I haven't written any analysis on the Virginia 2005 elections in awhile, mostly because the combination of encouraging polls and the swiftboating of
Tim Kaine by resident nasty guy
Jerry Kilgore has rendered the topic well-covered.
But old habits die hard, and this weekend IS the beginning of the final push and marks the arrival of the out-of-state volunteers, which, by the way, if you want to do, let me know, and I'll put you in contact with the right people for housing and assignments.
Despite all the talk of national referendums, I tend to agree with E.J. Dionne's WaPo article that it's not the president that's going to decide this election. The question is, rather, which matters more: out of control growth and sprawl, or the death penalty. What do voters want to fight: Cookie-cutter neighborhoods with red bricks and white columns, or criminals and illegal immigrants? And this does have national implications. Just not what everyone thinks.
Onward march...
THE COMPETITORS
Those awful, awful, death penalty ads
The press has somewhat preferred
Kaine over
Kilgore. But those ads were the final straw for many. Northern Virginia worships the Post. For us, the Post is not just a good political paper, but the local paper, and we're rather proud of its national reputation. Since the ads, though you could make the argument that it began with the debates and
Kilgore's awful performance, the Post has advanced from vaguely implied preference masked under the goal of equal coverage and objectivity to out and out partiality and disgust over
Kilgore's methods. This is important, because those ads were designed to pick off suburban soccer moms in Vienna, and those moms read the Post. Had the paper's response not been so forceful in decrying the ads, they might have been less apt to dismiss them as virulent rhetoric. As is, expect the largest ad losses to come from Shenandoah, where, let's be honest, we were already losing big anyway.
That being said, I don't want to dismiss the ads. I've always believed in negative advertising. Sure, people always denounce it, but it works. Hear it ten times and all of the sudden its truth. I like Kaine's response. I think the calm; lack of hysteria quality to them is an appropriate antidote to the frenzied nature of Hitler references. But good rapid response is not always enough, and as dismissive as I was of losses in Shenandoah, every vote counts in a close election.
Smart Growth and the Evils of Tax and Pave
Let me recount an anecdote from the election of 1999 for district supervisor in my district at the time. It was an unusually heated battle considering the district between Republican Stu Mendlesohn (I) and Barbara Phillips, and the issue of the year was growth, specifically, the development of McMansions over a plot of land called Evan's Farm. (Here is an old article on it.) This developed during the election to a battle over whether Fairfax County was going to continue to sprawl and fill in all open land with endless neighborhood, congesting traffic until taxes had to be raised to widen all the roads, or were we going to re-evaluate how the County was developed, allowing development in areas that could sustain it, synchronizing lights instead of widening highways, and creating a more downtown C'ville effect than an Ashburn one. Well, Phillips lost the election, mostly because Dems just don't win there. But it wasn't the expected cakewalk. And afterwards, Democratic and Republican women passionately argued for Smart Growth and slow growth and won later battles. Six years later, the feeling among residents of Fairfax, Loudon, and Arlington counties is clear: the sprawl must stop.
Personal Interjection: Many of those living in cookie cutter McMansions that were sprawl to me when they were built ten years ago see no hypocrisy in objecting to new ones being built now that they're already here.
The importance of this is that sprawl is not a NOVA phenomenon, and it's not just about congestion on 123, I-66 or Rte. 7. It's about the number of cars on the road and whether we develop public transportation with mass availability and appeal. It's about national energy development. It's about using resources. It's about local autonomy. (The state loves the new houses. They generate more statewide revenue.) Tim Kaine wants to give regions more individual control over how their transportation projects are run. This is a direct hit to the Jerry Kilgore method of widening 66 and other highways without doing much about the underlying problem. At some point, we'll have to stop the endless sprawl. The question is: are we ready, and are voters frustrated enough to grasp onto this issue?
THE BATTLE
What this, in the end, shapes up to be is a battle between a wedge issue and a misunderstood but strongly felt issue. It's hard to know which will win, but in the end, which ever one does will probably be reflected in the 2006 campaigns. If slowing growth catches on, it's an attractive policy. All natural party affiliations are called off when it comes to growth. It's a huge chance to gain GOP defectors in the suburbs and exurbs. If Kilgore wins, expect the death penalty and its fellow wedge, immigration, to be on state referendums and talking point lists. There have already been whispers on immigration, but the death penalty is an oldie that hasn't been played in awhile. Right now, I give Kilgore a slight edge, as the death penalty ads have been more widely discussed than Kaine's local autonomy on growth and transportation. But give it some time and some talking points, and we can easily change that.