Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Post-election analysis....

I received a comment on SWAC Girl analyzing George Allen's loss, and I found it insightful and worthy of further discussion. It was posted under "Anonymous" but I discovered who the author was from a third party during the C*PAC Convention last weekend in Richmond. The commentator is a young man in his 30s who grew up in a politically-involved family and is now carrying on that legacy, someone I worked with during the 2004 BUSH campaign, and again this year for Allen and Goodlatte. Below are his thoughts on Election 2006 ... he raises some viable points.

I agree that our country is somewhat polarized, but at the same time, specifically with the Allen campaign, I see some major missteps.

The biggest misstep, and the one that I am most curious about, is why Allen was not tied into virginians4marriage.org or vice-versa. The marriage amendment received 160,000 plus more votes than Allen did. The total votes for the marriage amendment and the senate race were within 40,000 votes. Since Webb was opposed to the marriage amendment, how in the world did we let 160,000 plus votes swing to the other side?

Also, why wasn't Allen tied in more closely with our local representatives who easily won re-election? Example, Bob Goodlatte received 700 more votes in the city of Waynesboro than Allen did.

I think that there was a lot of complacency on behalf of Allen supporters, myself included. Not suiting up until the fourth quarter will no longer cut it in politics.

The overwhelming majority of the state localities actually favored Allen. Obviously, Northern Virginia and all of the people who migrate there from other locales, mostly northern ones, carried Webb. If the rest of Virginia can rally together and send the message that NoVa does not speak for the rest of the state, which I strongly feel it doesn't, then there will no longer be election results carried out longer than 10 pm on Tuesday night each year in our wonderful Commonwealth of Virginia.

Nationally speaking, most of the races that went to the Dems went to so-called conservative Democrats that were recruited, like Webb, because our country is a conservative one. You could argue that the Representatives who lost to so-called conservative Dems like Heath Shuler paid the price for Iraq and Bush. Elevan of the races that the Dems won were split evenly. Take into account that these even splits were between a Republican and a so-called conservative Democrat, and I don't see too much polarization.

The Dems misrepresented themselves to the local constituents. Since seniority seems to rule in Washington, these so-called conservative Dems will never see the agendas that they ran on come to fruition. When you pit conservatism versus liberalism, conservatism wins every time.

It is our job as conservatives, conservative activists, and Americans to convey our message to all people and help educate those who are not informed, and let them know how all of these items are tied in together. For instance, does anyone who voted for the marriage amendment and for Webb realize that Webb was against the marriage amendment? Since the majority of those who were adamant on passing the marriage amendment are Christians, do they realize that Webb is pro-choice, another issue near and dear to conservatives, specifically Christian Conservatives?

Political conservatives and Christian conservatives need be on the same side when it comes to elections. We all need to recognize that we may not agree 100% of the time on 100% of the issues.

In George Allen, Virginians and Americans lost a Senator who has always been consistent with what he says and what he does. This is an anomaly in politics these days. He has been a public servant who has always fought to protect his constituents when it comes to taxes, crime, commerce, etc. In addition, he has always been a solid vote for the rights of the unborn and for the stabilities of our families. Due to underestimating our opponents, we not only let Virginia down, but we let our great U.S. Senator down.

8 comments:

Light Horse said...

If "NoVa does not speak for the rest of the state", does that mean the rest of the state does not want the tax money it gets from NoVa?

a fan said...

I'm a bit confused by this analysis. Maybe you can help explain it to me.

During the campaign Allen's ads tied Jim Webb to liberals like Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry. But now we are saying that he is really a conservative?

In the post your friend says, "The Dems misrepresented themselves to the local constituents. Since seniority seems to rule in Washington, these so-called conservative Dems will never see the agendas that they ran on come to fruition. When you pit conservatism versus liberalism, conservatism wins every time. "

I can't figure out if this means that Webb is actually liberal and presented himself as conservative, or the other way around. Please help, I want to know what message we are using to fight for Republicans now.
Also didn't we accuse the dems of not having a plan? But now they have one? An agenda.
This is all confusing, please explain it for those of us that beieve in freedom and the Republican way!

James Atticus Bowden said...

Allen could have won in the very Conservative First District - alone. He ran 9,155 votes BEHIND Marriage (he lost to Webb by 8,786). Then, he ran 17,522 behind Cong. Jo Ann Davis.

That isn't Conservatives fault. The voters split their vote - reliable Republicans and Conservatives for many reasons. It was the many cuts here and there for not holding Rumsfeld accountable for mistakes (as Jo Ann did), for the maccaca gaffe (which demonstrated ungentlemanly conduct, not racism) and then the groveling apology insulting the Sons of Confederate Veterans, odd reaction to Jewish ancestry, etc. impressions about constituent service and staff responsiveness, and especially the unnecessary attack ads against Webb instead of saying over and over what he is for and what he will do.

Politicians have to earn the votes or be subject to the winds of the political season.

SWAC Girl said...

Light Horse, what about the money NoVa gets from the rest of the state? The way I see it, that is a two-way street.

Waynesboro Conservative said...

The so-called agenda was retaking Congress. Rahm Emanuel recruited Democrats who were more centrist than liberal. We know how far left Pelosi, Hillary, etc are and what their agenda is - socialism. What Emanuel did was summon the dissatisfaction with Bush and Iraq and offer a "so-called conservative" alternative. By offering this alternative, it gave the Democrats the best chance of regaining control of Congress. Obviously it worked and here we are not even one week away from Election Day and the powers that be in the Democrat Congress are all ready releasing their plans. Is universal health care a conservative issue? Is Pelosi representative of the centrists views? By taking the control of Congress away from the Republicans, the Pelosis and the Clintons of the world will see their opportunities to push through their liberal agenda. The dissatisfaction that some may have with Bush, Iraq, campaign strategies, etc should not warrant abandoning conservative values and conservative candidates. It is the old cliche of two wrongs not making a right.

I am not saying that we should separate from NoVa. I am sure that we all appreciate their tax dollars, and like Swacgirl said, they appreciate ours. I am simply saying that there are more than enough votes to off set NoVa. I have heard a lot of defeatist attitudes when talking of the NoVa vote. I am saying that as conservatives it is our responsibility to ensure that we do not lay down to the extremely large population of NoVa.

Waynesboro Conservative said...

Here is what Newt Gingrich said about last week's election on a website posted yesterday:

"When it comes to the lessons of the 2006 elections, it's very important to set the record straight. I traveled throughout the country this election year. I met with Americans in all the key states. And what I now understand is this: Republicans lost, but conservatism didn't.

Many of the Democrats who won this year ran as non-liberals -- in some cases, as outright conservatives. A number of them, including some incumbents, explicitly disavowed liberal Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and San Francisco values. Many repudiated Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry's smear of American troops in Iraq. Remember, he was effectively driven off the campaign trail for the last 10 days by his own party.

The result was that, by Election Day, Democrats were seen as better at controlling government spending and at reducing taxes."

Phriendly Jaime said...

Um, no actually.

The final tally is up on the State Board of Elections site. Allen lost by 9,326 votes. That's hardly a small amount.

Light Horse makes a great point. This was the same question asked all the time when I lived in northern NJ, 11 miles outisde of the city (NY, NY). The northern area brought in revenue from the Giants/Jets stadium and racetrack and the fact that it was a close proximity to NYC; the Southern region brought in loads of $$ bc of the beaches and tourism. Yet, central Jersians and those in the rural west constantly complained about the "moral depravity."

They liked our $$, though. ;)

The metro areas will never win, I suppose.

Phriendly Jaime said...

Well, sure;

But you probably respect a soliloquy from Howard Dean as much as I respect an analogy from Grover Norquist. :)