Um, Waldo. I’m confused. First you say:

I believe that Sen. Deeds is eminently more electable, by virtue of his being much closer to the center than Del. Moran.

And then you say:

I can’t claim to be familiar enough with Del. Moran to say how he’d fare against a generic Republican in the far-off world of 2009.

You feel qualified enough to say that Deeds is closer to the center but then you say you are not familiar enough with Moran to know how he would fare. Those statements seem contradictory to me.

Posted by Vivian J. Paige on 14 December 02007 @ 11pm

Not at all. I think that a) Deeds would do better than Moran and b) that I’m not equipped to say how Moran would do against a generic Republican. Statement A compares the Democrats against each other, statement B makes clear that I cannot compare one of the candidates (or either, in fact) to a Republican.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 14 December 02007 @ 11pm

(The inverse applies to Republicans, of course.)

It would also apply to Democrats who live deep in the territory of ignorant Republicans. Just because some get beat on a regular basis it doesn’t mean that stronger Democrats need to be appeasers.

Democrats have learned to fake centrism since the dark days of 2001. Many can talk (uncomfortably) about the role of faith in politics, protecting the right to own firearms, the value of fiscal restraint and balanced budget, etc.

Waldo, I *have* to be misunderstanding you here. Are you implying that VA Democrats don’t believe in protecting the right to own firearms, or value fiscal restraint and a balance budget?

And you’re dancing around on your response to Vivian. You first opine on electability of both the candidates. The very center of a claim of electability is how someone would do in a general election. And then you disclaim exactly that.

Posted by MB on 15 December 02007 @ 12am

Are you implying that VA Democrats don’t believe in protecting the right to own firearms, or value fiscal restraint and a balance budget?

In my experience, a great many of the grassroots do not support any of those things, but they see the support of those things as an evil that’s necessary to win statewide races. Most of my Democratic friends are absolutely shocked that I own firearms — it’s as if I’ve just announced that I used to own slaves, or I don’t pay any taxes. And given the choice between going into a bit of debt to fund a new program or saving up the money first, most Democratic activists that I know would choose the former most of the time. (Look at the presidential candidates’ positions on a balanced budget — most won’t commit to it, because they know that new programs are more popular with the base.)

It’s a lot like support of redistricting. Do Democratic activists support redistricting reform? Hell yeah. But will they come the second Wednesday in November in 2009? I’m a whole lot less sure about that.

You first opine on electability of both the candidates. The very center of a claim of electability is how someone would do in a general election. And then you disclaim exactly that.

I guess I’m just not being clear. I believe that Deeds is more electable than Moran. But how either of them would stack up against a generic Republican in 2009, I can’t say.

I suspect that I’m a better shot than my four-year-old niece. But whether either of us are better shots than my grandfather, I couldn’t say, because I’ve never seen him shoot.

I feel confident that Douglas Adams was a better writer than Terry Pratchett. But are either of them better than Neil Gaiman? I don’t know, I’ve never read anything by him.

Do those analogies help?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 15 December 02007 @ 12am

Waldo, the candor expressed in the first paragraph of your last post is admirable. What you stated there is quite obvious to most people, yet I’ve rarely heard a Democrat admit it. There are many Republican activists (and politicians) who pull the same stunt with left-centered issues.

To his credit, Creigh has never done this, at least not that I’ve ever seen. This is one of the reasons I could very easily support him in any office he seeks. Creigh tells you what he believes, whether or not it’s popular with his base (or the audience in the room). We need more leaders like him.

Posted by I.Publius on 15 December 02007 @ 7am

I don’t understand why everyone just sort of takes this leap of judgment without doing the slightest bit of research. So far, I’ve been sorely disappointed with your reasoning why Moran is not as electable as Deeds:

1) Because he apparently talks funny. Not sure if you’ve heard him lately.
2) Because he’s from the population heavy part of the state. (?)
3) He’s too liberal.

What? Open up a book or look at his voting record. An A rating from the NRA. Highest score of any Democratic legislator in the House from the Family Foundation (while voting against the Marshall/Newman Amendment, something I can’t say for Deeds–who by the way, didn’t vote the same way his district did). Legislator of the year from MADD and the Sheriff’s Association. Yet he’s too liberal?

And Jim Webb only won the 3rd, 8th, 10th and 11th Congressional Districts in his win over Allen. You can’t seriously be saying that Moran can’t compete in those districts?

Posted by Rob P on 15 December 02007 @ 9am

So far, I’ve been sorely disappointed with your reasoning why Moran is not as electable as Deeds:
[...]

3) He’s too liberal.

How utterly fascinating that you would say that. I never stated or implied any such thing, and actually specifically disclaimed that in the last paragraph of this blog entry.

But, since you brought it up, I think that he’ll be perceived as too liberal. The whole state is enormously suspicious of upstate. The whole country is suspicious of Massachusetts. Moran will spend the campaign defending himself against the charge of being a “Massachusetts liberal.”

Would any Republican readers care to volunteer that they already plan on sticking that label on him?

Open up a book or look at his voting record.

Which book about Del. Moran would you recommend? I have to admit, I’m coming up a little short on Amazon.

On the topic of his voting record, I just conducted a quick analysis of it using the ranking algorithm described here, with Del. Ken Plum presumed to be the single most liberal member of the General Assembly and, thus, is made the reference point. The voting record for the 2007 is used. In that ranking of the 100 members of the General Assembly, Del. Moran comes in 17th, just below Jeon Ward and just above Frank Hall. (The top 5 are, incidentally, Plum, Englin, Ebbin, Eisenberg and Toscano.)

I’d conduct the same quickie analysis for Sen. Deeds, but I don’t know who Del. Ken Plum’s equivalent would be in the senate. I’m open to suggestions, of course.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 15 December 02007 @ 11am

“Democrats have learned to fake centrism since the dark days of 2001. Many can talk (uncomfortably) about the role of faith in politics, protecting the right to own firearms, the value of fiscal restraint and balanced budget, etc. But, as we cement our majority in the legislature, I think a lot of Democrats will drop that talk just as fast as Democratic legislators will drop talk of redistricting reform.”

A refreshing bit of honesty.

You stopped short of explaining why: Democrats fake centrism in order to be elected because the majority of people to not subscribe to their natural, more liberal leanings and beliefs.

Is that a fair statement?

Posted by Watts on 15 December 02007 @ 1pm

Waldo, I say this with all respect – you need to talk to a wider circle of Democrats. The folks you seem to be thinking of represent a rather small subset of the ones I know. I own guns, and the only time I’ve ever gotten anything close to a horrified reaction about that is when talking to some of my European friends. As to spending, I don’t think there’s anything at all incompatible with fiscal restraint/responsibility and utilizing debt. You pay cash for your house? Of course you didn’t, and I suspect you don’t feel like an irresponsible free spender for it. Responsible use of debt is how almost every going concern in the country operates.

And now look. You threw some chum in the water and the carp are all excited.

As to the analogies, I don’t think they hold up. But the basic point is clear – you think Deeds would be a better governor than Moran. Cool.

Posted by MB on 15 December 02007 @ 1pm

You stopped short of explaining why: Democrats fake centrism in order to be elected because the majority of people to not subscribe to their natural, more liberal leanings and beliefs.

Is that a fair statement?

Only insofar as the same applies to Republicans.

Understand here that I’m speaking of the grassroots, the people who spend time thinking about and planning elections, GOTV, registration, etc. In short, the people who bother to vote in primaries. Virginia Republicans are tripping all over themselves to drive themselves into the minority right now, and they’re doing a bang-up job of it. How are they doing this? By promoting their agenda and, as you wrote, “the majority of people to not subscribe to their natural, more [conservative] leanings and beliefs.”

The strong supporters of each party generally exist at the margins. When they become too comfortable, they cease to control the center. In Virginia, losing the center is certain political death.

The folks you seem to be thinking of represent a rather small subset of the ones I know.

Well, the Democrats I know, perhaps. But that probably results from knowing so many Charlottesville Democrats. Albemarle Democrats are far more pragmatic. The general audience of people I know includes far more independents and Republicans, most of whom are suspicious of people who don’t own guns. :)

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 15 December 02007 @ 5pm

Waldo, your general line of thinking in this post is consistent with that of a significant number of Democrats I know. Many of them think Deeds is closer to the “mainstream” than Moran and thus believe he is more likely to win a general election. While I share that observation, I must also observe that many of the same folks sought an alternative to Kaine, for fear he could not win statewide. He proved them wrong twice.

Is Moran made of the same stuff? I don’t know. Like you, I don’t know him all that well but my general perception is that he is a fine person. I confess that I think Deeds is more attuned to the everyday lives of folks outside Fairfax, Arlington, and Alexandria. His district is certainly more diverse — he has had to work with and appeal to a very liberal base in Charlottesville as well as a much more socially conservative base elsewhere. In general, I do think that politicians from NOVA (in both parties) have had to cater to a NOVA electorate for so long — and been so NOVA-centric — that the have a more difficult time connecting with voters south of the Occoquan than do candidates from elsewhere in the state. Mark Warner clearly devoted years and millions to overcoming that.

I suspect that my concurrence with your general theory will engender the same discomfort among some activists that your post did. But the fact remains that the upstate-downstate tension is a reality and I think the party to better understands the mix and adjusts to it will be the majority party for the next decade.

Posted by Observer on 15 December 02007 @ 9pm

Your point about Mark Warner is a canny one, Observer. He entered the race post-primary with many of the same obstacles that Del. Moran would. (Though had the opposite problem w/r/t nomination — many Democrats, myself included, believed him to be too conservative to even consider.) Warner did a very clever job of overcoming those obstacles.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 15 December 02007 @ 11pm

“And Jim Webb only won the 3rd, 8th, 10th and 11th Congressional Districts in his win over Allen. You can’t seriously be saying that Moran can’t compete in those districts?”

I am sick and tired of pointing this out, but MORE PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST WEBB THAN VOTED FOR HIM. Using Webb’s numbers as a model for electoral performance (we only have to compete in the Democratic districts!) is a recipe for failure. Webb ran well behind Gov. Kaine’s performance in the rest of the state, and as a consequence he very nearly lost to a candidate who was caught using an obscure racial slur on videotape.

Governor Kaine’s campaign leaders (the cream of the crop, all of them) knew you had to compete in the entire Commonwealth if a Democrat wanted to win elections. He didn’t ignore Republican strongholds in the 1st, 2nd or 4th Congressional Districts, instead working to reach out and narrow margins there and in some cases winning a few surprise municipalities. If we should take any lesson away from a comparison between Kaine and Webb, it is the lesson that Waldo is trying to share: we might not have to win in Southwest, Southside or Tidewater, but we damned well better pursue the sort of centrist/populist policies the can appeal to moderates in those regions, and we better run candidates and campaigns that are interested in keeping it close.

The alternative is having another year where more voters cast ballots against the Democrat than for him–only this time that will actually be called “losing.”

Posted by Sam on 15 December 02007 @ 11pm

We actually agree on something.

“The strong supporters of each party generally exist at the margins. When they become too comfortable, they cease to control the center. In Virginia, losing the center is certain political death.”

I could argue with you as to which parties tries to “fake” their centrism more, but let’s just stop here since we agree on something.

Posted by Watts on 16 December 02007 @ 6pm

The reactionaries who control the Republican party think anyone who doesn’t regularly attend John Birch Society is too Liberal to vote for. That’s why Tom Davis is likely to retire.

The Republican party has left Virginia behind.

Meanwhile, I’m just stupified by this quote, W:

Democrats have learned to fake centrism since the dark days of 2001. Many can talk (uncomfortably) about the role of faith in politics, protecting the right to own firearms, the value of fiscal restraint and balanced budget, etc. But, as we cement our majority in the legislature, I think a lot of Democrats will drop that talk just as fast as Democratic legislators will drop talk of redistricting reform.

You’ve broken the 12th commandment of politics here: Democrats don’t attack Democrats using Right Wing talking points.

Your thesis is strong. Democrats do need to represent all of Virginia in order to maintain an enduring majority to lead Virginia forward. Nonetheless, Virginia doesn’t need a Piedmont Lieberman. Richmond’s already got Jannou.

Posted by ajc on 16 December 02007 @ 7pm

Thing is, I think those right wing talking points have a kernel of truth. Otherwise I wouldn’t be saying them. The only thing worse than repeating right wing talking points is failing to point out the elephant in our collective living room because Republicans already have.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 16 December 02007 @ 9pm

Thanks for making my day!

The Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is now a “right wing talking point”.

God bless those founding fathers! What wing-nuts they must’ve been.

Posted by Watts on 16 December 02007 @ 10pm

Truth?

Show me a Republican legislator or executive who has lead an effort to show fiscal restraint by balancing a budget?

Can’t do it? I can easily name two Democrats: Mark Warner and Bill Clinton. How about that cool guy up in Maryland, O’Malley, I think?

Yeah, Democrats can do those things, because we understand Strong Dollar policies and the concept of real investment, unlike reactionary ideologues who own the Republican party.

Virginia and America require pragmatic solutions to real problems, and that’s what Democrats do. The party that invests in the future is the party that owns the future. You do hardworking Democrats statewide a grave disservice in playing in to Limbaugh lingo.

The party that promises “family values” delivers Foley, Haggard, Vitter and Craig. The party that promises “small government” delivers the weakest dollar in history and looming stagflation. The party that promises a “strong military” delivers a multi-trillion dollar boondoggle, and global hatred towards the greatest nation on earth.

Democrats deliver for everyday Americans, everyday Virginians, by investing in universal opportunity, balancing budgets and refusing to let fear of shadowy enemies overshadow our love for the America and all her freedoms.

Ultimately, the real damage here is in believing that Democrats seek Domination. It is the solid core of the Republican base that seeks to dominate and be dominated. Democrats seek service. When the history of the enduring Democratic majority in Virginia is written, sometime in the 22nd or 23rd Century, it will be a dedication to service that defines the age.

Posted by ajc on 16 December 02007 @ 10pm

Let’s face it.

Both sides try to paint the other side as “extremists” in order to try to demonstrate non-centricity.

What we need is a clear definition of “centrism” and a thoughtful discussion as to why it is most desirable.

I’ll bet you just about anything you want that there will never be consensus on what ‘centrist’ beliefs are.

It is easy to dismiss the extremes. What is difficult is defining where the extremes meet the center.

Posted by Watts on 16 December 02007 @ 10pm

ajc,

I can balance any budget. Just allow me to raise taxes to offset any additional spending. There, that was easy.

What both parties must address are entitlement programs and pork spending that are considered sacred cows.

Try to balance a budget by cutting something. You will catch holy hell.

Herein lies the fundamental problem with our current political environment. The problem cuts both ways across party lines.

Posted by Watts on 16 December 02007 @ 10pm

Show me a Republican legislator or executive who has lead an effort to show fiscal restraint by balancing a budget?

Can’t do it? I can easily name two Democrats: Mark Warner and Bill Clinton. How about that cool guy up in Maryland, O’Malley, I think?

Yeah, Democrats can do those things, because we understand Strong Dollar policies and the concept of real investment, unlike reactionary ideologues who own the Republican party.

You are absolutely right about all of these things. That’s a great example of something that Republicans talk a good game about but that elected officials don’t do jack about.

But remember that Democrats weren’t fond of Clinton balancing the budget, any more than we liked his welfare reform. Democrats have only taken up talking about balancing the budget post-Clinton because a) it’s something we can use to beat Bush over the head with and b) because we’ve seen how incredibly damaging that it can be when it’s not balanced. But I’m not sure we’d think that if that money had been spent on something that we like. It’s different when it’s our ox being gored.

And while we’re on the topic, Clinton was a centrist president, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. On the topic of repeating Republican talking points, the oft-repeated notion that Clinton was a liberal Democrat is king among these, a highly successful effort to move the center to the right. It’s like this hooey we saw four years ago about how Dean is so liberal. Bullshit. His supporters were liberal. But as a candidate, the man was a lot closer to the center than a great many of his opponents. I know you didn’t suggest anything to the contrary on this topic, I’m just mentioning it. :)

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 16 December 02007 @ 10pm

Waldo, first of all, I’m your biggest fan, so please understand none of this is personal. I just take the 12th commandment very much to heart and any time I see this particular mole raises its nasty little head I just have to whack it!

To address both Waldo and Watts: centrist policies are impossible to define because they are based on the calculus of defining precisely the midpoint between the overwhelming majority of public opinion, and whatever the extreme right happens to be selling at the moment.

That overwhelming majority of public opinion is, however the moderate position, it includes, universal opportunity, investing in the future (viz. education and infrastructure), keeping abortion safe, legal, and rare, ending the war in Iraq, addressing issues of poverty and disease in America and around the world, progressive taxation, universal health care, re-building constitutional liberties, reasoned gun rights, hard- and soft-power foreign policy, increased civil involvement, decreased corporate ownership of the media and the legislative process, and a healthy respect for the rights of all Americans regardless of race, wealth, or creed.

Clinton was precisely a centrist, which is why Hillary is dangerous to the Democrats long term. She may be able to win the White House, but she will also continually enrage the Reagan Republicans, especially lower-income, white males, just as Bill did. Regardless of how much her centrism seeks to appease them. Her corporatism will continue to keep the Democratic party from defining itself as the party of the working class, and will continue to alienate Hard-Working AmericansTM.

Yes, the truly moderate positions, those supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans, define the Progressive agenda. No matter how much the Authoritarian- or bent-knee right seeks to cast it as anything else, and no matter how atrocious a job moderates do at selling America what they themselves say again and again what they want and need, the moderate positions are the positions of both Progressivism and the Democratic party.

Posted by ajc on 16 December 02007 @ 11pm

ajc, yet again, I agree with everything you just wrote. :)

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 17 December 02007 @ 8am

AJC,

Most of those posting and reading here are, on some level, either current or former professionals or very advanced amateurs in Virginia politics. We’re not giving convention speeches here. We’re talking shop and if there is unpleasant BS that affects the reality of what we all do then it should be discussed and this is a pretty good place to discuss it.

On the Second Amendment stuff, fiscal restraint, balanced budgets, etc., Waldo is right. For some areas, anyway. In Charlottesville, the Democratic party grassroots has hardly been gung ho about this stuff and would probably rather drop support for candidates who are strong on those issues. But after 8 years of George Allen and then Jim Gilmore, they got pretty damned pragmatical about it and realized that those are the kind of candidates that will actually win statewide. 7 years of the Bush administration reminding them of what the alternative is has kept that pragmatism in effect.

Personally, I don’t just support 2nd Amendment rights, fiscal restraint and balanced budgets out of pragmatism. I *am* a Mark Warner Democrat. And what gives me some real hope is that after 7 years of this kind of centrism defining the Democratic party in Virginia, there is a whole political generation of Democrats who have come up in the party with this as our example. We’ve reconciled these ideas with traditional liberal values and we will resist efforts by the rest of the party to shift too far to the left when the opportunity arises.

Posted by Jack Landers on 17 December 02007 @ 10am