I could just as easily have titled this post "Why Bob McDonnell is winning." Let's start with the candidate. As Virginia uber-blogger Not Larry Sabato points out, to be a governor is to be a manager. Voters intuitively understand this, and so they look to the candidate who seems to be the best manager. Creigh Deeds (D) doesn't come off as a confident, crisp, efficient manager; Bob McDonnell does. The dynamics of an open seat, with a much narrower pool of voters, a re-energized Republican Party -- these conditions were expected, and they were satisfied. Deeds's climb would be uphill. Also: Virginians fell in love with Mark Warner. They fell in like with Tim Kaine. They seem underwhelmed by Creigh Deeds.
Here are six other reasons why Deeds is losing among, for goodness sakes, even women.
- Poor definition. The Washington Post poll shows that voters think Creigh Deeds is too liberal. Too liberal? There's nothing liberal about Deeds. He's as conservative a Democrat as can reasonably be expected to win, and more conservative than Tim Kaine or Mark Warner. That he's been defined as something he isn't is the fault of both his campaign and the consequence of a solid media campaign of his opponent.
- GOP Preparation. McDonnell has been the candidate-in-waiting; his strategists are smart, and figured out that a centrist platform would play well in this election, and kept a consistent message.
- African American problems. Deeds has had exceptional difficulty attracting black voters. The endorsement of BET co-founder Sheila Johnson sapped all the energy from his efforts to reach out. Why didn't Gov. Tim Kaine throw himself in front of Johnson's ambitious decision to endorse McDonnell? There are different theories. Assuming that racial pride plays a role in enhancing black turnout, Obama's links to Deeds are few; and it's hard for black voters, per se, to see how their lives would be made any better, or worse, by having Deeds in power. Democrats haven't yet figured out how to campaign for black votes without responding to an archetypal "black voter." Doug Wilder's endorsement? Wilder always plays Hamlet, but his eventual nod seems to have been assumed and not worked for. That was a mistake.
- Women. The abortion issue has lost its relevance in
- Taxes. It's on page 1 of the GOP playbook: cast your opponent as a tax-hiker. Virginia Democrats have found different ways to handle this inevitable charge. In a recession with a growing deficit, it's harder to endorse tax increases. Deeds has been careful -- too careful. He doesn't have the political skill to be nuanced. But Deeds still could have had a much better answer, and the back-end work of a campaign -- the tracking of the trackers and the controlled media appearances -- is one way to prevent impromptu musings by candidates on vulnerable issues.
- The Democratic Party. They're in power now, and they're not popular. Liberals are seen as hijacking Congress. There's frustration with priorities and general polarization and discontent. Deeds doesn't have a brand to stand against, and Republicans have been effective at making sure to link Deeds with the national Democratic brand, rather than the specialized Warner/Webb/Kaine brand in the state.
I agree with most of this. Deeds' biggest problem, it seems to me, was that he just seemed to assume that the dynamic of the Warner / Kaine races would work again--popular moderate Democrat wins big in NOVA, but still has enough downstate pull to beat out the culturally-conservative opponent. He and his advisers should have looked closer, however. Kaine's win had much more to do with riding Warner's coattails and Kilgore being anathema even to many GOPers in NOVA. Kaine himself wasn't a great candidate. Deeds is worse. As you note, he's too conservative for NOVA Democrats to get excited about, so he has almost no momentum there.
That's an interesting point on #4 that I hadn't considered; since so much of the WaPo/Deeds strategy was painting the Repub as a paleocon on social issues, having Obama in the WH could have neutralized that, because there's only so much a governor can do on issues like abortion.
I don't live in Virginia but my sense is that Deeds struggles with the "vision thing." He wanted people to vote for him because he seemed like the nicer, more ethical, folksy guy. Contrary to what often gets repeated in the Beltway, people don't always gravitate to the nicer, more bland personality. People gravitate toward energy. Deeds probably needed to amp up his campaign a little more in the summer to keep people interested in him.
Deeds' other problem is that he's faced a hostile Beltway media. Notwithstanding the endorsements in the Post, I think some of them have been rooting for McDonnell because it would create tabloid-like, fake political "news" to chew on. I fully expect to hear the Beltway press playing "Taps" for the Obama Administration if Deeds loses. And just like the whole "Obama is overexposed" nonsense, it will turn out to be wrong.
It is traditionally tough after 8 years in office for a party to win a third term unless it is (a) effectively the third term for a popular leader (GHW Bush in 1988, for instance) or (b) a record of achievement and a vision for the future can be offered.
I suggest that an additional drag on Deeds is that for the last eight years the Va Dems have relied on GOP infighting (2001 nomination phase, HOD V. Chichester) or GOP stupid campaign tricks (Hitler advertisement 2005, macaca 2006)to win elections and gain seats in the legislature. They haven't come out swinging and said here is where we want to go and how we want to get there. Even after winning a majority in the state Senate in 2007 they didn't come out with new plans, or even a proposed tax increase to meet the needs they wanted to tackle.
After eight years to go again with no new vision, no concrete plans...that is a tough sell to start with-then add the factors above and things get really bad.