that stability in Sam's campaign would have been preferable. I don't know what the problem there was other than lack of money. I don't believe Rick is telling the whole truth about his departure. Is this the first campaign that had turnover in staff? Hardly. Again, this isn't a terribly insightful observation.

I didn't say that race was the only factor in Sam's results, but I believe it was one factor. Likewise I believe Obama's results were affected by race. The real determining factor was money. Sam didn't have it to spend. But you then proceed to put an argument into my mouth that I did not make.

"Since you insist it wasn't that the candidate simply came off unprepared and unqualified, I leave it up to you to decide what it was for yourself."

I insisted on nothing of the kind. I absolutely believe that Sam's lack of experience was a factor.

Finally, although the Sixth District Committee needs to do a better job of developing candidates, we didn't choose the nominee. We followed prescribed district-wide caucus procedures which anyone could have participated in. At the convention, with delegates from all localities in the district, Sam was nominated. Once we had a nominee, as a member of the Party, I was committed to promoting his candidacy even if he wasn't the perfect candidate. Apparently not all Democrats feel the same way about how the system works.

Now, you could say that a stronger candidate would have attracted more money. That's probably true. We worked with the candidate we had.

And here are my two cents... (chspkheel - 12/3/2008 1:43:34 PM)

I got a chance to meet Sam before he announced. Nice guy, but after talking to him for a while, it was painfully clear that his approach to politics and what's important in running a campaign can only be described as "sophomoric". The main reason why the 6th District Committee got behind him is he put in the work, slogging it out up and down I-81, which is commendable on Sam's part. Also, the 6th District Democrats were tickled to death that someone would run under the Democratic lable in this District. I don't think that it is fair to lay as much blame or responsibility at the feet of the 6th District Committee has been posted in this string, but the old guard needs to step back and let a new and younger committee emerge.

The success or failure of every campaign rest on the candidate alone. In this case, Sam is completely responsible for his own campaign. While advise and suggestion from supporters and party activist is all fine and good, it doesn't replace the seasoned advice and counsel of Campaign Professionals and other political professionals. Many people of this caliber spoke with Sam over the course of his campaign and with his deep understanding of politics, policy, and years of poltical experience, ignored just about all of it.

Even when some quality people came on board towards the end, who had far more experience in poltics than him, he still didn't take their direction. Sam has earned a political reputation as a person that doesn't take direction from more experienced people. Politics is unlike any other profession, many similarities, but it requires a certain level of political sophistication and savvy that is totally absent with Sam. Again, he is a very nice guy, but I'm not sure that Sam is a viable candidate for any future office.

redistricting (bcat - 12/3/2008 12:22:43 PM)

I live in the third, and yes, the boundaries are ridiculous. The line runs down I-195, which is exactly where Richmond stops being "urban" (in just about every sense of the word). I can step out of my door and walk four blocks to the west, and I'll be in Cantorland.

I'm surprised, though, given that it's almost 2009, that I haven't seen a lot of speculation here about redistricting. This is something I'm very curious about, because honestly: I can't imagine what a "fair" district would look like. Isn't someone's ox going to be gored either way? If the boundaries are intuitively geographic, that's going to favor certain candidates just as much as the current boundaries. As long as Moran's population base is Arlington and Alexandria, the 8th isn't going to change very much. If you give Annandale to Moran and give Reston to the 11th, eliminating the obviously gerrymandered portion, what changes? Not much, as far as I can tell.

Is the point of fair districts just to make them competitive? If so, it seems to me that "fair" districts necessarily mean splitting up population centers. Which also seems counter-intuitive, in that it will make elections more interesting, but it will also mean that the representatives are less ... uh ... representative of the district as a whole.

These are very good thoughts and questions (Ron1 - 12/3/2008 1:14:25 PM)

As for the 3rd, I think the solution is to form one majority- or plurality-African American Richmond/Petersburg district (perhaps for Don McEachin to run in), and one heavily African-American district stretching from Williamsburg to Hampton/Newport News (this would be Bobby Scott's home territory, a new 1st District, perhaps also including the non-Fredericksburg/Fauquier/Stafford/PWC portions of the current 1st CD). I would keep the 2nd as a primarily Va Beach/Eastern Shore district, and redraw the fourth to be focused in Norfolk/Chesapeake/Suffolk/Portsmouth west to Emporia -- this would be a competitive district that we could win.

As for NoVa, the Reston gerry mander has to be undone and placed in the 10th. After reapportionment, we will have almost three full districts in just the 'official' NoVa counties of Fairfax, Arlington, Loudoun, and PWC (and associated cities). I would put all of PWC in the 11th, all of Loudoun in the 10th, and otherwise just play with the boundaries to try and keep more contiguous areas together.

That's 7 of the 11 districts. Tom Perriello's 5th would look much the same, and the 6th and 9th will as well, although the 6th would include the more exurban/outer counties of the current 10th. The new 7th would become anchored in Fredericksburg/Stafford/Fauquier/Hanover/Caroline/Spotsylvania.

These would be fair, competitive, geographically lucid districts that Democrats would have a real chance in in all except probably the 6th and 7th.

As to your larger question, there is no such thing as a "fair" district, but I do think that we should be confident in our ability to win everywhere and try and draw districts that draw communities together, instead of doing what the Republicans do with their divide and conquer techniques.

For the record.... (Just Saying - 12/4/2008 1:50:21 AM)

with respsect to your analysis of the 10th. It's not at all a rare occurence for second-time candidates to lose ground. Second time candidates often do less well. It's a common occurence. And 2008 was a year in which it actually happened a lot. So much so that CQ ran a piece about it:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/200...

But the second time, it turns out, is rarely the charm for challenging candidates, and their track record in this year's round of rematches was no exception. Eighteen races in which the same major-party candidates faced off for the second consecutive election were rated as at least somewhat competitive by CQ Politics. And in 15 of those 18 contests, the same candidate won both elections.
In fact, the defeated challenger candidates in a dozen of those races actually lost ground, with the incumbents winning more handily in the second round.

Again, as I've stated previously in other threads, I'm all for analysis and I think it's a good thing. I just think we should all be careful to know what we're talking about when we're talking with a sense of authority. If you're unsure about something, do some research, often you'll find the answer.

Analysis is good, but if it's predicated upon misinformation it's actually counterproductive.