Lessons for Vermont in last night's elections

by: odum

Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:52:07 AM EST

I do see one arena with a potential message for us, and that's Virginia. The first lesson is obvious. If the 5 Democrats in Vermont's primary gubernatorial race allow their electioneering to become the kind of scorched-earth nastiness that we saw in Virginia, they're liable to cause the same effect; the candidates with the smarts and capability to actually run a statewide campaign could essentially cancel each other out, and the last one standing could be the lamest of all.

This is exactly the opposite effect that a healthy primary will have. If the candidates can keep it from getting nasty, rather than follow the path of Creigh Deeds, the winner will follow the path of Virginia's Senator Jim Webb and others like him across the country.

The other lesson from Virginia is in the numbers, and its the most important lesson of all.  

Elections are algebraic equations. They are about balancing several variables, where the known value of some of those variables vary from place to place, election to election. Those who dumb down electioneering to "take the center" either have a deeply dumbed down view of elections and the social psychology behind them in general, or - more often - they are simply being self-serving. Most of the folks who insist that elections are always won in the center are simply themselves centrists and don't want to feel bothered to expend the brain power required to step outside their own comfort zone and engage in a more nuanced - more accurate - analysis of what exactly is going on in a given election.

I don't doubt that in some elections, centrism will carry the day. But the biggest lesson provided by Deeds in Virginia is how - even in a close race - mindlessly aping that mantra and blindly acting on it can be a ticket to disaster, as it may or may not be the main dynamic in play in any given election.

In Virginia, it most certainly wasn't, and the numbers bear that out with little-to-no room for alternate interpretation. From FDL (via dKos):

In Virginia this year, one poll showed the percentage of the likely electorate under the age of 30 falling 70% from 2008-and the African American share of the vote falling 39% from 2008! That's why virtually every poll has shown today's likely electorate as having voted for John McCain by double digits over Barack Obama in Virginia last year-despite Virginia having voted almost exactly the reverse.

Unfortunately for us, the Deeds campaign freaked out and read these polls wrong over the summer. Instead of attempting to energize more young and minority voters to the polls to make the electorate more representative of Virginia-they began running a campaign targeted to the people already planning to vote. Creigh began bashing federal Democratic priorities like "Cap and Trade" and health care reform to appeal to the conservatives that were headed to the polls.

And every time he did it, polls indicated turnout shriveled even further among Democrats and progressive voters-making the electorate even older, whiter, and more conservative. To which Creigh responded to by bashing federal Democrats more-which resulted in even more progressives becoming disengaged. Over and over, the cycle continued. Over the last six weeks, PPP polls indicated the share of the electorate that identified as Democrats declined from 38% to 31%. In other words almost one out of every five self-identified Democrats planning to vote on Labor Day has since then looked at Creigh Deeds and his conservative message, and decided they weren't voting. Ouch!

Election realities can be inconvenient for those who want to cling religiously to simplistic preconceptions. And the reality is that just running rightward is way too simple. It always has been.