Virginia Draft Senate Movements: Sunday Evening Status Report

Connolly? (0.00 / 0)

How on earth does @draftconnolly have 2/3 as many Twitter followers as @draftperriello?

---

by: KCinDC @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 00:44:59 AM UTC

They probably have someone (0.00 / 0)

working on it, that's my guess. So far, to my knowledge, the Perriello effort is completely grassroots.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 00:48:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

To the best of my knowledge.... (1.00 / 1)

....they don't have anyone working on it. The 2008 primary in VA-11 goes to show that even though he might not have the support of some bloggers, he definitely has support among the Democratic base (and note that I say this as someone who endorsed Leslie during the primary).

Check out Ballpark Banter

---

by: Bryan Scrafford @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:23:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As much as Ben hates him (0.00 / 0)

Ben probably has at least 10 different accounts set to follow anything related to Gerry.  N+9 redundancy and all.

---

by: NotJohnSMosby @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 02:54:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perriello seems well positioned... (0.00 / 0)

He'd have an instant base of volunteer and monetary support from grassroots activists that make make an even greater impact than they were able to with only campaigning in the 5th. With Obama at the top of the ticket, turnout should heavily favor a Democrat, and especially one seen to fight for Obama's priorities. Yes, Perriello may have lost his reelection race, but he lost because he was progressive. Kaine may not have lost his own election, but we lost the House under his leadership at the DNC.

I'm fearing a rift between the establishment and the grassroots though. If grassroots has decided the 2009 primary, the winner would have been McAuliffe or Moran. The establishment swung Deeds as a safe choice. Everyone else knew the 2009 general campaign was pretty much a loser when primary results were in. (Of course, an argument could be made that there wasn't anything we could do to win the gubernatorial race in 2009...but I think we could have done much better with either McAuliffe or Moran as the general candidate.)

Question is, would a primary be beneficial or harmful to Virginia Democrats

Not entirely decided on how I think this should play out, but the surge in support for Perriello is not surprising. I think there are a lot of advantages he has over others being drafted.

---

by: Joel McDonald @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:00:22 AM UTC

2009 (0.00 / 0)

But if McAuliffe or Moran had been the nominee and lost, then people would be arguing now that the Democrats could've won, or at least done better, with Deeds. If 2009 was impossible to win, then it's just as well that it was the more conservative candidate who ended up as the loser.

---

by: KCinDC @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:07:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wrong (4.00 / 1)

tell that to Shannon Valentine and Margi Vanderhye and Paul Nichols and Chuck Caputo who lost their HoD races by 6 points or less.  Ask Stevens Miller, who lost to Tom Rust by 5-6 points.  Ask them the difference between the top of the ticket getting trounced by 16 points and losing a tight, hard-fought race by 3-5 points.

We're out 5-6 incumbents and probably Stevens Miller because of the margin of loss by the Deeds Disaster.  We would still be on the short end of the stick in the HoD, but 45 or so Delegates is way better than 39.

---

by: NotJohnSMosby @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 02:59:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Valentine (0.00 / 0)

lost by apx. 200 votes. Liberty University w/ its close ties to the Republicans on the ticket ( especially Cuccinelli) put Garrett over the top.Lynchburg is still reeling from her loss.

---

by: gg2landy @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 10:13:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly right. (4.00 / 1)

The Deeds disaster, first and foremost, was about having someone at the top of the ticket who utterly - and predictably - failed to excite the "base" (African Americans, Hispanics, young people, women) to turn out and vote. Without those people voting, our HoD candidates were pretty much screwed. The reality of Virginia is that Democrats are at a severe, structural disadvantage in non-presidential years.

Why? Because our core voters tend to vote in presidential years, and tend to vote at MUCH lower rates in non-federal, off-year elections. There's also the matter of how the district lines are drawn. Anyway, this leads to results like Barack Obama winning around 55 HoD seats in 2008, yet Dem's only controlling 39 HoD seats. That tendency is only exacerbated when we have nobody on the ticket - governor, LG, or AG candidate - who can appeal to the "base."

For instance, in 2005, Leslie Byrne helped Tim Kaine tremendously; even though she lost, she excited women and liberals to turn out and vote - not just for her but for Kaine and Deeds as well. In 2009, to the contrary, Creigh Deeds went out of his way to disrespect the base, to distance himself from being a Democrat and from "base" hero Barack Obama, etc. Also, Deeds ran ads showing himself driving down a dirt road in a county 95% of Virginians don't know about. Not that there's anything whatsoever wrong with living in rural Virginia, but the reality is that Virginians overwhelmingly live in the urban/suburban/exurban crescent -- and don't naturally relate to driving down uncrowded dirt roads and to farm life in general. Plus, Deeds was highly uncomfortable in that urban/suburban/exurban crescent, like a fish out of water in many ways, and the result by election day was Democrats staying home in droves (a dropoff of 500,000 more than Republicans from 2008 - disaster!!!).

And no, blaming it on the economy isn't really accurate, as this is a phenomenon that would have happened in ANY year in Virginia, for the structural reasons I've mentioned (also, note that the economy affects everyone, both Democrats and Republicans). And saying Deeds ran a "bad campaign," while certainly accurate and certainly part of why he lost so badly, only goes so far.

Bottom line: failing to understand why having a ticket like we did in 2009, in today's Virginia with the demographic and voting patterns we have, leads to an almost complete failure to understand Virginia politics, including the impact of such a ticket on the downballot races. I hope that misunderstanding isn't widespread, because if it is, we're in danger of repeating it in the future, and having history repeat itself. In which case, can you say "Governor Cooch?" Ugh.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 10:47:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Overall, I like primaries (4.00 / 2)

and think the hand-wringing over them is silly. Remember how we were all freaking out that Hillary vs. Obama would kill our chances in 2008?  Uhhhhhh.  Same thing with the nasty Webb vs. Miller primary in 2006. Uhhhhh.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:08:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

But then again, I believe strongly in Democracy, and while voters may not get every election right, over time voters will do the right thing.

---

by: aznew @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:17:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The key in those races... (0.00 / 0)

...is that the candidates really used the primaries to put together a strong campaign and were able to learn from what worked and what didn't during the primary. If candidates are able to do that, then a primary definitely helps.

Check out Ballpark Banter

---

by: Bryan Scrafford @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:27:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

While not necessarily relevant, this revisionism needs to be addressed (0.00 / 0)

You write:

"If grassroots has decided the 2009 primary, the winner would have been McAuliffe or Moran. The establishment swung Deeds as a safe choice."

This is just wrong. While I agree with you that if the "grassroots" (loosely defined as the most active Democrats) had their way, the candidate would not have been Creigh, but probably Brian Moran.

But to suggest that Deeds victory was somehow engineered by the "Establishment" (whoever the heck that is) is simply absurd. Deeds won because he convinced the majority of voters he was the best candidate.

---

by: aznew @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:16:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Talk about revisionism! (0.00 / 0)

"Deeds won because he convinced the majority of voters he was the best candidate."

That's only true in small part. Mostly, it was Terry and Brian destroying each other, allowing Creigh to snatch it away. If it had just been Brian vs. Creigh, Brian would have won easily. If it had been Terry vs. Creigh, probably the same thing. But the dynamics of the three-way cluster@#@$ between Terry, Brian and...oh yeah, Creigh, gave us the results we got.

Also, I give credit to Joe Abbey et al. for seizing the opportunity they were given when the Washington Post endorsed Deeds. That came just at the moment when people were thinking, "isn't there ANYONE else besides Brian Moran and Terry McAuliffe?"

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:23:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure, I agree with all of that (0.00 / 0)

Your analysis raises the following question, however: If Brian and Terry were so incompetent as to lose to a country bumpkin in the primary, why on Earth do you think they would have been any smarter in the general election?

[Note - It's a rhetorical question. I'm not really looking for an answer]

---

by: aznew @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 02:08:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't necessarily. (0.00 / 0)

I'm just saying, Brian and Terry destroyed each other, allowing Creigh to snatch the nomination.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 02:21:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Creigh is Smart (0.00 / 0)

I will willingly admit that I supported Creigh in that primary, and that evidence shows I was wrong for having done so.

That being said, I take issue with any characterization of Creigh Deeds as a "country bumpkin." That's just not true. He has been a fantastic public servant for his District, and a true up-from-nothing success story of Virginia.

The fact that his campaign was ineffective post-primary must be laid at his feet and definitely contributed to our losses, but that is a far cry from your characterization of him.

Sure, Creigh lost, and lost badly. We would have been better off with a better candidate at the top of the ticket, but hindsight is always 20:20. I submit that Creigh would have wiped the floor with a Republican gubinatorial candidate in 2006, and the talking heads would be talking about his "brilliant" strategy of minimizing the R margins out of rural Virginia, and the fact that Centrist Democrats are what the commonwealth wanted.

Me, I prefer to look forward. :)

---

by: Paradox13VA @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 16:30:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was being sarcastic when I said that (0.00 / 0)

n/t

---

by: aznew @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 17:59:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not everyone knows (and loves) your (0.00 / 0)

finely honed sense of humor, apparently. :)

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 18:13:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Like they say... (0.00 / 0)

...if ya gotta explain 'em...

---

by: aznew @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 18:19:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, to be pedantic ... (0.00 / 0)

50.2% of voters thought someone other than Creigh Deeds was the best candidate.

(But point taken: in a competive three-way race, 49.8 percent is a convincing win.)

As far as "Establishment" goes, I'd say anybody endorsed by the Washington Post is de facto the Establishment candidate.

As someone who voted for Moran, I came out of the whole debacle with more respect for McAuliffe than anyone else.

And as a state employee, I can't imagine voting for Kaine again, for anything. All we got from him was the back of his hand, frozen pay, and snotty e-mails about how we're all too fat.

---

by: somethingblue @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:38:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Creigh Deeds was the best candidate" (0.00 / 0)

The Deeds campaign tout me never to vote on perceived electability again.

---

by: Mallsus2 @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:48:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That was the biggest crock, that Creigh was (0.00 / 0)

"most electable" because he was from a county 95% of Virginians never heard of and because he was the most conservative Democrat in the race.  Riiiiight. Also, there was his amazing performance in 2005, losing to - that's right - Bob McDonnell, in a year when we totally had the wind at OUR backs. But somehow, in 2009, when the winds had shifted dramatically in favor of Republicans, Deeds was somehow the best candidate to take on the same guy he lost to in 2005? I never understood the "thinking" then, I've never understood it since, I'll never understand it in the future.  

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:56:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As I have argued before (4.00 / 1)

So many things went wrong in 2009, it is virtually impossible to attribute any one factor to the debacle. Everyone will read into it what they want.

So, was the the fact that Deeds was a more moderate Democrat from Central/Western Virginia more of a factor than the worst economy in 80 years, the total screw up by Obama of health care reform his first year in office, the emergence of the Tea Party, which is still having political effects and the divide among Democrats following a bitter primary. Add in a lousy campaign, and take you prick as to what the lesson is to take away.

Again, I'm not looking to reargue 2009. but I will continue to correct the record as I see fit. My objection to Joel's post was the intimation that somehow Creigh's victory was somehow engineered by the "Establishment" against the wishes of the Democratic Party.

---

by: aznew @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 02:17:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Uh.... (0.00 / 0)

That "...take your pick..."

---

by: aznew @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 02:20:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, the "establishment" argument (0.00 / 0)

makes no sense to me whatsoever.  

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 02:22:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

VA-05 election results (4.00 / 2)

2004: 43.00% Kerry, 53.91% Bush
2004: 36.28% Weed, 63.68% Goode
2005: 49.59% Kaine, 48.42% Kilgore
2006: 45.15% Webb, 53.79% Allen
2006: 39.93% Weed, 59.11% Goode
2008: 48.29% Obama, 50.59% McCain
2008: 50.08% Perriello, 49.85% Goode
2009: 38.56% Deeds, 61.34% McDonnell
2010: 46.98% Perriello, 50.81% Hurt

Note that in VA-05, Perriello did better losing in 2010 than Webb did winning statewide in 2006. He does needs some statewide exposure, of course.

---

by: KCinDC @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:24:33 AM UTC

Kaine (4.00 / 1)

I just have a hard time really getting behind Kaine after he stacked the pollution board to favor the Wise coal plant. I'll vote for him but my effort will be focused on Obama if Kaine is nominated

---

by: Mallsus2 @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:43:12 AM UTC

Yeah, Kaine's record on coal (0.00 / 0)

and also on the estate tax pretty much killed any enthusiasm I had for him. Which, as those of you who read Raising Kaine in 2005, know was a lot!!!

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:46:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why are we worried about a (0.00 / 0)

primary?  I'm not sure I follow the reasoning.  Are we worried because the Democratic candidates will crucify each other in a primary campaign or Republican crossover?

If it's Republican crossover, won't they be having a primary at the same time and need to vote for their own candidate?  I admit there may be some Republicans who would crossover and vote in the Democratic primary, but I wouldn't think it would be that many since they will need to choose their own nominee.  Or am I just being naive?

---

by: pontoon @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:58:55 AM UTC

Well, that nails it: Kaine is the nominee (0.00 / 0)

If Periello has an "impressive" lead "among the grassroots," and if Periello is leading in every other measure, you can be assured that the DPVA under the leadership of Brian Kaplan -- ooops, meant Brian Moran -- will pick Kaine.

I have faith in the DPVA's ability to screw up a one-horse parade.

---

by: CleetusMaggard @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 04:50:09 AM UTC

DPVA has nothing to do (0.00 / 0)

with Kaine's decision. To the contrary, it's 100% the other way around -- Kaine and Warner control DPVA. Certainly, Brian Moran personally has no influence on Kaine's decision; again, he's controlled by Warner and Kaine.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 11:04:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Having said that... (0.00 / 0)

...I do think you're onto something with regard to the DPVA's (Warner's and Kaine's) attitude towards the grassroots/netroots/progressive blogs.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 11:06:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]