Lame duck Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling issued a statement about the election expressing his disappointment with the results. What he didn’t say is why he is disappointed.
One of the most remarkable aspects of yesterday’s defeat was how close it came to being a triumph. Ken Cuccinelli was saddled with a number of “boat anchors” that kept him from performing as the fundamentals of this off-year election would normally predict. I will explore this in more depth in another post, but these drags on performance included a crippling fundraising disadvantage, a poorly managed message, a third party spoiler funded by Democrats, an incredibly ill-timed government shutdown, and unparalleled and unprecedented backstabbing from within his own party. Despite all of this, Cuccinelli far out performed the polls, and shocked the pundits.
At bottom, Cuccinelli himself ultimately deserves the blame for his loss. This was Cuccinelli’s race to lose, and lose it he did…but he had lots and lots of help.
Which brings us to Bill Bolling. From Fox43 in Hampton Roads, Bolling says,
“As a Republican, I am deeply disappointed that our party has lost control of our state’s top two elected offices. There are clear lessons in these losses for the Republican Party. Going forward, we need to have an open and honest conversation about the future of our party and determine what we must do to reconnect with a more diverse voter base whose support is critical to political success in Virginia.
What he meant to say was that he was deeply disappointed that it wasn’t a sweep of all three top elected offices, and that the margin of defeat wasn’t even wider. If he was truly deeply disappointed about the loss, then why was he not helping the ticket to win? It would be charitable to say all Bolling did was sit on his hands and keep quiet. In reality, he reveled in the schadenfreude of seeing his erstwhile rival for the nomination squirm and twist in the wind, severed of his ties to a unified party apparatus and establishment support (with Bolling himself grinning like a Cheshire cat holding the scissors). Bolling did not lift a finger to support the ticket–and at times actually visibly worked at cross-purposes with the party–making his claims of disappointment ring very, very hollow. Bill Bolling is about as disappointed with this outcome as Terry McAuliffe himself.
Bolling’s most damaging behavior, though, was his continued distance from the party he helped build, and its ticket. Whether he liked it or not, Bolling was a leader of Virginia Republicans, and leadership comes with responsibility. In this case, Bolling should have entertained Cuccinelli’s overtures to bury the hatchet and unify the party heading into the general election. I understand Cuccinelli made numerous attempts to do so, only to be continually rebuffed. Instead of dealing with Cuccinelli (as in, making some sort of a deal or otherwise engaging to move the candidate or the party in his direction), Bolling founded a separate organization to promote “mainstream” conservatives (an implicit and sometimes explicit rejection of anyone who opposed his nomination as being somehow out of the “mainstream”). To be clear, Cuccinelli should have done a better job at reaching out to disaffected Bolling supporters and unifying his party with or without Bolling’s help. But Bolling’s prideful and purposeful resistance made that more difficult, deepening the divide and crystallizing the “extremist” narrative that would come to dominate the general election campaign.
So why did Bolling behave this way? It’s not about ideology. Known as the “Hanover Hun” during his time in Virginia’s Senate, Bolling was every bit a conservative as Cuccinelli. Running for re-nomination in 2009, Bolling consistently employed firey conservative rhetoric and bombast, just as Ken Cuccinelli did. Prior to Bolling’s walking away from the nomination fight, there was very little daylight between him, Cuccinelli, and other Virginia Republicans on the whole range of issues important to conservatives (including the dreaded Tea Party).
Fundamentally, Bolling’s prolonged tantrum is about his hurt feelings. He waited his turn like a good party solider, earning praise from all quarters for his supposedly selfless deference to Bob McDonnell in 2008 for the 2009 nomination for Governor, in exchange for a clear path to the nomination in 2013. To him, Cuccinelli was a usurper who deserved his comeuppance for not adhering to Bill’s and Bob’s pact. The reality is that Bolling would have lost a contest against McDonnell so he read the writing on the wall and acted to preserve his ability to seek the nomination at a later date. [UPDATED: According to one commenter below, Bolling’s decision not to contest the gubernatorial nomination in 2009 was greatly informed by personal finances.] When it became apparent that Cuccinelli would best him in 2013 (and make no mistake, Cuccinelli would have won in a primary or a convention), Bolling bolted.
The rest of the story played out yesterday. The problem is that the real loser here isn’t the line-jumper Cuccinelli, it’s the Commonwealth of Virginia and all her taxpayers. More directly, Bolling has set the stage for a prolonged internecine fight within the Virginia Republican Party that could, unfortunately, continue to hobble our candidates with ready-made “schism” headlines for every campaign in the foreseeable future. Nomination contests happen, and that’s a good thing. But, they usually cause some amount of division and hurt feelings. Real leaders step up to help the healing. Bill Bolling poured salt on the wound.
So congratulations, Bill. Let us know how that dish tastes, and whether it’s really true that it is best served cold.
23 comments
Bolling’s conduct was quite petty. He’s a very small man.
You contend that Cuccinelli would have beat Bolling in a primary. I do not believe that is true. In an open primary you would have had a larger turnout which tends to support more moderate candidates and Bolling was a popular leader completely untarred by McDonald’s scandals. Plus Democrats can vote in cross party primaries and they probably would have voted overwhelmingly for Bolling.
And having Democrats participate in picking the Republican nominee is a good thing? Sorry, I can’t go for that. And yes, the polling at the time indicated that Cuccinelli would have won either way. That said, I actually think Bolling would have had an easier time winning in a convention. The guy has (had, I should say) deep roots and lots of affection within the grass roots across the state. It wasn’t a done deal for Cuccinelli, so I think it was a mistake for Bolling to back away from the fight.
Steve — good post, but I disagree with one point: Bolling would have actually beat McDonnell had he gone head-to-head with him in 2009. Bolling had a stronger organization and built up much more loyalty among the party base. Bolling’s decision to step aside for Bob was more rooted in personal finances (in 2008 he had just expanded his business and a full-time campaign for governor would have significantly diminished his earning ability with no other recourse such as Bob having his old law firm pay him a salary to campaign full time). He felt he needed to get the business going, strong, stable so that he’d have the financial freedom to do what it took to run for governor full time. Thus, in 2009, the timing just wasn’t right for him financially. All the other arguments, such as “unifying the party” and being “selfless”, and the like were just icing on the cake.
Thanks. I’ve updated the post to add the different take. I hadn’t heard this before, only that (a) McDonnell secured a convention choice from SCC; (b) this spooked Bolling; (c) Bolling proposed the “deal” in response; and (d) after the deal and his nomination was sewn up, McDonnell wanted to switch back to a primary to protect himself, before being talked out of it by level-headed advisors.
Well said, Sir. Thank you. Bolling appearing on McAuliffe ads was very disheartening. Had Bolling been the candidate, tactics of the left would have been no different. Bolling cast the tie breaking vote for the ultrasound bill. The only thing that would have changed in those ads would have been the names.
You should also include the fact that his view on banning birth control was extremely unpopular. Why do they never want to look at their policies as a possible reason? Funny. And funding is not an excuse. The Koch brothers continually prove that exorbitant campaign funding can still lose races.
Who wants to ban birth control? If you think it was Ken Cuccinelli, please cite a real source to prove it. (Hint: a McAuliffe smear ad doesn’t count as a real source).
When did Ken EVER say that he wanted to ban birth control? Did he introduce that bill when he was in the state senate? Did he push for that as Attorney General? Funny, I missed that and so did the national media which surely would have reported any move to ban birth control by any politician. It never happened. No one could match the fundraising skills of Terry and the Clintons. They bought themselves an election to pave the way for Hillary ’16.
This absurd LIE and your absurd statement has been proven untrue by so many. The FACT is that the media should be held accountable for taking money to play commercials that contain absolute slander. http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2013/oct/27/next-generation-climate-action-committee/no-basis-nextgen-claim-cuccinelli-wants-ban-all-co/
Furthermore, you need to stop reading HuffPost and DailyKOS.
Please don’t make assumptions on how I receive my information. You can rebut my statement, but lets keep this from getting personal. I can admit my information may be flawed. But the essence of it is not.
And good luck changing the political process. I hate negative campaigning as well. It’s sleazy and devoid of character. But it is what it is and both sides use it. So if you complain about losing because of it you also have to complain about your proponent using it as well.
He lost on social issues. He lost the single vote. He lost the minority vote. He lost 92% of single, black women. Minorities accounted for 20% of the vote in VA. The GOP knew if there was a minority turnout they would lose. This has absolutely nothing to do with campaign funds or a Libertarian candidate. It has to do with his staunch social conservative platform.
As I state in a subsequent post, the GOP won in 2009 because of a 13% minority turnout. If the GOP candidates do not find a way to relate to minorities this will not turn around for them. The white vote is not enough anymore. As a single white male, I’m glad. I’m tired of one demographic controlling the interests of the country.
I’d like to repeal my baseless statement about banning birth control. I was misinformed and I admit it. I do stick to my stance that Ken lost on social issues. The numbers show he lost due to the minority turnout, and the GOP knew this would happen. Hence the lack of GOP support. They picked their battles and the ones they thought they could win.
Abso-f’ing-lutely. Spot on, Steve.
I read that over 70% of Tmac’s ads were negative, sliming Ken C, but only 40% of Ken’s were negative. I think there is a lesson to be learned there.
I wonder what would have happened if the big guns in the party were as interested in defeating democrats as the little guns are.
Big guns are getting smarter and distancing themselves from Tea Partiers. They want to win again, and to do that they will have to take a page out of Christie’s playbook.
Joe, I’m all for taking a page out of Christie’s playbook…just not all of them.
Conservatives (even Tea Partiers) can win with a focused, positive message. One need look no further than 2009 for evidence. Beyond that, our guys *MUST* find a way to alter the abortion narrative. The war on women thing simply stymies us…we get tied up in knots on this and it kills us. Putting pink ribbon graphics on campaign materials (I’m picking on this as emblematic of our flummoxed response this yea) ain’t going to cut it. So, yeah, ‘m interested in how a supposed pro-lifer like Christie is able to defuse this line of attack.
In 2009 the minority turnout was only 13%. In 2012, and now in 2013, the minority turnout to the polling stations was 20%. Success for the republicans will be winning the single women and minority vote. All verifiable facts.
I agree completely. I’ll take your word for it on the stats, but whatever the right numbers are, WE DO need to improve our votes among single women and minorities. With single women, it starts with figuring out how not to be stymied by the tired-but-effective War On Women line of attack. So I’m curious as to how Christie gets away with being pro-life. Any ideas?
As for the minority turnout, I’d love to know what the NJ exit polls show…DNC spent money where it would make a difference, and focused on Virginia turnout instead of NJ. By contrast, the RNC spent all their money in the closing weeks running up the score on the NJ race they already knew they’d win. Given that Christie hasn’t been tested in the same way (and had unserious opposition), I think you’re really looking at an apples-to-oranges kind of comparison.
But again, yes, we must improve among women and minorities unless we want to continue the habit of losing big elections.
Christie gets away with it through his intangibles. He is a likable guy. He finds a way to relate to the people. Sometimes politics transcends the issues and can be as simple as, “would I like to have a beer with this guy?”
If you want to win minorities and women, you have to find ways to approach the social issues in, dare I say, a more liberal fashion. That is just the way the demographics are shifting. The single voter is a growing demographic. So running on traditional family values does not resonate with them. Not saying you have to forego your values, but legislating lifestyles will land you in the lose column every time. Find a way to compromise and reach a reasonable solution to immigration. The candidate that can illustrate that he/she is willing to work across lines to reach solutions as opposed to “shut-down” tactics will find themselves gaining in the polls. The staunch Tea Partiers are very polarizing figures and will never win general elections; no matter how much they feel they are right, they push people away with their absolutist approach.
In my opinion a social liberal, fiscal conservation is what will win. It is the most popular stance in the country.
Good luck with that then. Run a Pro-Choice Republican like Scott Brown and see all of the evangelicals stay home. Lose by several million and then try to blame it on social issues.
Christie is a special case contradiction. His policies contradict his popularity with various constituencies. Attribute this to his charisma or his craftiness in surfacing relevant issues at opportune moments to win favor. His blueprint cannot be applied across republican candidates. He sells himself as someone that can work across party lines. His photo opps during Sandy go a long way to sell that. It’s a message people want in the wake of the such terrible Congressional gridlock. Call him a rhino if you want, but the republicans are fighting for relevancy with emerging voting demographics. And if they do not evolve, they will fall behind.
I didn’t call him a RINO. In fact I said I’m eager to learn from his approach. I just don’t necessarily think the evolving meme that the Cuccinelli and Christie races offer a constructive contrast on all things is helpful, particularly when employed in service of the agenda to demonize conservatives/small-l libertarians/tea partiers.
Yeah, republicans wouldn’t want to be known as the party that believes we’ve been Taxed Enough Already!
So we need a hurricane Sandy and Obama’s money to pour into the state to win? You might just have a winning strategy!