A “BELATED” POST ELECTION ANALYSIS: LESSONS LEARNED

Posted on November 12, 2007 by

elephantgop.png

Rush to Judgment

In this day and age, patience often loses out. Being first counts for too much. So the minute after an election commentators rush out with their profundities, the lessons we should know about this past election season. Such, however, is not the best way to understand either timeless truths or wherein lies the hearts of the voters.

Frankly, in spite of our best efforts, I think much about this election will remain a mystery. “Experts” will scour through polling data and try understand and learn “truths” about the voters. Inevitably, such statistics will confuse as much as they inform. Even if the poll takers ask the right questions, not everyone is willing answer. Even if the poll takers are willing to listen, too often people do not know how to express what is in their hearts.

In Prince William County, most of us had the opportunity to vote in ten different elections. We each had a complicated set of choices, and many voters split their tickets. Thus both Republicans and Democrats won. Although many voters cared much about political party affiliation, many others had other concerns. What were those concerns? Two-thirds of the eligible voters did not even bother to vote. What would it have taken to bring these deserters to the polls?

I do not know for certain. I have only my own point of view.

So What Is To Be Learned?

No Contest

There is, unfortunately, too little discussion of one simple fact. Many of our elected officials did not experience any opposition in the 2007 election. In fact, the new head of our School Board ran unopposed for an open seat. What data can we glean from those “elections”?

Consider that these office holders received no opposition.

  • Commonwealth’s Attorney: Paul Ebert
  • Brentsville Supervisor: Wally Covington
  • Chair of the School Board: Milt Johns
  • Gainesville District School Board: Don Richardson

Why no opposition? The happy answer would be that these gentlemen do a good job, and arguably they have done well. Nonetheless, there are quite a few people in Prince William County, and all of us have different ideas. WHY NO OPPOSITION?

Money, perhaps? With the exception of the position of Commonwealth’s Attorney, there is very little pay to be had for these rather difficult jobs. When the contest itself will require thousand of dollars, most people simply cannot afford to make the attempt for a position that pays a trifling salary.

Lopsided Victory

Next, let us look at the lopsided victories and ask why the winners won so handily. Consider the following victories in the contested elections (from here, here and here). Note also the links to the Virginia Public Access Project under some of the position titles (VPAP does not gather data on all local offices.).

Printed in Descending Order

When you look at this list, two obvious things stand out. It helps to be an incumbent and/or the nominee/endorsee of one of the major political parties. In only one case did an incumbent lose (highlighted in red). No independents won. To gain a reasonable chance at victory, you have to win the nomination of one of the major political parties.

How do we explain the puzzles? Why did J. O’Brien lose? Why did some incumbents do better than others? Here the analysis becomes complex guesswork.

What I think counts with the voters is the nature of the story the candidate has to tell. When we vote, don’t most of us want to vote for someone we trust? What happens when we see a candidate we believe will follow through on his promises, particularly promises we care about? Will we go to the polls and vote for that candidate? Consider what the big winners did.

  • When we first elected Glen Hill to be our Sheriff, he acted like a Sheriff. We wanted a lawman, not a politician. Hill promised to be a lawman, and he behaved like a lawman. So he achieved a resounding victory.
  • Lucas ran on her good record, as someone who does her homework. Had she had the opportunity to ask, she undoubtedly would have had the Republican Party’s endorsement.
  • Trenum sought and obtained the endorsement of the Republican Party. Then he ran a good-natured campaign that focused on the issues.
  • Stirrup promised to exercise control over development. He promised transportation improvements. He delivered. Stirrup also listened to his constituents and initiated a movement in our county to do something about illegal immigration.
  • Marshall and Frederick predictably take both fiscally and socially conservative positions. Both unambiguously opposed that rotten transportation bill, HB3202. Both proposed giving local governments more control over growth issues and transportation infrastructure. Marshall took the lead fighting for the marriage amendment. Both are fighting to control illegal immigration.
  • Miller, a relatively new delegate, supported that rotten transportation bill, HB3202. However, he admitted and apologized for its defects. His honesty, and his otherwise strongly conservative positions helped him to overcome an decidedly less conservative opponent.

With a few exceptions, all the candidates above were subjected to negative campaigning. They each responded with a calm defense. Then they went back to their message. They focused on telling the voters what they had done and what they wanted to do. They left their opponents to stew alone in their anger.

No Clear Winner

Our electoral rules require we declare a winner, but sometimes the margin of victory leaves the winner no clear mandate. Often the winner has only him or herself to blame.

Those who loss or won with smaller majorities tended to have more ambiguous positions. Instead of actively promoting their own record and telling the voters what they intended to do if elected, they too often resorted to discussing the inadequacies of their opponents.

  • Stewart portrayed himself as a fiscal and social conservative. He fought for lower taxes and controlled development. He took the lead in fighting illegal immigration. However, he failed to muster the courage to oppose that that rotten transportation bill, HB3202. In spite of this failure, Stewart deserves credit. He took up the cause of controlling illegal immigration and fought the challenge of an able opponent, one with significantly greater financing.
  • Colgan has allowed developers to run rampant. He has done little to see to it that our area gets its fair share of state funds. His reelection success arguably depended on a two pronged strategy: (1) tardily adopting his opponent’s positions, and (2) clouding his opponent’s positions.
  • Lingamfelter and O’Brien supported that that rotten transportation bill HB3202. Except for their desperation to do something, anything, about Northern Virginia’s transportation problems, they could not provide a creditable excuse. Most voters forgave Lingamfelter, and he managed to withstand the challenge of a well financed opponent. Most did not forgive O’Brien.
  • Nichols attacked his opponent with ads one of our local newspapers condemned (here). With superior financing and assistance from a blogger smear “artists”, Nichols edged out his opponent. Imagine having that mandate.
  • Stuart’s success is an apparent anomaly. With no experience in government, he beat a Democrat with previous experience in the House of Delegates. Considering that his opponent also had better financing, that Stuart did win is somewhat remarkable.
  • As the winner of three-way race, McQuigg’s victory is difficult to quantify. One of her opponents was an independent, and one was a relative political novice. With two opponents, was her victory sizable or not? Because the salary we pay the Clerk of Court is relatively attractive, arguably McQuigg’s opponents were well qualified. Thus her victory is significant.

Conclusion

Negative campaigning does not appear to work as well as advertised. Negative ads put voters off. Most voters still want leaders who say what they mean and mean what the say. Most voters want leaders who listen to them and take up their issues. So what lessons should we take from the 2007 election?

  • To win, the GOP must back conservative candidates. Look who won big.
  • Those leaders who consistently stick to their principles get the most votes.
  • Those leaders who listen to their constituents and take up their issues get the most votes.
  • If we want competitive races, we need to pay our elected officials a reasonable salary. When we are unwilling to pay people appropriately for an honest day’s work, we accomplish nothing except to make ourselves penny wise and pound poor.
  • Our candidates must run positive campaigns. Instead of choosing candidates who belabor the stupidity and vileness of liberals, we must unify behind candidates who know how to sell and implement the conservative message.

As voters, if we want good government, then we need to make certain our leaders understand what we want from them. Our leaders also need to know we will be there when they need us. In return we then — and only then — have we the right to expect and deserve the best behavior from the people who lead us.

Other Views

GeorgeAllen.com says ideas matter (here). I believe he is right. Hopefully, if he takes up the campaign trail again, he will follow his own good advice.

Extreme Mortman offers the view that the Clinton threat may save Virginia Republicans from becoming a minority party (here).

Note: A unified and positive Republican message would be more wholesome. Consider why the Republican promise to do something about illegal immigration did not save the bacon of the Republican Party. After that rotten transportation bill, HB3202, why should voters believe a sudden change of heart on illegal immigration?

Based upon anonymous sources in Washington Post, Below the Beltway reaches a conclusion (here).

Note: I tire of being called a bigot. I wish people who insist they know the motives of others would just stick to observable facts.

Scott’s Morning Brew ponders whether Republicans will have the guts and resolve to follow through (here) with their promises on illegal immigration.

Equality Loudoun views the election through the prism of “gay-bashing” (here).

The Right-Wing Liberal enumerates myths (here). His focus is public policy. He makes several good points.

About Citizen Tom

I am just an average citizen interested in promoting informed participation in the political process.
This entry was posted in Republican Party. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to A “BELATED” POST ELECTION ANALYSIS: LESSONS LEARNED

  1. Mike says:
    November 12, 2007 at 10:12 pm

    Nice analysis Tom….

    as they use to say in the show Dragnet , Just the facts!

  2. Citizen Tom says:
    November 13, 2007 at 2:09 am

    Mike — Thank you.

Comments are closed.