NYT: In Praise Of Terry McAuliffe And The Campaign That Could Have Been

Adam Nagourney has a piece in today’s New York Times reflecting on how Virginia’s gubernatorial campaign might have been were Terry McAuliffe the nominee instead of Creigh Deeds:

The most recent Washington Post poll showed Mr. McDonnell leading Mr. Deeds by a 53 percent to 44 percent margin; while there is certainly time for Mr. Deeds to turn things around, his prospects right now appear weak, reflected by the fact that he can not even get Mr. Obama to agree to come campaign for him in the state.

“I don’t think there’s any doubt that in terms of campaign skills and ability to go toe-to-toe — both with McDonnell and national Republicans who have spent considerable resources on this race — McAuliffe has more experience and more skills,” said Robert D. Holsworth, a Virginia political analyst. “McAuliffe always had the big advantages and big liabilities. But those advantages would have been considerable in the race that this turned out to be.”

Putting aside the fact that the article only quotes Dr. Holsworth and not a single Democrat from Virginia actually having the second guesses Nagourney says are there (I mean, really, you couldn’t find one Democrat in this state to quote? Not even Ben Tribbett?), this love letter to Terry McAuliffe does a great disservice to Brian Moran and, well, Creigh Deeds.

For starters, there are three weeks left and if Democratic blogs are to be believed, the Deeds campaign is shifting strategy so much that we should anticipate another relaunch of the campaign announced in a Fairfax basement.  If Obama’s Campaign For America really is finally coming into play, Deeds putting forth a positive message to coincide with finally engaging new voters who haven’t been paying attention may play out well in these final weeks.

But what this article completely misses when diagnosing the issues facing Deeds is that he has completely disregarded what worked so well in the primary when it comes to how his campaign has operated in the general election.

As soon as the primary was locked up, Creigh Deeds’s campaign relocated from Charlottesville to Northern Virginia and immediately became NOVA centric.  Deeds began allowing Northern Virginia voices to drive his decision making, abandoning a rest of Virginia outreach because some dismissed it as a “Deliverance Tour”.  Despite a promise not to, Deeds began to run a campaign focused on social issues that polarized his own base in urban areas yet drives a wedge between his attempts to appeal to rural voters.  Deeds failed to define himself as the centrist candidate in the mold of Mark Warner and Jim Webb, instead embracing the more liberal elements of his philosophy.  His campaign became involved in and handled every aspect of the dirtiest moments so far and wrapped themselves in them instead of feeding them elsewhere and staying above the fray.

In essence, Deeds took the worst elements of potential Moran and McAuliffe candidacies and left behind everything that made Creigh Deeds, well, Creigh Deeds.

Instead, Deeds allowed himself to fall prey to the “me first” world of Northern Virginia, the rest of the state be damned. His campaign over the last four months has been a NOVA appeasement tour, aimed at shoring up support from a region that should have been a lock from day one.  But that he has had to do this doesn’t show the weaknesses of Creigh Deeds as a candidate, no, it’s symptomatic of the failure of the Democratic Party of Virginia’s ability to rally behind their nominee, something that probably would not have even happeed with McAuliffe or Moran – both polarizing figures in their own right and in all the wrong ways.

Would Terry McAuliffe have done things differently? Sure. Would that put him ahead? Pure speculation says “maybe”.

But in three weeks, a Deeds loss may lead to a lot of soul searching for Virginia Democrats. Unfortunately, it may be the Democrats outside of Northern Virginia thrown under the bus, blamed for not being in touch with NOVA, not sharing their values, not having the right kind of candidates to win “statewide” – but by statewide they mean “in Northern Virginia” while being able to also appeal to and potentially carry the rest of the state.

So the big question will be, is the problem really with Creigh Deeds or is the problem with Northern Virginia Democrats?

Category: Campaigns and Elections