- comment
CR UVa - body
- That is the way I always saw it; this was George Allen's race to win, as he was not facing Mark Warner in what might have been a truly competetive race. It just disgusts me to what lengths Democrats would go to discredit George Allen. They know he is not racist, but push that label for long enough and people who do not know any better will start to believe it.
- comment James Atticus Bowden
- body
- So what is the most effective way to prove a negative - that a politician is NOT something?
I like the Harry Truman 3 word answer anytime the subject is brought up, instead of groveling.
Yet, still, I'm curious about what, doing and saying what, can carve out 11 points to your favor from a 20 point swing (GOP proving a negative when the MSM narrative is established gets 11% and the Dems confusing the confusable get 9%)
- comment Peter LaMarca
- body
- The incident at Breaks, even if I grant you your dubious and unsupported proposition about the "narrative being in place", was sufficient only to move Allen from 51 to 49, and Webb from 38 to 43. Look at all the polling in August and Sept. Webb didn't move consistently above 43 until after all the debates.
The incident was an opportunity, but Allen mishandled it, and Webb played it well. Allen just kept on making more mistakes, while Webb stayed on message.
It's just wishful thinking to discount everything that happened in Sept through Nov, after everyone had digested Allen's slur (and it was a slur, even if it was just nonsense - wouldn't you be insulted if I called you some nonsense name in front of a crowd?). There were more than 2 million individual decisions made by competent, sentient citizens. I maintain that Webb gave many of them a reason to vote for him, on his own merits.
Obviously you are free to disagree and take away no lessons from this election beyond a need for better netroots. Actually, I hope that's exactly what you do.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Peter, if you seriously think Webb's campaign won anything for him -- please communicate that to your friends...
All of 'em.
Sit still. We'll be ready.
- comment Peter LaMarca
- body
- Shaun -
This is not the first place I have heard the "Webb didn't win, Allen lost" argument. There seems to be a sense of denial in RPV and elsewhere about what really happened. Most opinions seem to be saying that while Webb ran an incompetent campaign, Allen's gaffes were appropriated by net-savvy opportunists, and used to distort Allen's image beyond repair. Thus, Webb really didn't have anything to do with his victory.
Regardless of how the campaigns were actually managed, I remain convinced that Webb and Allen presented clear differences of policy, and that people chose Webb over Allen on those merits.
Webb ran on three main issues:
1. On national security/war on terror, Webb said that Iraq was a diversion from the wider issues and didn't make us safer, that the US needed a change of policy, and that a diplomatic solution (including Iran and Syria) was the only realistic option. Allen's team derided this solution, only to backpedal in the final days of the campaign.
2. On government accountability, Webb asserted that the Congress needed to reassert a co-equal role, and that unchecked power had led to abuse and corruption. Allen belatedly tried to assert his independence from Bush policies.
3. On economic fairness, Webb asserted that the growing inequality in earnings and wealth presented a real threat to the middle class, and supported such measures as raising the minimum wage. Allen dismissed this as class warfare.
My review of exit and opinion polling shows that these were the three top issues on the minds of voters, and that a majority agreed with Webb on all three. Tellingly, the Bush administration has now adopted or signaled willingness to compromise on all three.
I will concede that Allen's foot-in-mouth problem gave people a reason to look seriously at both candidates. But after this initial break, Webb still needed to make his case. In debates and on the campaign trail, I believe that he did so. I don't know if you attended any Webb events, but these issues were communicated in a disciplined way, and the crowds were impressed. In the end, my opinion of why Allen didn't connect and Webb did had everything to do with political positions, regardless of the "horserace" issues of how the campaign itself was conducted.
Or maybe I'm just living in a fantasy where people actually vote their opinions on issues, instead of how much they admire a well-run campaign. Still, I am heartened by the RPV's response.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Peter, even close friends of mine who are Democrats agree that Webb's campaign was horrible top-to-bottom, doing a tremendous disservice to their candidate.
To summarize your points, you feel Webb won because he was "right on the issues."
Just being right doesn't mean anything.
Instead, when you look at the larger dynamic after 15 August, this election quickly became a referendum on George Allen's character. All Webb had to do was not screw it up by not making similar gaffes.
Worse part -- even if Webb did make a similar mistake, it would still be overshadowed by the fact that Allen made the mistake first. That hurts.
What Allen needed to do post-macaca was (1) apologize profusely, (2) explain why the content of that apology emphasizes his character, and (3) run strictly on character issues throughout the campaign w/o repeating the incident. The issue was going to be character after "macaca", so hang a lantern on your problem and knock heads.
Those 20 points that swung were not because Webb was better on policy, it was because Allen was not deemed fit to represent the Commonwealth.
There was no magical GOTV effort, no ad, no technical aspect, no element or instance in a debate, nothing critical that swung the gate for Webb.
Between the blogs and the MSM indignation towards Allen, that set the theme against Allen.
Democrats over the next six years will have to build on Webb's intellect and reputation in order to hold that seat.
Virginia isn't turning blue by a long shot. What is happening is that NOVA is growing, and Republicans are rudderless in Virginia post-2005 tax hike.
We can't coalesce, and for that Dems will continue to take us to the woodshed.
- comment James Atticus Bowden
- body
- "What Allen needed to do post-macaca was (1) apologize profusely, (2) explain why the content of that apology emphasizes his character, and (3) run strictly on character issues throughout the campaign w/o repeating the incident. The issue was going to be character after "macaca", so hang a lantern on your problem and knock heads."
Thanks, Shawn. I wondered what one pro's answer would be.
I think the groveling should stop at some defined point - soon after the faux pas - and the groveling should be very focused on the one faux pas. Just my opinion.
- comment GOPHokie
- body
- PL, what the macaca comment did was give Webb's campaign a shot.
Before the comment Allen was leading by 20 and Webb was getting no fundraising.
No one thought Webb had a chance until that happened.
Allen would have won had it not been for that b/c Webb would have never been able get the resources to wage the war.
8 Comments:
I like the Harry Truman 3 word answer anytime the subject is brought up, instead of groveling.
Yet, still, I'm curious about what, doing and saying what, can carve out 11 points to your favor from a 20 point swing (GOP proving a negative when the MSM narrative is established gets 11% and the Dems confusing the confusable get 9%)
The incident was an opportunity, but Allen mishandled it, and Webb played it well. Allen just kept on making more mistakes, while Webb stayed on message.
It's just wishful thinking to discount everything that happened in Sept through Nov, after everyone had digested Allen's slur (and it was a slur, even if it was just nonsense - wouldn't you be insulted if I called you some nonsense name in front of a crowd?). There were more than 2 million individual decisions made by competent, sentient citizens. I maintain that Webb gave many of them a reason to vote for him, on his own merits.
Obviously you are free to disagree and take away no lessons from this election beyond a need for better netroots. Actually, I hope that's exactly what you do.
All of 'em.
Sit still. We'll be ready.
This is not the first place I have heard the "Webb didn't win, Allen lost" argument. There seems to be a sense of denial in RPV and elsewhere about what really happened. Most opinions seem to be saying that while Webb ran an incompetent campaign, Allen's gaffes were appropriated by net-savvy opportunists, and used to distort Allen's image beyond repair. Thus, Webb really didn't have anything to do with his victory.
Regardless of how the campaigns were actually managed, I remain convinced that Webb and Allen presented clear differences of policy, and that people chose Webb over Allen on those merits.
Webb ran on three main issues:
1. On national security/war on terror, Webb said that Iraq was a diversion from the wider issues and didn't make us safer, that the US needed a change of policy, and that a diplomatic solution (including Iran and Syria) was the only realistic option. Allen's team derided this solution, only to backpedal in the final days of the campaign.
2. On government accountability, Webb asserted that the Congress needed to reassert a co-equal role, and that unchecked power had led to abuse and corruption. Allen belatedly tried to assert his independence from Bush policies.
3. On economic fairness, Webb asserted that the growing inequality in earnings and wealth presented a real threat to the middle class, and supported such measures as raising the minimum wage. Allen dismissed this as class warfare.
My review of exit and opinion polling shows that these were the three top issues on the minds of voters, and that a majority agreed with Webb on all three. Tellingly, the Bush administration has now adopted or signaled willingness to compromise on all three.
I will concede that Allen's foot-in-mouth problem gave people a reason to look seriously at both candidates. But after this initial break, Webb still needed to make his case. In debates and on the campaign trail, I believe that he did so. I don't know if you attended any Webb events, but these issues were communicated in a disciplined way, and the crowds were impressed. In the end, my opinion of why Allen didn't connect and Webb did had everything to do with political positions, regardless of the "horserace" issues of how the campaign itself was conducted.
Or maybe I'm just living in a fantasy where people actually vote their opinions on issues, instead of how much they admire a well-run campaign. Still, I am heartened by the RPV's response.
To summarize your points, you feel Webb won because he was "right on the issues."
Just being right doesn't mean anything.
Instead, when you look at the larger dynamic after 15 August, this election quickly became a referendum on George Allen's character. All Webb had to do was not screw it up by not making similar gaffes.
Worse part -- even if Webb did make a similar mistake, it would still be overshadowed by the fact that Allen made the mistake first. That hurts.
What Allen needed to do post-macaca was (1) apologize profusely, (2) explain why the content of that apology emphasizes his character, and (3) run strictly on character issues throughout the campaign w/o repeating the incident. The issue was going to be character after "macaca", so hang a lantern on your problem and knock heads.
Those 20 points that swung were not because Webb was better on policy, it was because Allen was not deemed fit to represent the Commonwealth.
There was no magical GOTV effort, no ad, no technical aspect, no element or instance in a debate, nothing critical that swung the gate for Webb.
Between the blogs and the MSM indignation towards Allen, that set the theme against Allen.
Democrats over the next six years will have to build on Webb's intellect and reputation in order to hold that seat.
Virginia isn't turning blue by a long shot. What is happening is that NOVA is growing, and Republicans are rudderless in Virginia post-2005 tax hike.
We can't coalesce, and for that Dems will continue to take us to the woodshed.
Thanks, Shawn. I wondered what one pro's answer would be.
I think the groveling should stop at some defined point - soon after the faux pas - and the groveling should be very focused on the one faux pas. Just my opinion.
Before the comment Allen was leading by 20 and Webb was getting no fundraising.
No one thought Webb had a chance until that happened.
Allen would have won had it not been for that b/c Webb would have never been able get the resources to wage the war.
Post a Comment
Home