On Tuesday, the Washington Post asked "eight key questions we hope will be answered by Tuesday night's results" (the questions appeared in today's weekly Virginia insert). Here are the questions and my stab at providing answers.1. Did last year's presidential campaign pump up voters for a Virginia election or tire them out?
Pre-election estimates for turnout Tuesday ranged from 185,000 (Shawn O'Donnell) to "no more than 200,000" (Steve Jarding) to "closer to 300,000 than 200,000" (Public Policy Polling to 350,000 ("Terry McAuliffe's folks"). The actual turnout: 318,984 voters, or somewhere between what PPP and "Terry McAuliffe's folks" were predicting. This translates to 6.3% of total voters, more than double the 2.6% turnout seen in the 2005 Democratic Lieutenant Governor's race and nearly double the 3.45% seen in the 2006 Webb-Miller U.S. Senate primary. In other words, it wasn't superb turnout, but it was up significantly from 2005 and 2006, the last two statewide, non-presidential primaries. So, although a lot of Virginia voters may be tired out, a lot more aren't. Answer: yes and no, but mainly no.
2. Does a candidate have to hail from Northern Virginia to win?
Obviously not, with Creigh Deeds winning 50% of the vote and the two NOVA-based candidates winning about one-quarter each. Also, I'd note that although Jim Webb lived in NOVA, he had deep family roots in southwestern Virginia. Although Mark Warner was from NOVA, he connected extremely well with voters in rural parts of the Commonwealth. Tim Kaine, of course, is not from NOVA, but he did great in this part of Virginia. So, I'd say the key is not where you're from, but how effectively you're able to perform outside your base region. Jerry Kilgore, for instance, never really clicked in NOVA, while George Allen managed to alienate many northern Virginians through his "real Virginia" and "macaca" comments. This time around, it looks like Democrats will have the edge with a candidate - Creigh Deeds - hailing from rural Virginia, but quite capable of connecting in NOVA, as his primary victories in the 8th, 10th and 11th CD's proves. Bob McDonnell, meanwhile, will have a tough time winning votes in Northern Virginia, as no matter how hard he tries to portray himself as "moderate," everyone knows (or will know by the end of this election) that he's a Pat Robertson Republican on social issues, a "drill baby drill" know-nothing on energy issues, and the type of Republican (Palin/Huckabee/Hannity/Gingrich) who northern Virginians are not fond of (to put it mildly). Advantage: Creigh Deeds from Bath County.
3. Do voters require candidates to have a Virginia record?
Certainly not for U.S. Senate, as evidenced by Jim Webb's victory over Harris Miller in the 2006 U.S. Senate primary. Webb, I'd remind everyone, had been Navy Secretary in the Reagan Administration, a Republican with no particular ties (or record) in Virginia. Frankly, I doubt most people even knew Jim Webb lived in Virginia at the start of 2006. Yet he went on to victory against one candidate who had worked in Fairfax County politics for years (Harris Miller) and another who had been heavily involved in Virginia politics for many years (as Governor and Senator, among other things).
Having said all that, I think the answer to this question very well may be "yes" for the office of governor. This election isn't enough to prove that thesis, given that there were two NOVA candidates - one with and one without an extensive Virginia record - who pretty much killed each other off, allowing Deeds to win by staying "positive," "likeable," "authentic," etc. Still, all else being equal, I've got to conclude from the election results Tuesday that candidates running for governor of Virginia benefit from having a record in Virginia. Of course, it has to be an attractive record; I mean, if Jeff Frederick ran for governor of Virginia, I doubt he'd do too well. I'd also point out that Oliver North did quite well in 1994 against Chuck Robb, losing by just 3 percentage points (46%-43%) despite having an exclusively national record. Of course, that was a race for U.S. Senate, not for governor, perhaps proving the point once again.
4. Do endorsements from local officials make a difference?
As the Post article points out, " there's no question that [Brian Moran] received far more endorsements from legislators, mayors and local elected officials than his two rivals." Yet Moran finished last. I agree with the Post's comment on this subject: "Political consultants and experts say endorsements only matter if the endorsers actively work to get other voters to the polls. Otherwise, they say, they don't mean much." Same thing with Deeds and McAuliffe, by the way.
5. Terry McAuliffe: love him or hate him?
In the final Public Policy Polling poll before the primary, McAuliffe's favorables and unfavorables were the same, at 40% each. In contrast, Creigh Deeds had a 57% favorable/14% unfavorable rating, while Brian Moran was at 47%/23% favorable/unfavorable. So yeah, I'd say that with McAuliffe it was "love him or hate him." As the Post puts it, some voters saw McAuliffe as "infectiously boisterous, a guy who thought big and could get things done" (I fall strongly in that category) while others saw him as "a used car salesman, making big promises with little regard to the realities of governing" (a good friend of mine who had been leaning strongly McAuliffe called me election day to tell me he had voted for Deeds precisely for that reason, as well as perceived "electability").
6. Can primary voters be reached through their televisions?
In this race, as the Post points out, Terry McAuliffe started running TV ads in January, "earlier than any statewide candidates in recent history, and kept them up regularly in most markets across the state through the primary." Creigh Deeds also managed to advertise on TV in NOVA during the last 10 days or so of the election, while Brian Moran "counted on party loyalists and longtime activists, who might not need television advertising to decide to get to the polls." In the end, did TV advertising matter? Hard to say, but I'd lean in the direction of "not worth the money, certainly not in terms of 'bang for the buck'". The problem with TV is that it's "interruption marketing" (you sit there and watch a TV program, and every few minutes advertising comes on, which you either watch or - more likely - tune out) as opposed to the much-more-effective permission marketing (" the prospective customer has either obtained explicit permission to send their promotional message"). In addition, I'd point out that TV audiences are much more fractured today than they were a decade or two ago. In sum, although broadcast TV advertising probably won't disappear in political campaigns anytime soon, I'm decreasingly convinced that voters can be effectively reached that way.
UPDATE on this question: According to The Politico, "For the last week of the campaign, Deeds spent $950,000 on TV ads to McAuliffe’s $1 million."
7. During an economic recession, do voters need the message to be jobs, jobs, jobs?
Certainly, the economy and jobs are the #1 issue by far on voters' minds right now. So, yes, they want to hear about candidates' plans in those areas. However, it's not just a matter of saying you're for a strong economy and job growth, it's being able to convince voters that you really can deliver those things. If they believe you, or at least think you've got a shot at fulfilling your promises, I think that's a significant advantage. If voters believe you have no clue on the economy and jobs, I'd say "forget it."
8. Is it really true that a newspaper endorsement still matters?
One of the big stories this election cycle was the Washington Post endorsement of Creigh Deeds. The convention wisdom is that this endorsement was crucial in propelling Deeds from third place to first, seemingly in a matter of days. I can't deny this, but I do wonder if it was a lot more complex than the simplistic story line (Post endorses Deeds, voters follow right along) would have us believe. From what I saw, Deeds was doing pretty well prior to the Post endorsement. Perhaps the Post endorsement of Deeds was the "exception that proves the rule," in that newspapers are declining in terms of circulation and in just about every other way, yet this one was a surprise by a newspaper based in an urban area (DC/NOVA). That may have opened peoples' eyes to Deeds, which the campaign then capitalized on masterfully, and which also had donors and party regulars taking a strong second look at the man from Bath County. It also could be that the Post endorsement acted as an "accelerant," "catalyst" or "tipping point" for Deeds, taking his momentum and turning it into an unstoppable tsunami. Before everyone annoints the Washington Post as kingmaker of Virginia politics, however, I'd point out that this same newspaper also endorsed Jim Lay and Libby Garvey over David Englin in 2005 (Englin won), Harris Miller over Jim Webb in 2006 (Webb won), and Jeannemarie Devolites Davis over Chap Petersen in 2006 (Petersen won). So, let's not get too excited here about the newfound power of the Post. :)
UPDATE on this question: Mo Elleithee is quoted in The Politico that the Post endorsement of Deeds "gave Northern Virginians a reason to take a look at his candidacy, which they hadn’t been doing until that moment" and also "created the story line that he was surging." I agree.
P.S. On a related topic, I strongly recommend Aznew's excellent analysis of how this election might play out. In short, Creigh Deeds will beat Bob McDonnell by 4-5 points. No disagreement here; if anything, and if there's any justice in the world whatsoever, Deeds should beat McDonnell by a lot more than that.
