|
|
Like
a true native born Southern boy, I baited the hooked
and tossed out the line into the Warner vs. Allen
2006 Senate election pond. Then, I laid back, had a
few brews, closed my eyes until a pull on the line
rocked me back.
Sure enough, I reeled in the Big One: some
real, honest-to-goodness poll numbers. Several
sources -- admittedly friends of the governor - told
me that Warner is the most popular governor in
modern Virginia history, save perhaps for the last
six months of Chuck Robb's term when the former
Senator was Governor and polled above 80 percent on
the popularity meter.
Naturally, I checked with a couple of sources
not as friendly to the governor who had seen some
other polling numbers from different parts of the
state. They hemmed and hawed but basically confirmed
it. However, they quickly spun the poll numbers as
"soft," a term used in political circles
to indicate support based on a nice-guy image, not
on the "hard" data of support for an
individual on an ideological or specific
issue/performance measure.
Frankly, while I have used
these terms myself, they can be highly subjective.
More importantly, what difference does it make if
they are "soft" or "hard"? A
voter gets only one vote whether she/he loves or
hates a candidate or falls in-between. A
"soft" positive vote counts the same as a
"hard" positive vote.
In theory, a "soft" positive voter
-- say a Republican or Independent who might vote
for Warner over Allen right now -- is someone the
senator would have a good shot switching to his side
in 2006 after forcing the Governor to take stands on
tough issues or defend his record.
In that regard, Professors Larry Sabato and Bob
Holsworth may be right in saying that it is not hard
for any office-holder to create a soft, positive
image by refusing to lead the fight on the tough
issues of the day. But this is academic
psychobabble; it fails to understand the realities
of politics, namely that in the end,
"soft" positives decide a lot of elections
and anyone who can get them in large numbers is a
very strong political figure.
Net, net then: My sources agree on the
current lay of the political land in terms of Warner
and Allen. Warner, whether soft, hard or whatever,
polls as popular in Virginia as Rudy Guiliani
essentially did in New York when folks last checked
his chances in a 2006 race against Senator Hillary
Clinton. At that time, Rudy led Hillary by a 17
percent (56 percent to 39 percent) margin in the
Empire State where she is as popular as George Allen
is in Virginia.
Warner as Rudy, Coach Allen's kid as Bill's
soulmate? No wonder Rush Limbaugh has been gulping
down those pain-killers faster than his doctor's
could
write the prescriptions.
But
back to my fish story. This search for the 80
percent poll number got me thinking like the Old Man
and the Sea, remembering the role of fishing in
Virginia politics. In terms of a statewide contest
such as a Warner vs. Allen race, GUV candidate Jerry
Baliles in 1985 is the last statewide hopeful to
make a love of fishing a key plank in his image
building. When I say "image building" this
is not to be interpreted as questioning the
Baliles/fishing connection. However, whether we like
it or not, TV images do dominate our political
processes, and this is a fact of life regrettable or
otherwise.
Candidate Warner dressed up in a camouflage
outfit and went hunting for Turkey, I think it was,
to prove he wasn't some North-of-the-Mason Dixon
line elitist wimp, but a real Southern Comfort boy
at heart. Remember the Doug Wilder commercial with
the Beefy Law Man, Chuck Robb aiming that pistol
into the TV camera at a police firing range, or Mark
Earley looking like a deer in the headlights on some
badly staged porch in 2001? Some images work, others
don't.
Take Surfer Dude George Allen. He grew up a
Beach Boys' beach boy hanging five in ARNULD
country, but now goes around with cowboy boots, and
a wad of Redman between his cheek and gum, to act
the role of mechanic "Cooter" from The
Dukes of Hazzard. (When Ben Jones wants to
pretend to be "Cooter" Jones, he drives
around with a Confederate Flag on the hood of a car
and fools Democratic leaders into thinking this will
make him a real conservative Southern boy for
Virginia voters.)
In terms of Virginia history, the image of
Jerry Baliles, Patrick County boy making good, still
in touch with his roots even as he rises to the
office of governor, is the rare case these days.
Wilder and Gilmore were your urban and suburban
local guys, natural to the Virginia scene as Allen
and Warner were not.
But then, even the legendary Harry F. Byrd
Sr. was not born in Virginia. Not long ago,
politicians like John Warner went to great lengths
to prove their ancestors' bones had been buried here
longer than those of their opponents. This amazes
young people today. But in those days, hopefuls like
Robb and Warner, who had made their names outside of
Virginia, were seen as path-breaking candidates in
the Old Dominion. Today, we have Ms. Liz Taylor's ex
in one U.S. senate seat, a lifeguard from Baywatch
country in the other, and a Harrrvard boy as
governor.
Finally, what Paul Goldman was laughed at for
fighting to achieve is now true in Virginia: Today,
you are judged more on who you are than who your
ancestors were. Every Southerner, native or
otherwise, has to applaud that. We are all
Virginians.
In some respects, the likely Republican 2005
GUV nominee Jerry Kilgore is trying the first
Baliles-like image in a generation, a son of the
more rural Virginia who has not forgotten his roots
but can "play" in the vote rich suburban
and urban enclaves. Baliles, who put this trifecta
together better than anyone else by carrying every
one of Virginia's congressional districts, proved a
very adept fisherman in this pond. We Democrats had
better realize that if Kilgore can talk that talk
and walk that walk, he will not be the push-over the
Democratic high command thinks he will be.
But
that is for a later date. Let's get back to fishing,
and the fact that yours truly has proven to be a
decent angler, at least on dry land, logged onto a
computer miles away from any pond or stream.
Admittedly, some or all of my sources could
have been "spinning me," feeding the kid
bad numbers, for their political purposes. But that
being said, let me repeat what no one can now
dispute: The governor's political operatives are not
shy in making sure Democrats know their polls say he
is the most popular Governor, in terms of polling,
in the state's history since Chuck Robb's last year
in office, when his approval rating moved above 80.
That's right: The number "around"
80 rolls off so many Democratic lips it is the
benchmark number. Whether a little lower, a little
higher, it would be within the margin of polling
error anyway.
For sure, given the differences in the states
and personalities, the Guiliani vs. Clinton race is
far from a perfect analogy. But if we assume -- as I
will - that the 80 percent approval level is what is
showing in Warner/Democratic polls across the
Commonwealth, my hunch was right in "Mark
Warner vs. George Allen" (October 6, 2003):
There is no way Senator Allen is ahead right now in
a match-up with the Democratic governor.
The 56 percent to 39 percent lead by the
former New York City mayor over the sitting New York
senator is not, of course, the spread here in
Virginia. But a 49-percent to 39-percent Warner
margin over Allen would be the range in a match-up
between the most popular governor in the modern era
and the sometimes polarizing junior senator. Again,
assuming these polling numbers are real.
However, as someone who writes about polling
numbers, what I heard last week makes did at least
make me wonder whether I was ground zero in a
numbers game or two. Why? Simply this: If you assume
this approval rating, then it seems odd Democratic
candidates in 2003 are not making more of Warner's
popularity. It seems equally curious Lt. Governor
Tim Kaine is not doing what Baliles did so
effectively in 1985 by attaching himself to Robb.
I would think Kaine would be fighting to be
seen as the First Defender, the most pro-Warner guy
out there, just as Baliles ran as Robb II. True, we
are not in the actual gubernatorial election year
right now, so there is a difference in timing. But
the political calculation is the same.
Finally, an 80 percent, Robb-sized approval
rating says Warner could challenge the GOP/General
Assembly to put his tax reform proposal on the
November, 2004 ballot if they refuse to pass it next
year. They would almost surely have to agree, giving
Warner a chance to do something historic, something
that would stop all this frivolous "no legacy
talk" we get from Sabato and Holsworth and
others.
What do those guys know about building a
legacy for a governor? Even their 20-20 hindsight
has proven wrong. Clearly, an 80 percent approval
rating says Warner is positioned to do many of
things Sabato and Holsworth want him to do. They
should offer him their ideas, as some of us have
already done in areas of education, finance,
transportation and the budget.
Admittedly, a high-profile referendum fight
to find, for example, an extra $4 billion more for
education over the next 10 years than otherwise
would be invested is going to be seen as roll of the
dice. But Warner could win it. I would lead the
ground war for free, I am that sure it would be won.
I have led those fights before. This one
would be an easy win in my opinion, if you did it
right.
As they say at Fox News, I report, You Decide.
Like all anglers, I have at least learned the
basics of a good fish story. Did I land the big one?
Or did some folks send me on a fishin' expedition?
We will know soon enough.
-- October 20, 2003
|