I’m posting a missive from John Farmer, a Richmond intellectual property attorney and a friend of mine, who felt compelled to e-mail his post-election analysis to friends and associates this morning. I thought it worth adding to the blog. Jim Bacon
The recent Virginia gubernatorial election is being spun mainly as a defeat for President Bush, in addition to being a setback for the Republican Party generally. Past electoral history contradicts this analysis. See the chart below.
Notice that, since the advent of modern politics – the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 – the party that wins the national election always LOSES the Virginia governorship the next year.
Next, notice how all three statewide offices go. Beginning again with the modern era, no Republican held statewide office until Allen and Gilmore won on 1993, immediately after Clinton’s reelection. Beginning with that 1993 election, the Republicans won 2 (1993), 2 (1997), 1 (2001) and 1 or 2 (likely 2, but AG race isn’t clearly resolved). McDonnell appears to be leading narrowly. No downward trend there for Republicans.
Next, notice that, if McDonnell wins, this will be the first election in the modern era in which the party that won the governorship lost BOTH down ticket races. Stated conversely, starting in 1981, the party that won the governorship always won at least one down-ticket race.
So what conclusions can we draw? One theory is that middle-ground Virginia voters are fickle – they are always dissatisfied with the person holding the Presidency and vote in, narrowly, the other party to the governorship the next year in Virginia.
That theory doesn’t really hold water well. Virginia hasn’t voted Democratic for President since Johnson. Thus, while mushy-middle Virginians may have been dissatisfied with Clinton, and Clinton may not have been a positive force for Terry or Beyer, they mostly didn’t vote for Clinton.
The best explanation is that Virginians in the middle don’t tend to link their vote for President and their vote for Virginia Governor the next year, and don’t let the perceived performance of the former dictate the election of the latter. If they did, almost every, if not every, Virginia’s governor’s race would have come out the opposite way.
Here’s my take:
First — Jerry Kilgore ran a lousy race. Unlike Allen or Gilmore, he didn’t seize on a single, positive issue with which to play offense in the election (parole abolition, car tax elimination). Instead, like Early, he tried to glide through under the assumption that having an “R” after his name would carry the day. He ran an unfocused, sometimes shallow, sometimes demeaning campaign. On top of that, he treated the AG position entirely as a stepping-stone for Governor rather than an office that was an end itself and to be managed toward excellence, and many people (including many Republicans) picked up on that and didn’t like it.
On the other hand, Kaine ran a disciplined campaign. He hid his liberalism under a bushel basket, feigned some seemingly conservative positions, and his naturally sunny demeanor shined through.
Second – A big reason why Republicans win national elections is national security. That issue is largely out of the picture in state elections. Thus, for a Republican to win statewide office, he must pick an issue on which to play offense and ride it hard. Just showing up won’t do.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.