Below the fold I will explore a number of them and invite you to join the discussion.
We all know that Brian Moran has also been campaigning as if he would run for Governor. But there is also a concern that the party not damage itself in a bitter primary if it can be avoided. Thus some may want to consider if Brian would consider running for one of the other spots. He is a former prosecutor, and could run for AG, and he could also run for Lt. Gov. Creigh probably feels strongly entitled to the top spot after his narrow loss for AG in 2005. I know that when Mark Warner withdrew from the presidential contest Creigh told him that if he, Mark, would announce for Governor, he would drop back to AG and Brian could probably be persuaded to run for LT Gov, giving a ready-made ticket with strong state-wide appeal. But of course Mark decided to run for US Senate.
Also, as of this point, it is not clear that other than Deeds and Moran we have any strong statewide candidates for the other offices.
So far I have not committed to either Deeds or Moran for Governor. I know and like both men. Each would bring strength to the top of the ticket. Creigh has already demonstrated viability statewide, and would run strongly down-state. And as he sometimes points out, thanks to redistricting he has at times represented all three of the state's flagship public universities: UVA, Tech, and VMI.
Brian has done a solid job of using his position as House Caucus chair to help Democrats around the state, thereby introducing himself to areas that did not know him. And for those who might want to make an issue of his MA origins and hint of an out-of-state accent, the population of the Old Dominion has changed so much that I wonder if it would really be anything other than a minor distraction? And there is no doubt that Brian would do superbly in NoVa, which has been the heart of recent Democratic statewide success.
So I've included a semi-serious poll as part of this posting. What I'd really like is your thoughts, expressed in comment form. I know it is early.
And remember - the Old Dominion has a well-established pattern in recent cycles - whichever party wins the White House loses the Richmond Governor's mansion the following year. If that pattern were to hold, which would be more important to you, and why?
peace.
Also I think he will be a superb governor.
Paul
While I agree that it would be fantastic for the two to determine between each other who should run for what (and that still might happy) I am very leery of the position that this is something that should happen. Both men have earned the right to a run for the Governorship, and we as the Democrats of Virginia have earned the right to make that selection in a primary, if that is how things go.
As an aside, I think it is critical that the Democratic party win the AG position back in 2009. State AGs are so important the good government of the states that I feel we need to put good-government Democrats in as many of these positions as possible.
Is there anyone expressing interest in that position as yet?
We are blessed with the (probable) Deeds/Moran battle because either would make a fine general election candidate and a great governor.
As for negative campaigning, it isn't a requirement to run a primary campaign. But we can't avoid primaries just because some candidates and/or their supporters might go to the gutter.
However, I do not like the idea of the party telling the candidates what they should or should not do. If a candidate decides to not run in favor of another (e.g., Creigh/Mark), great! But otherwise, let the competition continue.
Still, I would love to know who is considering Lt. Gov and AG. I'll be voting for a ticket, not just governor.
It seems like a # of strong statewide candidates are off limits until 2013 because they were just elected, like Chap! and Northam.
about Shannon- he has Chap's old House of Delegates seat. And his wife is a staffer for Congressman Nick Lampson, who holds Delay's old seat, TX-22.
If I were Moran, I would stay in the House of Delegates and try to become Speaker in the next few cycles. Plus he should wait around for his brother to retire and run for his seat in Congress.
We'll have to wait and see if Brian is ... but we know that Creigh isn't.
Byrne 956,906
Deeds 970,563
Deeds was underfunded most of the campaign, and was getting his clock cleaned until the last 3-4 weeks of the election, when he finally got enough TV money to have an impact and almost pulled it out. Leslie Byrne ran that stupid bobblehead ad for months and didn't get close enough for a recount. She may have led in the "fast-growing" areas, but not by enough, not nearly enough. You can't win a statewide race in Fairfax and Arlington alone.
One thing I have noticed from a lot of Creigh supporters is they like to bash Leslie to show how "strong" Creigh is. I have also noticed that Creigh doesn't seem to care about his supporters doing this. It is making my decision about 2009 a lot easier than I thought it would be.
However, when you look at where the votes are surging now, where the coordinated campaign focused in 2005, where Democratic strength is strongest, Leslie did better than Creigh.
Fairfax - 159,014 Byrne, 154,431 Deeds - almost 5000. If Creigh had done a little better there, he would be AG right now.
Loudoun - 29,990 Byrne - 29,023 Deeds
Prince William - 32,227 Byrne - 31,407 Deeds
Charlottesville - 7,799 Byrne - 7,754 Deeds
I think Creighs inability to attract progressive voters in NOVA really hurt him and turned off a lot of people to skip that line on the ballot. In addition, it's one of the factors that really hurt him when it came to fundraising. When you run 9000 votes behind the top of the ticket in Fairfax, that is saying something. There is a reason why those people skipped that line - and we can't afford to have those people miss out in 2009.
This isnt to discredit Leslie... Leslie did very well- your argument is simply ridiculous...
But to talk address your current post - I wasn't talking about the 6th or the 9th...I'm talking about the up-and-coming and current Democratic regions of the state where it is necessary to run strong and run the tables - some might call them "easy pickins" for Democrats. Read the chain please.
As for my original - Do you not deny James that you redesigned creighdeeds.com in 2007 and that it was not reported anywhere? Because, as you pointed out, you took payment from candidates for website design in 2007, with varying amounts of money, some in tough races, some others in not. Why take money from them and not Creigh, or at least count it as an in-kind contribution? Why not volunteer for everyone then?
While you have to win in other places to win statewide, you can't ignore NOVA. To discount the number of Democratic votes in Arlington, Alexandria and Fairfax is unfair because with out those large margin of victories Kaine and Webb certainly would not be in office right now. So while Nova isn't everything, it has provided margins of victory for our last two statewide candidates.
Statement by The Honorable Creigh Deeds, Senate of Virginia
Recently, it has come to my attention that va4marriage and other supporters of Ballot Question #1 have been using my name routinely in speeches, letters and OpEds to bolster their arguments in favor of the so-called marriage amendment. Since my name is being used in this manner, I believe that it is important for the voters to understand what I do and don't believe about the proposed amendment and to know how I am voting on November 7th.
I will be voting NO and here is why.
In the 2005 and 2006 General Assembly Sessions, I voted for the proposed constitutional amendment that is now Ballot Question #1, because I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and because I accepted at face value the arguments of proponents of the amendment that the language of the amendment was declarative of existing law. I also believed that issues of such magnitude ought to be determined by the voters.
Nothing has happened to change my belief that marriage is between one man and one woman, and nothing could. Nor has anything happened that would cause me to question the appropriateness of giving voters the opportunity to vote on this question.
It is clear to me now, however, that the language goes far beyond existing law and threatens real harm to many Virginians and their families, among them the unmarried victims of domestic violence.
When this issue came before the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee, I (and other members of the committee) questioned whether the Attorney General's draft explanation of the amendment was either neutral or accurate in its assertion that unmarried domestic violence victims would not be left unprotected if this amendment passes. There was at the time, and continues to be to this day, pending litigation involving the identical language in the Ohio constitutional amendment, that challenged the Attorney General's interpretation. The Ohio Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue, and the legal issue remains in doubt.
While our courts would not be bound by the Ohio ruling, the fact that victims of domestic violence in Ohio have been subjected to an extended period of legal uncertainty causes me great concern. The experience there causes me to fear that the proposed amendment to Virginia's constitution will invite the very judicial activism its proponents argue it will prevent.
A NO vote on November 7th will not change in any way Virginia's 30 year old law banning gay marriage, and I would not vote NO if it did.
A NO vote on November 7th, will, however, ensure that we are not taking the unnecessary risk of exposing even one victim of domestic violence further harm because of legal confusion about the application of our 10 year old mandatory arrest law or the availability of protective orders needed to make home and work safe.
That is why I will be voting NO on election day confident that neither traditional marriage nor a single domestic violence victim will be harmed by the outcome.
This in no way shows Deeds supporting the gay community. In fact, unless I'm completely misreading this, Deeds goes out of his way to strongly re-enforce an anti-gay belief. He's only saying he's was against the amendment because of problems related to domestic violence - most of which is between heterosexual couples.
The promise was to help her thru the campaign, but a month before the election the money from the VA DCC stopped and Connie was hung out there to die with little funds at the end. I do not know what Brian had to do with it, but as you all say he was the top guy and to me the top guy gets the blame.
Deeds hung with her till the end, so he is my guy.
Also How did the Watkins campaign know issues, such as this, before the Brennan campaign. There was a "sold down the river" behind the doors going on, that seems to be okay with you.
However, and I agree with you about the DCCC - something was up with them that they didn't play in the First - it wasn't because of money, because we all know they have a lot of it right now.