Blue Ridge Caucus What If?: What if the city had moved elections to November ahead of the 2008 mayoral race?
When I was growing up buying comics at the 7-Eleven behind our church in Clifton Forge, I occasionally picked up issues of “What If…?” which was an odd series that proposed tweaks in the continuity of the Marvel universe, then explored how they played out. It asked questions like, “What if someone else besides Spider-Man had been bitten by the radioactive spider?” and “What if the Hulk had the brain of Bruce Banner?”
Many of those stories — not all, but many — ended with everybody dead. They also helped, in a weird sort of way, to untangle some of that dense continuity and help explain why stories had played out the way they did.
With that in mind, I thought it might be useful to play around with the “What If…?” format with some questions of Roanoke and western Virginia politics as a way to draw out some of the nuances of various issues.
Today: What if Roanoke had moved elections to November ahead of the 2008 mayoral race?
History marks 2008 as a pivotal year in both city and national politics.
The bill for the demolition of Victory Stadium came due in the city’s spring elections, as incumbent councilman Bev Fitzpatrick lost in the Democratic firehouse primary; David Bowers lost a battle for control of the city Democrats but ultimately defeated incumbent Mayor Nelson Harris by running as an independent; and outspoken incumbent councilman Brian Wishneff ran for re-election as an independent but was edged out by newcomer Court Rosen.
But what if elections had been moved to 2008 by a previous council?
Let’s pick up the thread with the Roanoke City Democratic Committee reorganizational meeting in late 2007. Bowers had made a play for control of the party but was ousted by Harris and his “For the City” allies: David Trinkle, Gwen Mason and Alfred Dowe. Even with the different election date, it’s unlikely that Bowers and his allies could have won that fight on that night.
That leaves Bowers with the same choice: Face Harris in a firehouse primary at Patrick Henry High School or run as an independent. I would guess that given the fact the primary took place in the Raleigh Court area that was advantageous to Harris, with rules written by his allies, Bowers would opt instead to run in the general election as an independent. That would give him the extra time to build a bigger campaign and take advantage of his name recognition to appeal to Roanokers who are worn out by the long-running infighting on the city council.
We can probably assume that much of the race plays out as it did in the spring. Here’s my wrap story on the 2008 city races for perspective.
But does anything change by moving that election from May to November?
In the real election, 11,155 people cast a ballot for one of the four mayoral candidates or a write-in. Bowers won 53.5 percent of the votes to Harris’ 40.6 percent. Every one of those voters came out either for the mayor’s race or for the council races.
It would be different in the fall. The ballot was headlined by Obama/Biden versus McCain/Palin and several other presidential tickets. Below that was Mark Warner vs. Jim Gilmore for U.S. Senate, then Bob Goodlatte vs. Sam Rasoul for a seat in Congress. More people voted for McCain/Palin in Roanoke than voted for all of the mayoral candidates combined. And more than twice as many voted for Obama/Biden than for the combined mayoral candidates.
Nationally, more than 130 million people turned out to vote in the presidential race — a record — and turnout was especially high in targeted battleground states like Virginia. Much of that came from the Obama campaign’s voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote operation: A reporter from the U.K. Guardian reported that members of the Democratic establishment predicted the black vote would be lackluster because the Obama campaign hadn’t tapped their institutional knowledge. That clearly didn’t turn out to be the case. Not only did the city’s African-American precincts turn out, but in general a lot of people came out to vote for Obama who were not regular voters in other elections.
And take a look at what happened on the races beneath the presidential race. In Roanoke, Warner defeated Gilmore by a 74 percent to 25 percent margin and Rasoul beat Goodlatte by a 54 percent to 44 percent margin.
Based on the real results of the spring 2008 election, we know Bowers would carry a lot of votes from Democrats who were disgruntled with Harris — but would that have been enough to give him the fall election? Or would Harris have been able to secure a victory by tying campaign to Obama and Warner that fall?
Ed Lynch, a Republican political analyst and professor at Hollins University, subscribes to that latter theory.
“Had the election been moved to the fall, with Obama riding as high as he was in the city and indeed in Virginia, there’s no question Nelson Harris would have wholly wrapped himself in Obama and Warner,” Lynch said. “Would that have been enough? My guess is it would have pulled Nelson Harris over the finish line. There would have been enough party-line voting for Nelson Harris to have won.”
Based on Lynch’s theory, we’d be in the midst of an entirely different mayoral race this fall than the one we saw in May.
Others may have differing opinions — and certainly we’d invite you to post yours in the comments section.
Lynch said he doesn’t personally care whether the city moves its elections — he lives in Roanoke County so it doesn’t affect him one way or the other. But he said that shifting to November will give a boost to major party candidates and make it more difficult for independents to win.
“My guess is there are fewer independent votes cast at the top of the ticket, and consequently fewer cast for an office like mayor,” Lynch said. “As far as the fortunes of republicans are concerned, it really depends on what happens at the top of the ticket.
“The bottom line of what I’m saying is the mayoral elections held in the spring as they are now are about the city of Roanoke: The issues, the people running, their personalities and qualifications. If you move the elections to November so they’re right opposite and running with the president, then its about the party. It’s about the top ticket. It’s about coat tails. And it’s not primarily about Roanoke, its problems, its issues and its people.
“Sometimes that would benefit Republicans and sometimes it would benefit Democrats.”
The editorial board suggested in a piece yesterday that the city should remove party labels to keep the focus on Roanoke. Again, your thoughts on this idea are welcome in the comments section.
Also, I’m interested in readers’ takes on a bonus “What If…?” scenario using the same pattern as above:
What if the city moved its city elections to November so that the 2006 council races had taken place in the fall of 2005?
For reference purposes, that was the council race that decided the fate of Victory Stadium involving the “For the City” slate of independent Democrats Alfred Dowe, Gwen Mason and David Trinkle; the Democratic ticket of David Bowers, Granger Macfarlane and Bill White; and the Republican ticket of Mark McConnel and Stuart Revercomb. (Actual results here.) The fall 2005 race was headlined by Tim Kaine vs Jerry Kilgore for governor (actual results here).
There’s a lot of thread to untangle in that question, but it’s a fun exercise and can help unravel some of the pros and cons to the actual proposal of moving elections.
– Mason Adams
May 23, 2012 - 4:45 PM
In Nov. 2005 the reorg had not taken place (Dec.) and I suspect there would have been a firehouse primary rather than the Mass meeting that selected Bowers, White and MacFarlane. Caroline Word wond as chair by one vote in the Dec. or Jan reorg. She set the mass meeting instead of a firehouse primary.
(This changes if the reorg was moved as a result of fall elections)
The Independent “For the City” ticket was formed because of the results of the reorg knowing that the mass meeting was set to pick Bowers, White and MacFarlane.
It would be wrong to think the players would have been the same prior to the reorg. However, Victory Stadium would have still been the issue.
Without Word as chair a happy Del. Onzlee Ware would not have had to form a separate caucus with Harris, Trinkle and Mason splitting the party. He would not have used his influence and GOTV machine through his aid Fred Hutchins to help elect the “For the City” ticket.
Having a firehouse primary or even a mass meeting prior to the contentious reorg is a real game changer. So if we go with the same players as candidates for council Bowers, White and MacFarlane – They would have won if backed by the establishment Dems.
To repeat the only reason that the “For the City” ticket came about was dissatisfaction with the reorg. results. The Democratic establishment at that time though could have fielded any number of other candidates that might not have been Mason or Trinkle. I suspect Wyatt and Bestpitch would have attempted to get their seats back in 2006 as they were part of the establishment.
Tim Kaine did not win by much and with the issue still being Victory Stadium I don’t think that Kaine would have had much if any influence for voters.
Would Bowers have even run for council rather than wait until 2008 to run for mayor? Same goes for White and MacFarlane – the local established party machine was against them all. They all would have had to run as Independents.
If the Democratic ticket was made up of “happy” unsplit Democrats running to keep the stadium than they would have won. If they ran supporting tearing it down than the Republicans of Revercomb and McConnel would have had a better chance because of their support for the stadium.
The council in 2006 could have been made up of Wyatt, Bestpitch and Dowe.
That totally changes election possibilities for 2008.
If the reorg was held prior to the Nov. 2005 election and the result was the same that split the Dem. party than all would have occurred as it did with no change. I still say Bowers would have won in 2008 as an Independent and I believe if he had run in the firehouse primary at PH he would have won against Harris even with the party machine against him.
This is very convoluted but it all boils down to WHO controlled the local Democratic City committee and going back in time to guess the results of that changes everything.
The “big IFs” where who controlled the party and stance on Victory Stadium.
With all due respect to your analysis Mason and Valerie, all of this mumbo jumbo means nothing to the average voter…..nothing. People living real lives have no time and no tolerance for this crap. The complexity of your posts help make the point that more than when the election is held, the thing that needs to be fixed is the dominance of the Democrat party hacks over the electorate, thus the removal of party labels from local elections. Valeries post points out that just a very few people (political junkies) controll the entire flavor of the election including the candidates themselves. Remove the party labels and our little version of Chicago politics would go away. If Bestpitch and the rest of his buddies were really worried about local issues getting lost in national politics it could be fixed in one fell swoop by dropping the D’s and R’s. But as any political insider knows…..it aint gonna happen.
`Democrats love ….` An excellent letter written by Dale Arrington of Goode, Va. Read it in todays `Opinions`
Valerie, thanks for playing along.
gofigure, those are fair points. A lot of this is insider baseball, but it’s still fun to play out the threads and untangle some of the (un)intended consequences of changes.
And here’s a link to the letter that Jeff Doto is referencing.
– Mason Adams
The ‘dumbing down’ of everything, even a discussion, should bother people, and yet it doesn’t. It is a daily occurrence and often shuts down a discussion entirely.
Roanoke elections MIGHT and it is a big MIGHT, be “run” by Democrats and a select few of them, but the City of Roanoke, the economy of Roanoke, the movers and shakers of Roanoke are far, far from being all or even mostly Democrats. That needs to be at minimum, acknowledged. It appears to me that a dividing line detente was reached decades ago to allow same and it has held for a long time. It is hardly true that the Dems on Council have been radical left wing ideologues. This is all a smoke and mirrors game anyway. Sure most people vote a party line. So the hell what? That too is there choice. Removing identifiers does not change how a representative will govern FGS. That is a feel good measure for those who feel “control” should be controlled.
Changing the elections to November makes perfect sense, will save money and make it easier on voters, registrars and poll workers. Removing labels is just a mind game IMO.
Jeff Doto, if by “excellent” you mean stupid, then I would agree. If you mean excellent in any real sense of the word then you are only kidding yourself.
Thanks Mason, I saw the letter and it is indicative of the idealogical BS that has replaced honest and thoughtful dialogue on a national level. Its reference here is made to somehow add value to a local issue, thus further making my point. Who cares what Dems or Repubs love when it comes to our community? Local Party politics is the problem, it just so happens that the Dems are in controll in the City. It would make no difference to me if it was a Republican controlled local community, like Roanoke County for example. Party politics has crept steadily into their governing process over the past four or five years and the result has not been pretty there either. Several of their Board of Supervisor members have fallen out with their respective parties and turned independant, to their credit. There has been hard feelings between individual Supervisors and rule by faction in the County as a result. I have no use for either party in local elections.
Once again, sandi…those pesky FACTS are at your door….delusional??? Seems so !
Yes, you are correct…every idiotic thing these aforementioned Democrats have done is stupid…John Edwards..fathers a `love child` while his wife struggles with Cancer…guess thats a fallicy, huh, sandi ? Bill Clinton and his in-White house sex-capades…another fallicy, there sandi ? You really need to have someone pull you into reality…there are things in this life that are actually real…now, you can keep your head in the sand if you wish, but they are still there….regardless of what you tell yourself !
I appreciate your points as always Sandi. I’m recognize my view of how elections should work is fairly “pollyanish”. I have just been around local party politics for much of my life, seen the meaness involved and perhaps my craw has just become sufficiently full. As I said, it isn’t going to happen anyway, so at least moving elections to November would be a start at reforming an ailing process.
No doubt Gofigure, politics is “mean”, petty, vulgar and cut-throat. Look at Jeff Doto, he is eaten up with anger, fueled by propaganda and has totally ruined any shot at ever having credibility in a discussion, so all he has left is attacking, and being silly. I am partisan, but I try hard to stick to facts, relevance and important things, and yes people like that make me angry.
Removing the labels would be fine, if it removed the party influence, party money, party mentality or party agenda. It does none of that. Local politics might have begun as looking out for your locality, but since money and power are involved, it has become just as partisan and bitterly fought as national elections. I do not think not having labels fixes that. I think having an active, informed and involved electorate is the only fix. Damned if I know how to get one though.
The ignorance that we confront here on a daily basis is just a microcosm of the ignorance, intransigence and ‘flat out wrong’ yet certain mindset of many, many voters. It is disheartening and I can fully understand wanting a “pollyanish” solution. I wish there was one.
Mason, here’s another angle to consider in the debate over party nominations, which seems to be based on concern over the lack of choices and the re-election of only incumbents this May. As you know, the typical number of candidates for city council has been more like 6-10 for the three seats, so this year was clearly an anomaly in that regard. The last time all the winners in a city council election were incumbents was 1986. In the 12 election cycles from 1988-2010, the voters elected at least one new member every time. During those years, there were 6 races for mayor and 36 for city council. New faces joined the council as a result of 26 of those 42 campaigns, a turnover rate of 62%. In addition, city council made appointments to fill unexpired terms seven times. Why would anyone think that too few candidates have been willing to step forward and that we need to remove party labels to get more people to run?
#11 “Look at Jeff Doto, he is eaten up with anger, fueled by propaganda and has totally ruined any shot at ever having credibility in a discussion, so all he has left is attacking, and being silly.”
I guess that’s why Jeff switched to another handle (at least on DC’s blog) and hope that nobody noticed.
6 City Council seats, all Democrat. Mayor, Democrat. Commissioner of the Revenue, Democrat. City Treasurer, Democrat. Sheriff, Democrat. Hmmmmm
@14 gofigure:
That’s all right *except* Sheriff Octavia Johnson is actually a Republican.
– Mason Adams
And are there any towns, cities or states where they are ALL Republicans? They were all duly elected. Please, go get a life. Not liking an election outcome does not mean there is anything wrong with the process.
Actually I enjoy a very full and good life Sandi, no need to act like Doto. Just stating facts. And the fact is that under this current system candidates say whatever they have to say about their party affiliation to get elected…..and serving the entire communities best interests soon takes a back seat to doing what they have to do to maintain the parties approval. Mason even pointed out in his original post that in the past Dems changed to Independents when they didn’t like nor could accept the results of their own parties primaries (didn’t like the election outcome for Sandi’s benefit). And thanks for reminding me Mason but you are exactly right. The sheriff switched from Democrat to Republican to run against her former boss. Makes my point exactly. I am not proposing anything that radical. It is done in Salem and many other communities and they seem to do ok. JMO from observations i have seen first hand living my simple little life.
Sorry I did not put that better Gofigure, that was too curt by half. What I mean is that you might be kidding yourself. Removing the party label will not be the change you seek IMO. Even more people will be able to “say anything” to get elected, with no idea whether that is where they are coming from or not. Look at Court Rosen. And he ran as a Dem…people still think he is not. I think that means he is doing it right. The label or the party affiliation or activity is not the making of the pol locally, sometimes not even nationally. Courage is courage, truth is truth, integrity is integrity. Party labels do not exclude any of that.