|
|
|
The
smart money at this weekend's big annual Democratic
Party fundraiser was betting on a multi-candidate
2005 gubernatorial primary, assuming the Two-Term
Governor law goes in effect. Of course, such
speculation is premature, as the debate over this
dubious and ill thought-out change is only
beginning. But in Virginia, the best political chess
players are already focused on the next
gubernatorial election, talking quietly among
themselves, game-playing all the possible moves --
including the possibility that the constitutional
amendment proposed by Harry R. "Bob"
Purkey, R-Virginia Beach, allowing the Governor
elected in 2005 to run for reelection, becomes law.
So, at this weekend's J-J Dinner,
those searching for Bobby Fisher were asking: What
are the practical, political consequences if a
governor elected in 2005 were allowed to run again
in 2009?
The pro-two-term supporters have said such a change
would benign, with little effect on gubernatorial
campaigns or governance. But take it from someone
like me who has run three successful statewide
campaigns: The change not only would impact the
campaign for governor but would introduce intensive
campaign politics into the governing of Virginia,
something intentionally muted by the no-reelection
rule.
But let's leave these management issues for another
column. Today, let's focus on how the two-term law,
if enacted, would affect the election calculations
of some of Virginia's best known politicians, such
as 9th district Rep. Rick Boucher, former
Congressman and Lt. Governor candidate L.F. Payne,
and 3rd district Rep. Bobby Scott on the Democratic
side. (I will deal with the GOP side in another
column).
Until now, there has always been
what analysts call an "open" seat in the
election for governor. Ambitious politicians knew
they would not have to contest against an incumbent,
whose fundraising abilities always exceed those of
any wannabe, even if he or she is facing the
toughest of political times.
But should the two-term Purkey amendment pass, the
2009 race for governor is all but certain to have an
incumbent seeking reelection. Thus, if you don't run
in 2005, you have to wait until 2013 before you may
have another open seat for governor.
Therefore, the election of the Governor in 2005
offers what could become a rarity in the next
several gubernatorial cycles: a contest without an
incumbent governor.
Moreover, 2005 also offers a sitting congressman a
chance to get eight years -- not merely four -- as
the governor. As a practical matter for an ambitious
politician, giving up a safe seat in Congress for
eight years as governor is far more appealing than
taking the leap for only one short term.
The same political calculations -- the absence of an
incumbent's money-raising machine and the presence
of a possible eight-year term as Governor - will
prove attractive to anyone who is harboring
Executive Mansion fever.
In addition -- and this something Boucher and Scott
will be pondering -- the governor running for
reelection in 2009 is likely to be running with a
Lt. Governor and/or an Attorney General also running
for
reelection. Why? As discussed in an
earlier article, it would be politically smart
for them to seek a second term rather than risk
their careers opposing a sitting Governor.
The result: If Boucher and Scott wait until 2013 to
seek the Democratic nomination, they could be facing
a two-term Democratic Lt. Governor and/or Attorney
General who has had eight years to build support and
can claim it is their turn to run, an argument that
proved persuasive for two-term Attorney General Mary
Sue Terry in getting Lt. Governor Don Beyer to give
her the Democratic gubernatorial nod without a fight
in 1993.
Assuming the "Purkey Turkey" becomes law,
the logic is inescapable: If you don't run for
Governor in 2005, you might not have a realistic
chance of winning the Democratic Party nomination
for governor, or the general election, until 2013,
2017, or even later -- a lifetime in politics.
Here's another reason to think that Bouchers and
Scotts of the world might consider running in 2005:
They don't have to give up their seats unless they
win. Because Virginia still will be holding
gubernatorial elections in odd-number years, members
of Congress can keep their seats while running for
governor. Virginia's campaign-finance laws would
allow them to extract hefty contributions from
national interest groups, a source of campaign
financing that potential competitors would not
enjoy.
The Congressional-incumbent fundraising advantage,
as indicated above, loses a lot of its gold plating
in 2009, and possibly beyond.
This, then, is why the smart money in Richmond this
weekend was betting that Democrats are very likely
to have the party's first gubernatorial primary in
nearly 30 years. The last one was 1977, and yours
truly had the good fortune to be Henry Howell's
campaign manager in his upset win over Andy Miller.
In my experience, gubernatorial primaries are the
most fun of any campaign, for they are usually far
more issue-oriented than general elections, and far
more prone to elating upsets. The last Republican
gubernatorial primary, held in 1989, saw
front-runner Paul Trible lose a double-digit lead to
winner J. Marshall Coleman. Contested gubernatorial
primaries are thus those rarest of events in modern
Virginia politics, a once-in-a-generation contest of
great unpredictability for the highest stakes.
The 1989 GOP contest was a three-way race. The last
three-way Democratic contest took place in 1969.
Back then, Virginia law required a run-off if no
candidate got 50 percent in the first primary.
Today, it is winner-take-all in the first round,
with no majority requirement; the victor is the
person who gets the most votes of all those running.
Accordingly, 40 percent is likely to suffice to win
a hard-fought, multi-candidate 2005 Democratic
gubernatorial primary.
So, Lt. Governor Tim Kaine, who dutifully supports a
two-term law, surely must wonder if he has agreed to
a Faustian bargain. Clearly, the prospect of being
the first governor to serve eight straight years is
enticing. But this potential reward requires the
acceptance of considerable primary risk.
While Kaine's election calculations are comprehensible, the pro-two term position of former
Gov. Jim Gilmore baffles this analyst. If Scott and
Boucher, and even Republicans like Congressman
Goodlatte, are potentially the big winners from a
constitutional amendment, then "Deficit
Jim" is potentially one of the big losers.
My hunch is this: Mr. Gilmore didn't actually read
the Purkey bill before agreeing to back it, as I
have discovered was the case with several other
major political players. (More on this angle in
another
column.)
What does it all mean in terms of 2005?
The smart money says Lt. Governor Kaine has a better
than 50-50 chance of avoiding a serious primary
challenge as the Constitution now stands. If a
two-term law became effective in 2005, however, this
analyst would be surprised to see the Lt. Governor
get a "walkover," the horse-racing term
for a race lacking any real competition.
Who would be the strongest candidate in 2005, either
in the general election or the primary, on the
Democratic side? I will have to pass on that
question, and leave it for the "experts"
on Virginia politics, Professors Holsworth and
Sabato, to provide those answers.
But I will bet that both professors, along with Gov.
Warner's pollster, not to mention the ones for
Boucher, Kaine, Payne, Kilgore and Gilmore, will be
testing the question should the two-term law seem
headed for eventual approval by the voters in
November of 2004.
One last thought: A contested primary for governor
also will affect the expected 2005 contests for Lt.
Governor and Attorney General.
Why?
The primary turnout will be hundreds of thousands of
votes higher if the gubernatorial nomination is
contested. The whole dynamic of the races for these
two offices would change dramatically, greatly
affecting the current "conventional
wisdom" on who is the front-runner for the
Democratic nominations for these offices.
From 2009 and on, as I wrote earlier this year in
the Washington Post, the two-term law would
have a negative, anticompetitive impact on the level
of primary and general election competition in
Virginia. But for that one year -- 2005 -- it could
produce the biggest primary fireworks in the
Virginia Democratic Party in more than a generation.
--
February 3, 2002
For
the uninitiated, the J-J Dinner is the
Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner, an annual event.
(c) Copyright. All rights reserved. Paul Goldman.
2003.
|
