Going into the special election in the 1st Congressional District, before there was a candidate, I mentioned that this district was a reliably Republican one. So while I wish last night’s results were different, only the margin was wider than I expected, not the defeat itself.
First of all, my hat’s off to candidate Philip Forgit. Going into this race, he had to know that it would be a tough, tough battle. Yet he – and Ted Hontz, the candidate he beat in the caucus – was willing to stand up and face the challenge. Winning this race was only a possibility, and with donor fatigue from the recent General Assembly races, fundraising was going to be a challenge. Add to it volunteer fatigue and you’ve got a recipe for a blowout.
The Republicans were worried about this race, too. They saw what had happened in the GA races and were unwilling to take a chance that it could happen here. So they poured their meager resources into it.
Now, there has been a lot of talk about the lack of resources from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). Am I upset that the DCCC didn’t play much in this race? You bet. Am I surprised? No. (I say “play much” because I am told that the DCCC did, in fact, contribute to the race but not directly. They gave the money to the DPVA, who used it for three mailers and door hangers for Forgit.) I think there is a lesson in here: all politics is local. Stop giving money to national organizations, such as the DCCC, who pick and choose who they think can win and contribute that money directly to the candidates or the local committees who are closest to the elections. (Note that this same gripe came up in the recent GA elections. Contributions to the caucuses falls into the same category.)
While so many focus on the money aspect of a campaign, there are a lot of other factors at play. One of them is people, which I happen to think is as critical a component as the money. I was glad to see the DPVA staff at Monday’s rally. I know that some of them have been down here for several days working on the race. And DNC organizer Susan Mariner worked extremely hard, getting volunteers for phones and canvassing. So my hat’s off to them, too.
At the end of the day, the 1st Congressional District is one that was gerrymandered to be a Republican district. At this point, there is one way to fix the problem: non-partisan or, at the very least, bi-partisan, redistricting. Until and unless districts are drawn with something other than party protection in mind, you can expect more results like this.
Philip – thanks for running.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
One echo, and then a slight disagreement. First off, I want to share in thanking Philip for running. It’s a tough, tough district to run in as a Democrat, and Philip showed a lot of competence and a lot of energy in his run. He should be congratulated for that. I don’t even know where he lives off-hand, but I hope he’ll consider running for an office in the state legislature someday (or who knows! by this time in 2012 the district lines may have moved around him and he can run against someone else).
As far as the DCCC goes: the DCCC receives donations from across the country (not only in Virginia), and while activists in Virginia are invariably going to be pissed off when they don’t swoop in like Uncle Moneybags from Monopoly to spend frivolously on campaigns in their state, donors from states like Florida or California or New York are invariably pissed off when the DCCC blows through a cool $5 million on special elections in districts that haven’t voted for a Democrat in two decades and wonder why their money is being wasted. They’re a national organization with a whole lot of people that they’re responsible to, and so someone is always going to be pissed off at them, even when they’re winning more than the lose.
Perhaps especially when.
I agree with Vivian complaints about the DCCC not seeing an interest where Virginia Dem activists saw an interest does, indeed, reiterate the point that all politics is local. I disagree with a lot of people who want to make the DCCC a scapegoat. Anyone who thinks that a sack full of national party money is going to reverse a 20 point loss really does need to learn to heed Vivian’s constant reminder of Tip O’Neils mantra because apparently the DCCC remembers that All Politics is Local a lot better than you do.
I agree with you Vivian, i was cautiously optimistic and did not particularly expect a victory, but i certainly was not expecting Wittman’s margin of victory. I could not rap my mind around how Wittman, in an open seat, would marginally do better than the incumbent (in the last election)? I blame it on the turnout!
Turnout is driven by a lot of factors, too, Ian.
Good points, anon. Even so, I still think it’s better to help the candidates directly rather than relying on the DCCC or any other organization to fill the void.
Some other things to remember:
1. Between VA-01 and OH-05 the Republicans spent about 20-30% of their cash on hand, all to hold onto seats that they shouldn’t have to worry about.
2. I think that the gaint marathon convention the Republicans had actually helped them because it gave them several hours of “face time” together to network and get fired up about the race.
3. Conversely, the Democratic convention ended on a sour note between Democrats from the North and South part of VA-01 complaining about the results, hurt feelings, etc. I think the Democratic 1st CD committee has some work to do in terms of building unity and infrastructure and reminding folks who our opponents really are. There are too many people in Democratic committees who would rather see the Republican win than “the wrong kind of Democrat.” That kind of thinking undermines a party’s ability to organize on short notice for a fight like a special election.
4. While I would have liked to have seen a modest investment from the DCCC simply to force the RNCC to spend more money that it doesn’t have, in view of #3, I can understand why they didn’t.
“Even so, I still think it’s better to help the candidates directly rather than relying on the DCCC or any other organization to fill the void.”
I agree entirely. Not only does this make sure the money goes to the candidates you want, it allows that candidate and his campaign direct control over how the money is spent. Giving money to the DCCC does not accomplish that.
On the other hand, I do think the DCCC plays a very valuable role in helping to take money from donors in non-competitive Democratic districts (and from the Members who represent those districts themselves) and applying it to help candidates in competitive districts that otherwise wouldn’t be on the radar screens for those Democratic donors. I won’t begrudge them for thinking this one race wasn’t a responsible use of donors’ contributions, and I look forward to their involvement in competitive races around Virginia in the future.
OK, so I have some figures. The DCCC gave $35,000 to the DPVA for use in the Forgit race. The DPVA added $25,000 that the Governor raised for the party. And the DPVA paid for 2 staff members for the month of the race.
RD – I know there were some sour grapes after the convention but I don’t think it was anything about the “wrong kind of Democrat.” As usual, the divide was north and south. Nevertheless, at least on this end, I didn’t see any rancor about the candidate.
anon – I’d rather see the DCCC act as a conduit in terms of directing those donors from non-competitive districts to contribute directly to campaigns that are competitive, rather than being on the receiving end of those contributions and they (the DCCC) decide which ones to spend the money on.
One thing I forgot – the DCCC paid for the polling that was done. The total cost of the poll is unknown (except to the DCCC) but expect an expenditure of $7,600 to show up on the reports.
And most of what Lowell has posted in this thread is exactly what I heard from people close to the campaign.
“I’d rather see the DCCC act as a conduit in terms of directing those donors from non-competitive districts to contribute directly to campaigns that are competitive, rather than being on the receiving end of those contributions and they (the DCCC) decide which ones to spend the money on.”
That’d be nice, but it’s largely infeasible strategically. When you collect money as a conduit or a bundler, you have to be collecting it for someone specific–you can’t start raising money knowing that a certain district is going to be competitive until a candidate files, which means you’re sitting on your hands for a year. Consider: under your proposed system for strategically funding races, the DCCC wouldn’t be able to do *anything* to support a candidate against Thelma Drake because we don’t have anyone to collect money for yet. And if there was theoretically a primary in a district? They wouldn’t be able to start raising money until around March when the nominee was finally decided.
Yeah, I know 😦 But I can dream, can’t it?
I know the system we have isn’t perfect. In a perfect world (or at least, my perfect world), it wouldn’t take an arm and a leg to run for office. That keeps a whole lot of people out of the process. And I think that’s a shame.
By the way, those polling numbers Lowell heard about (that you apparently heard about as well) were OBVIOUSLY b.s. based on the outcome, don’t you think? I have nothing but respect for Philip for his service as a candidate, as a veteran, and as an educator, but come on…what internal polling is going to show a candidate who’s never run for office before, who you have never heard of, who might live a hundred and fifty miles from you (potentially true in that particular district) with a statistically measurable lead over *anyone.* If the poll showed them even, it’s because most of Virginia didn’t have any idea who either of the candidates were.
Well, I didn’t post the numbers.
The poll that I know of was simply a “profile poll” and not a Forgit v. Wittman poll. No names just categories like veteran, businessman, educator, public servant, elected official, etc.
Results in this type of polling come from questions like: Would you be more or less inclined to vote for someone who is a veteran?
If that was the true nature of the poll, i cannot see how that gives then a great idea. Isn’t almost foregone that people would be inclined to vote FOR a veteran, or a teacher? I doubt his professions helped him much, i chalk it up to the well entrenched republicanism of the district.
That’s not the poll I saw, Shawn.