Replacing Webb

Local, National, Politics, Virginia 3 Minutes

The announcement that Senator Jim Webb will not seek reelection caught a lot of people by surprise. While thanking him for his service, speculation began almost immediately as to whom the Democrats would nominate to replace him. A meme quickly developed among the main stream media: the candidate would be former governor and current DNC chair Tim Kaine. Activists, almost as quickly, mostly lined up behind former 5th Congressional district representative Tom Perriello.

I understand why the establishment would support Kaine; after all, he has name recognition and is a known quantity. I also understand why the grassroots support Perriello: he is young, energetic and has proven to be principled. Either candidate would do well against the Republican nominee, whether it be former Senator George Allen or Tea Party favorite Jamie Radkte. But each presents a danger to the health of the Democratic Party in Virginia.

There is already a divide within the party between the grassroots and the grasstops. The former provide the boots on the ground while the latter provide the resources. We have repeatedly seen the effects of the failure to engage the grassroots; in fact, I’d say that campaigns are more expensive because of it. When the grassroots is not engaged, campaigns end up having to pay for those resources – canvassers, phone bankers, and the like – that would otherwise be provided by volunteers.

This is certainly one of the things that separates Democrats from Republicans. Democrats are an independent lot: we don’t necessarily fall in line behind candidates simply because they are the party’s choice. And that is probably the biggest danger that I see if the party – not the DPVA, mind you, but the DSCC and/or the White House – decides who the candidate will be.

Much was made of the enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans last cycle. There is no doubt that it helped deliver the House of Representatives to the Republicans. To be perfectly honest, I don’t think we will ever see a repeat of the enthusiasm of 2008. It was, I think, a once in a lifetime phenomenon. That doesn’t mean that we should not try to recapture it, only that we should not be disappointed if it doesn’t happen again. What we can do is try to raise the level of enthusiasm, and, thus, involvement, by nominating a candidate who engenders such.

Kaine is an energetic candidate. Having run downticket from him in 2005, I observed just what a hard worker he is.  His task – and it won’t be an easy one – will be to engage the party activists, those outside of the normal structure of the party. I don’t have to tell him that such a feat is not as easy as it looks. Should he fail to do so – even if he wins the race in November – will further erode what little interaction exists between the activists and the party structure.

Perriello has genuine grassroots cred. His inspirational win in 2008 coupled with his narrow loss in 2010 makes him a favorite. If I recall correctly, Perriello held more town hall meetings on health care than any other Congressman, even holding one with the Tea Party. Should he run and lose, however, his political career is likely over. Democrats are pretty unforgiving when it comes to losing. And again, it would negatively impact the relationship between grassroots Democrats and the establishment.

It is possible that the Democratic candidate for Senate will be the tail that wags the dog in the presidential election. Democrats would do well to consider that when choosing a candidate.

One other thing: the method of nomination. I am no fan of conventions – they are quite un-Democratic – and prefer a primary. However, we don’t need another divisive primary. We’ve had too many – and the scars remain. I always say that it is the Democrats who should have the elephant as our mascot, because we never forget anything 😉 A consensus candidate – not one chosen by the party elite – would be the best scenario.

Published

19 thoughts on “Replacing Webb”

  1. In the immediate future, the best thing activists, donors and primary voters can do is probably to recognize that both candidates come with their own substantive (but different) upsides. Objectively, there’s a good reason to be happy if either potential candidate became the nominee.

    I’m also kind of happy that both Kaine and Periello should collectively be able to monopolize enough of the oxygen in the debate that very few people could also stand a chance of making a case for why they should be the nominee. The score of no-name random bandwagoneers who poured out of the woodwork at the Democratic Party’s high water mark to insist that their name be put on the ballot for statewide office was kind of the beginning of the end, in my opinion. I know the bench ain’t precisely deep, but you’d have thought from all of the people who tried running for LG that we had no bench at all.

    As a final aside, by the way, I also have a knee-jerk “why are we so stupid” reaction every time there’s the hint of a potential Democratic primary, but I hasten to remember that the Republicans are also just as capable as Dems at having a divisive primary.

  2. Vivian –

    I’ve been involved with plenty of conventions and believe me they can be just as divisive as a primary. Might be a smaller audience you are dealing with, but conventions can be downright nasty.

    I actually think what we saw in 2009 was quite tame. The committed McAuliffe/Moran/Deeds supporters might have gotten worked up, but by normal political standards the dust-ups that year were kids play.

    Which leads me to 2013. McAuliffe has told certain people he wants a convention. Do you think people will go along with this?

  3. I agree that 2009’s primary was particularly divisive. I didn’t hear anyone who was a Moran or McAuliffe supporter say they weren’t voting for Deeds because of the primary. It was going to be a tough year for Dems, no matter what.
    Convention can indeed be divisive, especially if one side or another feels they got cheated. Republican convention the year Ollie North ran for Senate would be a good example.

    2. I disagree. The 2009 primary was extremely divisive, just as the 2006 Senate primary was. There are far too many people I know who won’t let either one of them go. (I won’t even mention the 2008 presidential primary.)

      I wouldn’t expect that you’d hear Moran/McAuliffe supporters saying they wouldn’t vote for Deeds; however, there are a lot of supporters of M/M that would never support the other M.

      That’s what I’m speaking of. Just as we have Hillary supporters who haven’t gotten over her loss in 2008, we have the same with M/M supporters. We can’t afford to have these people leave and not come back to help out.

      1. I agree that Deeds avoided some fallout of the divisiveness because no one blamed him for either of the other two primary candidates losing. Moran supporters think he was taken down by McAulife. McAulife supporters think their candidate was taken down by Moran. Deeds just happened to be the beneficiary on both men’s political life insurance policy. But if one of those two had survived, oh brother….

        And I know that at least in some corner’s there’s a little bad blood between those two camps where they blame the other candidate for losing the general election at large. Sort of a “if only McAulife hadn’t been such an ego-centric carpet-bagger”/”if only Moran hadn’t been such a petulant loser, we could have had a much-more electable statewide candidate” kind of vibe.

  4. Coattails run both ways … in 2012 Virginia will be a must win to hold The White House … Democrats need select/elect the best Senate candidate to run a campaign designed to motivate voters to the polls … that person is … _________________

    2. Nope. There are any number of electoral maps by which a Democrat can win the White House without carrying Virginia. After all, Carter did it and so did Clinton, twice. I’d agrue it’s more important for the GOP. Hard to draw a winning electoral map for them without a solid South.

  5. Vivian –

    A devisive nominating process results in more than partisans licking their wounds and holding their noses in the general because their guy lost.

    It’s bitter John Hagar supporters so angry about Mark Early winning the R nomination for Governor in 2001 that they publicly defected to support Mark Warner in the general.

    Or backers of Stan Parris actually taking leading roles in Jerry Baliles campaign in 1985 after Wyatt Durette beat Parris for the Republican nomination for Governor.

    And, who could forget John Warner going against Ollie North after Warner’s candidate lost the R nomination for Senate in 1994?

    Now, those contests were divisive.

    Going around complaining because you’re hurt when your candidate loses after another candidate called him a boogerhead, now that’s to be expected and par for the political course.

  7. Vivian:

    I have heard both Tim Kaine and Tom Perriello’s names being thrown about, but no other names. Have you heard of any other or any suggestion ?

    1. I know you asked Vivian, but beyond Kaine and Periello the two names I’ve seen most frequently are Terry McAulife and Rick Boucher. I don’t know if either man particularly wants to run, but they have their backers as well as their detractors. And part of me wonders if some folks who are particularly opposed to one or both of the higher-profile choices are just shoveling more names in the mix until one sticks.

Comments are closed.