Wow, that was painful.
[read_more]
In one night, the Empire Struck Back, and all of the momentum built from 2014 and 2015 conservative victories was washed away.
Conservative darlings Vince Haley, Susan Stimpson, Dan Moxley, and others were routed in a show of force by a free-spending Establishment that showed no mercy in the destruction of its opponents.
What can we gather by this?
- Candidates matter. Not only does the conservative movement need to recruit candidates who fit the district, they need to be personable and hard working as well. Establishment incumbents like Emmitt Hanger and Bill Howell were 100% wrong on the issues…. But they still knew how to smile. Not that our candidates couldn’t smile too, but making your case personably DOES matter.
- Money matters. This is the most painful lesson to learn for the conservative grassroots. You can’t change the world if you can’t pay the rent. Establishment money flowed like wine into all races, and there was not a single grassroots candidate who was not outspent, sometimes by more than 10-1. Some grassroots candidates tried to pretend it didn’t matter or they could win without fundraising. News flash: you can’t. When you decide to run, if you can’t develop a plan to trim the fundraising deficit to 3-1, don’t run. You still don’t need to outspend an Establishment opponent, but you must compete.
- Outside money matters too. The debut of several conservative outside groups did make a difference in several races. They did not outspend Establishment outside groups, but NAGR, Virginia First Foundation, and others made an impact in several districts. These groups need to be developed and feted for future races.
- Talent matters. The conservative movement needs more young talent to run our campaigns- there was great need but not enough hands to go around. Calling Morton Blackwell?
- Message matters. Too many new candidates feel they have to chase every squirrel that runs past them. Our candidates must stick to the preeminent issues of our time: taxes and spending, with a hat tip to regulations. The worst part of yesterday’s results is that now every liberal Establishment hack will be crowing about how Virginians love higher taxes. Conservative candidates must have message discipline to win.
- If you are a conservative incumbent…. For the love of God, do yourself a favor and choose a Convention or Mass Meeting. Don’t even mess with getting outspent a gajillion to one in a Primary. Just don’t.
- One challenger only, please. The division among Conservatives MUST stop, especially the personal stuff. If there is more than one conservative challenger to an Establishment incumbent, the incumbent wins. Period. Brat would not have won if Greenwald stayed in. Put your differences aside, man up and choose one guy to carry the flag.
- If possible…. Try to have the conservative movement show its diversity. Republican women are hard to beat; the sitting Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates had to spend a million bucks to beat one, and the only grassroots candidate to win yesterday was a woman. Women Republicans get a +5% advantage right off the top; black, Asian and candidates from other ethnic groups also get a bump. Principles are paramount, but messenger matters.
- 2016? Remember, the movie that came after “The Empire Strikes Back” was “Return of the Jedi”. Dave Brat and others fighting for Liberty will return next year. Gird your loins.
60 comments
With the exception of the eruption of idiocy in the 11th Senate district, last night was a complete bagger blowout and has set the stage for reclaiming our unit committees from the grips of Russ Moulton and his network of “activists”
2015 is going to be the year of the comeback for loyal, committed Republicans.
Party over principle, rah rah rah!!
“I don’t care what his policies are, I just support him because he’s on my team”.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
no, we had primaries & got to choose who is on our team. now we move forward.
The salt is so real. So let’s choose a female candidate to get free votes even though she’s a terrible leader. Her entire board grew sick of her as supervisor and we want to replace the speaker of the house with her? Brilliant.
Also, for God’s sake, please stop telling conservatives that they aren’t *real* conservatives if they don’t have an inherent hatred for taxation. Without funds, we don’t have the infrastructure to attract and maintain the business in our state that makes it so wonderful–stop pretending that taxes are nothing more than a drain on our resources. Why can’t we target irresponsible spending instead of bitching every time a new tax pops up while pretending that we didn’t notice the other taxes that were cut or the other proposed increases that were defeated by the members of the “galactic empire establishment”?
Burt, thanks for comment: “stop telling conservatives they aren’t *real* conservatives if they don’t….” See, like so many others, I am a social liberal, but a fiscal conservative. I consider myself a Republican. But social liberals are being pushed out of the “tent”. There are purity litmus tests that flunk out others. The tent gets smaller & smaller. This is not a winning strategy. This is not a leadership strategy.
We are known for huge tax hikes and huge corruption. For all I know you may be corrupt. But for me, I am not willing to let that be Virginia’s fate.
You know what VA was known as before it was known for “huge tax hikes”? The state with a huge transportation problem and no fund to address it with. Nearly no other state in our *nation* had waited as long as us to update transportation as us. Now we have a fund, and a couple crazies want to primary every republican who helped to establish it–and they explain away the fact that they’re a minority by claiming that “corruption” prevented them from winning their elections.
Keep fighting the fight, eventually you’ll drop from weariness.
Very good points, Steven. There’s plenty of blame to go around but you mistakenly left the RPV off the hook for its share. You can add another big point to your list, to whit: “RPV needs to stop blatantly favoring the incumbent in the nomination process!” There are two ways the RPV unfairly stacks the deck for the incumbent, and you guys on the SCC should correct them both.
The first and most serious way the RPV favors the incumbent for the nomination process is how the State Party Plan allows the incumbent to override his own Committee’s decision in the nomination choice process. The State Party Plan needs to be amended and the Incumbent Protection Act (IPA) excusing phrase, “where permitted to do so under Virginia Law” needs to be removed. Committees should always get to decide their own district party nomination process and the RPV should stand behind that.
The second way the RPV favors incumbents over challengers for the nomination is how the RPV franks incumbents’ mail – even campaign mailers quasi-disguised as “constituent survey”. You better believe mail imprinted with the “Authorized and Paid for by the Republican Party of Virginia” notification ABSOLUTELY implies the RPV endorses that candidate. Such misinformation will most influence less politically-active people. And that is no accident. Susan Stimpson rightfully pointed that out about Bill Howell’s RPV-franked mail. As far as I know, the RPV blew off her justified concerns and continued franking incumbents’ mailings.
My question to you, Steve, and other members of the SCC – why do you allow these injustices at RPV to continue? Why don’t you amend your State Party Plan – and remove the IPA-excusing phrase “where permitted to do so under Virginia Law”? And why don’t you either stop franking mail for incumbents when he gets a declared challenger for the nomination (or you could instead also frank nominee candidates’ mail too.)
Does the RPV keep these incumbent-favoring practices because you guys actually have General Assembly INCUMBENTS on the SCC and they enjoys these unfair perks and the last thing they want is to give them up, or worse yet – be put on the spot about them? So there is a cone of silence: nobody rocks the boat; keep quiet, lay low – and therefore these wrongs continue…
Newcomers running for political office would stand a better and more equitable chance if the RPV stopped its heavy-handed favoring of incumbents while repressing challengers.
I hope the SCC starts to address these and other issues at their next meeting on June 27th. I’m looking forward to it.
Excellent points Connie! Thank you.
Steve … don’t forget about John Guevara – I know its a local race but if we can get a Hispanic Republican elected in Fairfax County it will be a great achievement for our side.
It is easy to look at this and feel sad about it, but I think everyone should pause and reflect on the big picture. Even if conservatives lose every single election, just running candidates and applying pressure does achieve an end in itself. No, it isn’t as great as having someone who casts votes that you like, but it does mean that the people casting the votes have to think twice knowing that there is the potential for a very vocal and committed opposition that will make an issue of it. Several voices here and elsewhere focus on the Speaker trouncing the challenger, but look at the big picture, the challenger was a relative unknown, and she was running against the Speaker, someone who has literally decades of experience, and 2 out of every 5 primary voters still voted for the challenger. That’s not a bad thing! Is it a win ? No, but somebody is obviously getting the message, and by all accounts the Speaker took the challenger seriously. The same can be said for a number of past elections where conservatives came up short, even though they did not win those elections, they were close enough to cause the establishment concern.
Susan was known. But mostly for her failures–not her success. So I can see why that may have been an issue.
Sheeze. Give it up buddy. You’ve made your point. You don’t like Susan. We got the message. You can stop now.
It’s a deal–if you guys quit with the saltiness. Susan lost, and you liked her, and you hate where the republican party is going, and no matter what Reagan or anyone else said you hate bipartisanship and think we should never vote for a tax increase. You’ve made your point.
Since it’s my blog, I shall continue to make as many points as I like. Have I made my point?
Tsk tsk. The comment section is for everyone. And if you want people to remain interested in your content, you may want to try refreshing it every now and then.
Steven, we agree on most of these points (especially about messaging) but you’re absolutely wrong about your second point. Depending on the cycle you’re looking at, the candidate who outspends their opponent wins the race between 90% and 97% of the time.
It doesn’t matter how “grassroots” a candidate or campaign is, there’s absolutely zero reason to enter a race unless you’re reasonably confident you can achieve fundraising parity. Advising anyone to run if they can only hope for reaching a 3-1 ratio is just inviting defeat and further heartbreak. Whether we like it or not, money is the single most important factor in a political campaign.
Amanda Chase won her race being outspent 10-1. Dave Brat, 100-1. There are plenty of instances of people winning with better messages and better candidates but who don’t have access to institutional money. The more of them who win, the better- it discourages candidates trying to buy elections.
“it discourages candidates trying to buy elections”
This is what I call the “rock band” fallacy (I am sure others have come up with something equally pithy). Garage bands start out shunning the notion of heading to a big label. At the same time they espouse the notion of “making it big”. They eventually head to a big label when the money is there.
No politician that has access to institutional money will turn down institutional money unless they are on psychoactive substances.
There are exceptions because it’s 1 out of 10, not 0 out of 10. And, if you’ve got a great candidate who can “buy” an election, why wouldn’t you? I love a good underdog story, but I don’t love underdogs who actively make themselves underdogs by not trying.
Money doesn’t buy elections and nobody has ever voted for a candidate just because they raised more money. Money isn’t the thing. It’s the thing that gets you to the thing. You can have the best candidate, but they won’t win if nobody else knows it.
I agree with Savoia below. Politicians don’t turn down institutional money. Sometimes they have to give it back if they find it tainted in some way. Next year, let’s see what out-of-state & corporate & institutional money Dave Brat takes.
You pride yourself on being a political operative that delivers “wins”. Yet the bigger points you make suggest you are having some sort of post-mortem epiphany. Are you sure you are cut out for this line of work?
You also appear to be blaming the “empire” for what occurred. Yet it is the voters that did not elect the candidates with whom you politically identify. Perhaps you should set aside the obsession with political conspiracy?
You make a few points about altering the contest (less candidates, convention/mass meeting) to support the candidate. Again, it is the voters that make these determinations. Do you hate Democracy?
I believe you meant to begin with “Congratulations to Speaker Howell”
22-8 still looks pretty good!
It looks more like winning a lot of games in the early season and losing in the first round of the playoffs. Coaches get dismissed for that sort of thing.
I think your taking the metaphor a little too seriously.
He takes everything WAY too seriously. He’s one of those grumpy liberals that all too common in the other party.
Jeanine calls someone grumpy. Delightful.
Haha! I’m not grumpy! And I’m definitely not a democrat!
You’re definitely not a democrat.
Don’t feed the democrat trolls.
I’m not a big fan of SDL, but there’s no reason to think that they’re a Democrat.
Other than they hate Republicans?
You’ve attacked Republicans in the past, and admitted that you hate some Republicans. Does that make you a Democrat as well?
You can’t run away from the GOP and claim the Republican name for yourself, Jeanine. That isn’t how it works. If I can’t stand the TEA party, bite me. But you only look foolish when you claim I’m a “democrat troll.”
Don’t overlook Tea Party candidate Amanda Chase 40% who bested incumbent Steve Martin 35% and fellow challenger Barry Moore 25% in the 11th Senatorial district. http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/article_857e569b-7e3c-53bc-a08c-6a59d58233fe.html
Amanda did a great job. I did refer to her.
“Bill Howell is 100% wrong on the issues”? Get a grip.
On taxes and spending? Absolutely
1) That’s not what you said;
2) He’s still not “100% wrong”. This is the kind of cavalier hyperbole that turns potential supporters into skeptics. See your point #5.
The issues here were taxes and spending. Nothing else was even debated. I know high-tax ‘Republicans’ like you are elated, but on the issues of the day he was totally, unequivocally wrong. For the third time in a decade, he hiked taxes thru the roof and gave us no traffic relief.
But that said, Conservatives MUST do a better job making that argument. We did not do a good enough job making the case, flat out.
Case-in-point: I opposed the transportation bill. I’m far, far from being a “high tax Republican”. I’m even a libertarian, and have been derided by the likes of Shaun Kenney for being so.
You’re right about one thing: it is about messaging, and you do a bad job of making the argument. Your “more conservative than thou” approach poisons the well. I don’t agree with Bill Howell on everything, nor really any candidate I’ve supported or worked for. And that’s okay! That doesn’t make them “100% wrong” or not conservative.
Stephen- I have seen you on these Disqus comments quite a bit. Not once have I seen you promote cutting taxes, or even opposing a tax hike. Every candidate you like supports tax hikes. THAT is what poisons the well. What does it mean to be a Republican? Being so partisan and not paying attention to what a candidate or officeholder actually does is not wise.
The graph showing growth of government cannot only be a 45% slope up. One party must be the party of small government, and that means holding officeholders to account.
Because most of my activity on the blogs is in relation to campaign actions and discussions, not policy discussions. You can doubt my convictions all you want; my point is that you and I should be natural allies, yet we differ on tactics, messaging, and I suspect, objectives.
My goal is to build and grow the Republican Party. Your goal is to make the party more conservative. Unfortunately, I think that the way you go about doing it shrinks the party, makes it harder to win elections, and ultimately results in the true enemies of liberty (i.e., Democrats) governing.
To boil it down: I strongly supported Mike Castle in 2010, because I’d rather have Mike Castle than Chris Coons.
No, my goal is to make government as small and insignificant in anyone’s life, as possible. I will support whomever gets me to that goal. I did not involve myself in Delaware’s race, as that is for the people of Delaware to decide. But for the level of corruption and cronyism in government at all levels, I am glad to replace the corrupt with new blood.
“No, my goal is to make government as small and insignificant in anyone’s life, as possible.”
You realize that by not having a more nuanced goal, you only increase the size of government and reduce the effectiveness of the GOP, right?
If “the issues here were taxes and spending…we did not do a good enough job making the case”, then can you explain what happened? Is there an issue with the intelligence quotient of the candidates? Are political operatives like yourself failing to educate the candidates in some fashion? Are the voters stupid?
I laugh that Steven calls himself a political operative he is an activist at best who is mostly just a blog troll
Steven has ran several campaigns, hard to dismiss his occupation wholesale.
I love it when no name trolls buddy up with other no name trolls. So cute!
Says the person who uses pseudonyms to upvote her own posts, and criticizes people’s anonymity so she doesn’t have to address their actual arguments.
Huh? I don’t use any pseudonyms and haven’t for many years and I never upvote my own posts. Why would I?
Jeanine at this rate trolls and no names have more credibility that you do.
Please try to stick with one fake name. thank you
I’m a fundraiser, it’s not always my job. But I was talking more as a movement. Said the same to a despondent DJ McGuire last night too.
I love how you think traffic relief is going to come instantaneously when infrastructure in this state is so horribly outdated. California updates their approach biannually. What a novel idea.
Are you saying Virginia should be more like California? Been to LA or SF lately? Seen the traffic there?
Don’t tell me, let me guess, you are a democrat, a troll, a terrible combination.
Jeanine claiming that someone she disagrees with must be a democrat. Haven’t seen that one before. You’re no better than Lahey. Also, just because I’m disagreeing with you on your blog doesn’t make me a troll–this is a place to voice opinions, and I’m hoping mine will make people think. Not you, perhaps, but then again I said “people.”
California is obviously a larger, more developed, much more different state (they also have better wine to be honest). The point is that they recognize the need to remain relevant when it comes to infrastructure and the economy. You, Jeanine, not so much.
With your multiple screen names, you are the definition of a troll. Please try to limit yourself to one fake name to cut down on the number of posts supporting your own points.
And now you accuse me of having multiple screen names–I’ve been waiting for that one. This is my only screen name. Not the only name tied to a certain email address–my *only* screen name.
I was wondering how long it would take before you realized “Burt Macklin” isn’t an actual person. Apparently, a week.