Looking at the details of the Washington Post poll released yesterday, two items jumped out at me.1. McDonnell voters are more "enthusiastic" about voting for their candidate than Deeds voters by a 6-point margin (85%-79%).
2. More likely voters believe that Creigh Deeds - a moderate or even conservative Democrat, depending on how you look at it - is "too liberal" (44%) than those who believe he is "just about right" (42%). In contrast, 51% of likely voters see Bob McDonnell - a Pat Robertson Republican his entire career with a thesis and voting record to prove it, now recasting himself as a "moderate" - as "just about right," with only 37% saying he's "too conservative."
In my view, these two items reveal a fundamental mistake made time and again by Democrats - and most definitely in this year's elections here in Virginia - that the "most electable" Democrat is a mushy moderate, not (god forbid!) a strong, fighting progressive. Here in Virginia, many people who believe this line of thinking will point to is the electoral successes of Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, Democrats who ran as "business friendly," tax-averse, tough-on-crime, NRA friendly, "reach-across-the-aisle" centrists ("radical" or otherwise). I believe this reasoning is questionable, at best.
For starters, we need to look at important structural factors helping boost Virginia Democrats the past few years: the deep unpopularity of George W. Bush and national Republicans for much of the past 8 years; the rapidly changing demographics of Virginia, making it increasingly a "purple" state; the collapse of the economy towards the end of the Bush administration (and of many years of deregulation, "supply side economics," etc.). In other words, over the past few years, Democrats here in Virginia have had a "wind at their backs" politically while Republicans have had an even stronger wind in their faces. That trend has now reversed - temporarily, I believe - with results (most likely not good ones) to be seen in 3 1/2 weeks.
With regard to Mark Warner specifically, I believe we also need to focus on his tremendous personal ability to appeal across regions, ethnic and racial groups, income levels, party lines, etc. I witnessed this ability in the spring of 2008 on Warner's kickoff "flyaround" of the state, as he spoke to adoring crowds and listened to at least one speaker call him the "greatest governor since Thomas Jefferson" (which is funny, as Jefferson isn't generally felt to have been a great governor of Virginia). Part of this rapturous reception, no doubt, was due to Warner's successful record as governor (again, built on a fiscal package that overall raised taxes). Part of it might have been Warner's "radical centrism," but I doubt it - this wasn't exactly a huge applause line where I saw it delivered.
But most of it, in my humble bloggers' opinion, is simply Mark Warner's skill as a retail politician, his ability - and eagerness - to jump into crowds, press the flesh, sprint down a parade route shaking hands, you name it. The bottom line: I've watched Mark Warner closely for several years now, and have concluded that he's simply a great politician - essentially sui generis in Virginia - with a combination of personality, financial resources, and governing success built - ironically - on a revenue package that pulled Virginia out of Jim Gilmore's fiscal ditch by raising taxes. Against most opponents, it's going to be a mismatch regardless of any other factors. Which is exactly what happened in 2008, as Warner won a huge victory in that race, crushing the hapless Gilmore 65%-34%, despite Gilmore's best efforts at pinning the dreaded "tax and spend Democrat" label on Warner. True, Warner emphasized his bipartisan credentials and "radical centrism" (whatever that is), but I think we're overreaching big time when we conclude that that is why Warner won the election so big.
In 2008, we saw Warner's skills at work, but we also saw the the deep unpopularity of Jim Gilmore, the Republicans' underfunded and inept campaign, and the huge financial advantage for Warner over Gilmore. What we also saw in 2008 was a "wave" election nationally and statewide, in which all the pent-up frustrations of the last 8 years appeared to pour out and (mostly) help elect Democrats across the board.
One of those candidates on Virginia's statewide ballot last year, of course, happened to be a pro-gay-rights, pro-health-care-reform, pro-environment (including dealing aggressively with carbon emissions from coal, etc.), pro-labor, urban, intellectual, wonky, African American Democrat. Somehow, that man managed to win the Commonwealth by a 53%-46% margin, despite breaking all the (supposed) rules for successful Democratic candidates in Virginia. How Obama did this was in large part by generating enthusiasm among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent voters, enthusiasm that translated into a huge surge in progressive grassroots/netroots activism, donations, turnout by young people, turnout by African Americans and Hispanics, you name it. That's the way you win Virginia, by convincing people to come out to the polls on election day for you and also against the other guy (or gal - think Sarah Palin). In 2008, we had all this out the wazoo. This year? Not so much.
Skipping back to 2005, Tim Kaine defeated Jerry Kilgore 52%-46%. How did Kaine do this? I'd point to several main factors. First, Democrats had the aforementioned structural factors, including the changing demographics of Virginia. Second, Democrats had a strong wind at their backs, with Bush's popularity ratings plummeting, the war in Iraq raging, etc. Third, Kaine got to run as "Mark Warner Part II," a major advantage considering Warner's tremendous popularity by that point (and the fact that Tim Kaine was, after all, Mark Warner's "lieutenant"). Fourth, Kaine was a stronger candidate than Kilgore, and also ran a better campaign, laying down a compelling personal and political narrative while Kilgore struggled to do the same. Fifth, the Democratic ticket had a strong, unabashed liberal woman (Leslie Byrne) on the ticket, and although she didn't win her own race, I'd argue strongly that she helped drive up enthusiasm among "the base" (pro-choice women, blacks, liberal whites, union members) for the "business friendly centrist" Kaine. Sixth, for all these reasons and more, Democrats in 2005 were far more fired up/energized/motivated than Republicans. We saw this at the grassroots level, we saw this on the blogs, and we saw this in the fundraising, as Democratic activists and donors helped "raised Kaine" to the governor's mansion. True, Kaine ran as a "centrist" after having been a relatively liberal mayor of liberal Richmond, but again I think this is wayyyyy overemphasized by many analysts, at the expense of the other factors listed above.
Finally, let me add two more examples of how Democrats win in Virginia are Jim Webb '06 and Tom Perriello '08. Webb did it with many of the factors listed above: his own fascinating bio; anger at Bush and the national Republicans (which Webb, his campaign and supporters tapped into); a "rag-tag army" of fired-up grassroots/netroots activists; an inept opponent who had voted 96% of the time with George W. Bush and who made gaffe after gaffe (not only "macaca"); crucial financial help from the DSCC and national netroots donors (half the money the Webb campaign raised came from online contributions); and a Democratic candidate (Webb) who ran on strong progressive themes of economic fairness, social justice, reining in the Bush White House, restoring checks and balances (and the rule of law), opposition to the Iraq War, strong advocacy for the working and middle classes, populist rhetoric on "fair trade" and on economics (e.g., "the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, the middle class is getting squeezed"), solidarity with organized labor, opposition to anti-gay discrimination (specifically the Marshall-Newman "hate amendment"), etc. Meanwhile, Tom Perriello won in 2008 by running on many of the same themes as Jim Webb did in '06, with Perriello adding in more of a faith-based progressive element than Webb (or Warner; Kaine emphasized his background as a Catholic missionary in Honduras and his deep religious faith).
The bottom line is this: Democrats win in Virginia - and nationally - when they lay out strong reasons for voters to get enthused both for them (and their progressive and our pro-working-and-middle-class policies and values) and against their opponents (and their reactionary, anti-working/middle-class policies and values). This certainly doesn't mean running away from who you are. And no, this isn't rocket science.
