Giesen Perspective

The Giesen Perspective:

The 2006 Election Results — Were They Predictable

DATE: Friday, November 10, 2006

OVERALL COMMENTS

Check the commentators! Check your e-mails! Check the bloggers!

All of them will have an analysis of Tuesday’s election results and many of them will draw totally different conclusions from the same figures. For instance, a very conservative friend of mine tells me the whole problem with the Republican Party is they weren’t conservative enough in this campaign and if the candidates had stayed true to the Reagan Conservative principles the party would not have lost control of Congress, at least not of the Senate.

Then there are the editorial comments stating the Republican Party had dug itself a hole trying to finance two wars (both in Afghanistan and Iraq), cut taxes, and maintain spending levels on domestic programs -- people were just “fed up.”

You may have seen all of these various comments. One astute political observer noted to me, “That’s part of the fascination of politics in this country. Everyone can take voting results and prove their particular point of view.”

So I’m going to join in trying to make some sense out of Tuesday’s results. Some wise office holder once advised me that the American voters are a lot smarter than most political advisors and consultants think they are. Lincoln’s rather famous quote comes to mind. “You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” So it would appear historically whenever one of the parties tends to drift too far to the left or to the right that party’s candidates may win one or two elections, but eventually the voters will bring them back to the middle. It some times takes a good sound beating at the polls to accomplish this but it does happen and I believe it happened this year. It happened in 1994 when the Democrats strayed too far left. It will happen again in the future.

THE SENATE RACES—Virginia and Montana

Most analysts felt if the Republicans could hold the U.S. Senate seats in Virginia and Montana they would still control the Senate. With the loss of these two very tight races the Democrats will now organize both bodies of Congress. It is hard to over emphasize the importance of being the organizing party of a legislative body. So these two decisive races were critical to the Republicans and they lost both of them.

Some analysts say both races got caught in the “tsunami of the voters’ discontent with the Administration and the war in Iraq.” This, of course, was part of the problem, but let’s look a little closer. In a campaign there are a number of factors which influence the outcome. Certainly what is happening on the national scene has a direct bearing on Congressional and U. S. Senate races. Another major factor is how the campaign itself is run. From personal experience I can tell you it is very difficult to win an election where the national picture is working against you AND you run a poor or mediocre campaign.

There are, however, many instances where well run campaigns, particularly re-election campaigns, overcome the negative impact of the national scene. Take Tuesday’s Congressional results here in Virginia. Every incumbent Republican Congress person who had opposition was re-elected. Some of the opposition admittedly was “token,” but even where it was very strong, such as in the 2^nd District, the Republican incumbent won. In fact, if George Allen had been able to ride the coattails of the Republican Congressional candidates he would have won!

In both Virginia and Montana, the Republican campaigns outspent the Democrats, but in both, the Democrat challengers won. In Virginia, George Allen had made a major name for himself in only one term, while in Montana, U.S. Senator Conrad Burns had served three terms (18 years!) and has been a household name in a state where there is little turnover in its 909,000 population. When you are on the stump, however, no matter how solid your standing with the voters, you have to be careful what you say (again, this observation is from personal experience, and let me add it is very easy to “slip up”). Both candidates made major “gaffes” early in their campaigns and went on the defensive and never recovered fully.

The Washington Post noted that George Allen was sailing along and, “…the conventional wisdom in August was that a stunning victory in the Senate race would position him as the darling of the party…Then came the now-legendary ‘macaca moment.’” The article goes on to talk about George’s awkward handling of the revelation about his Jewish heritage and the accusations that he used racial epithets during and after college. So this former offensive football player learned how much more difficult it is to play defense in both football and in politics (so states this former defensive end on a college junior varsity football team and an occasionally defensive player in the political arena!).

In Montana, Sen. Burns also put his mouth in operation before he put his brain in gear. In July he extended rather harsh criticism of a Virginia firefighting crew that came to help battle a wildfire in southern Montana. (How dare he criticize a group of Augusta County volunteer firefighters who came to his state to help save some of his state's timber. Why, I bet even my daughter, raised in the Augusta County area, voted for the Democrat Jon Tester. I’ve been afraid to call and ask her!) Regardless of the reason for his comment, it didn’t sit well with the voters and, of course, his apology didn’t ease the defensive position in which he had put himself.

So it would appear in both of these races, as is frequently the case, the candidates themselves misspoke and contributed mightily to their defeats and the lost of control of the upper chamber for the GOP.

TWO OTHER INTERESTING FACTORS IN THE VIRGINIA RACE

Looking at the returns from certain areas, there are two other unusual situations that appear to have influenced the outcome of the Virginia Senate race. The so called ‘Marriage Amendment’ was supposed to help the Republican candidates. In the end, I believe it was a double edged sword. If George Allen had received all of the votes from those who came to the polls to vote for the referendum he would have won (Allen’s statewide vote—1,166,614; ‘Yes’ on the Marriage Amendment, 1,328,546). But obviously over 160,000 people who voted for the Amendment voted for Webb as well. In just Richmond and Hampton, almost 9,000 more people voted for the amendment than voted for the Republican Senatorial Candidate. It would appear a large majority of the Black voting population came to the polls to vote for the amendment (there was a larger turn out in some of these precincts than has been traditional in off year elections) and for the Democratic Candidate.

There is a second group of citizen, I have been told, who do not normally vote in off year elections but this year came to the polls to vote AGAINST the ‘Marriage Amendment’. These voters were from the gay community. They blamed the Republicans for pushing the amendment so strenuously, so they naturally voted for Jim Webb.

One can easily make the argument that these two groups, who may not have voted if the Marriage Amendment had not been on the ballot, came to the polls in sufficient numbers to swing the election to the Democrat column.

Like I say, there will be many people giving their take on this election. There almost always are and when an election is this close it gives lots of people an opportunity to “calculate the figures the way they want to do so.”

WHAT NEXT?

Several columnists have speculated that after this defeat, George Allen will fade from the scene. I do remember back to the 1960-1962 era when the media had written off a former Vice-President by the name of Richard Nixon. In fact, he himself made a statement something like, “well you fellows won’t have me to kick around any more.” It seems to me he did come back, didn’t he?

Even the Washington Post commented on George Allen’s concession speech noting that George was, “…Relaxed and smiling, ever gracious, he thanked his campaign staff, …and finished like the veteran campaigner who won two statewide elections: ‘Teammates, fellow patriots, stay strong and stand strong for freedom!’”

Senator Charles Hawkins may have said it best, “I don’t think George is finished with politics. All of his options are open.”

How the results of this election might impact on the 2007 General Assembly and the legislative races remains for another Giesen Perspective.

THE BEAUTY OF THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM

So we have the changing of the guard in Washington, at least in the Legislative branch. And you know, there hasn’t been a shot fired or any rioting in the streets or any burning of our cities, and most all of those who lost the elections on Tuesday are now saying nice things about their opponents and the victors and the defeated incumbents are offering to meet with the winners to make the transitions easy for everyone involved. Sometimes you do get the feeling this is a beautiful country in which to live and despite our complaining about the nastiness of the campaigns and the enormous amount of negative advertising, the political system works. It may not always be to our liking but it still seems to be one of the best in the world.

Links to Previous Giesen Perspectives:

Arthur R. Giesen, Jr., fondly known as Pete, served in the Virginia House of Delegates for over 30 years. He represented the citizens of the Central Shenandoah Valley surviving four different district realignments. During his career he represented Augusta, Bath, Highland and part of Rockingham County and the Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro.

Following his career as an elected official, Pete assisted Lt. Governor John H. Hager as his Chief of Staff.

Pete now keeps an eye on Virginia government and assists many clients with his unique perspective on the workings of the Virginia General Assembly and its relationship with the other branches of state government.