Ken Cuccinelli Endorses Howie Lind for 10th District Chair

Yesterday our new Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli made news by endorsing Howie Lind for 10th District Chair. Once again Black Velvet broke the story first with an excellent story and the full press release. Ken is a long time activist in the 10th District. He has served as a state senator since 2002 and understands the kind of support our elected officials in all levels of government need to succeed. He consistently won in Northern Virginia when people said he would lose. He won the nomination on one ballot when many were predicting it would take two, and won the general election overwhelmingly when people were saying he was too extreme to win state wide. Ken Cuccinelli understands what it takes to win elections. We need new blood in the 10th District Chairmanship that is willing to work with and listen to everyone, and help elect people at all levels of government within the 10th District.

Ken Cuccinelli believes Howie Lind will make an excellent 10th District Chairman. I hope others across the district will follow Ken's lead in supporting Howie Lind.

If you want to join the team contact Howie Lind and ask how you can help.

Howie Lind for Chairman, PO Box 92, McLean, VA 22101 703-336-3940howie@lindforchairman.com

Dave Foster: Post Convention

Last night I attended my first meeting of the Loudon County Republican Committee. Probably one of the most significant things that happened at the meeting was hearing from Dave Foster. Throughout the nomination contest Dave Foster told Republican activists that they had three great candidates to choose from, and that he would wholeheartedly support whoever the convention chose as its nominee. Last night he made good on his promise. Dave Foster addressed the LCRC, thanked his supporters, made some of his trademark humor, praised Ken Cuccinelli, and pledged to do anything the Republican ticket wanted him to do. As part of his efforts to elect Ken Cuccinelli, he announced he will be hosting a fundraiser for Ken by the end of July at his D.C. law office.

Dave Foster also hinted at a possible future run for office. While I'm not sure what office he would run for (maybe the 8th congressional district?) his bid for attorney general has only improved his chances for future elected office. He improved his statewide name recognition, has supporters across the state, earned the respect of those who did not support him, and did little to get people upset at him through his bid. Dave Foster joked in his speech how Ken referred to him as the "nicest candidate in the race." He was definitely a very nice candidate. He was an honorable candidate to campaign against, and I will be excited to see what he does in the future.

I Tip My Hat to Meredith Quillen and Noah Wall

Yesterday I read a blogpost and saw that Creigh Deeds achieved his impressive victory with a "tiny 25-person staff." If this is true then Ken Cuccinelli's victory is even more impressive. His statewide campaign was run by two people: Meredith Quillen and Noah Wall. There were a number of hard working volunteers for the campaign, which enabled them to operate with a tiny staff. That said, Meredith and Noah worked tirelessly for Ken during the nomination contest. As a result of their hard work, Ken confounded the pundits and took 57% on the first ballot. Meredith and Noah, thank you for all your work. I pray God blesses your efforts over these next few months like he did over the past few, and continues to bless your endeavors for conservativism in this state.

The Danger of Open Primaries

Recently I have been doing some research into the election process and compiled this information on the impacts of open primaries on a parties ability to nominate a candidate. In a state like Virginia where we are forced to hold an open primary we should stay with a convention system to nominate candidates so that it is just members of the Republican party who decide our nominees.
____________________________________________________________________

In an open primary any registered voter can vote in any party’s primary. When a voter goes to his polling place he can choose to vote in a party’s primary, but can only vote in one primary for a race. The advantage to an open primary is that it encourages voter participation. Indpendents are encouraged to participate in an open primary. However, the downside of an open primary is that it is the registered voters of a state, and not the political party selecting its nominee. There is also a variation of the open primary known as the semi-closed primary which allows independents to vote in either party’s primary. People registered with one party can not vote in the other party’s primary in a semi-open primary. Liberal independents can vote in a republican primary, and conservative independents can vote in a democrat primary in a semi-open primary state. Open primaries permit members of other parties to influence a parties nomination contest, and they often take advantage of it.

In the 2008 presidential election, both parties impacted, or tried to impact the other party’s nomination process. In 2008, John McCain’s early victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina propelled him from a second tier candidate to the Republican nominee. However, through open primaries he never won a majority of the Republican vote in both of those two states. In New Hampshire[1] Mitt Romney won the Republican and conservative vote with 35% and 38% respectively. However, McCain won the state by 5% by winning the independent, moderate, and liberal vote by 40%, 44%, and 45% respectively. A similar thing happened in the South Carolina primary[2]. Here Mike Huckabee won the Republican and conservative vote with 32% and 35% respectively. However, John McCain still won the state by 3% by winning the independents, moderates, and liberals by 42%, 51%, and 47% respectively. In both of these elections, the independents were involved in key presidential republican primaries, and changed the results.

A similar thing happened part way through the Democrat primary. Part way through the Democrat primary when Obama was close to winning the nomination, Rush Limbaugh began what an operation for Republicans to vote in the Democrat primary for Hillary Clinton in large amounts. This operation became known as operation chaos. Following the beginning of operation chaos Hillary Clinton won the Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina primaries. Following the start of operation chaos Hillary Clinton went from being on the verge of losing the nomination to winning a majority of the elected delegates. She ended up losing the nomination as a result of the super delegate votes.

---

[1] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#val=NHREP

[2] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21228202

Just say Yes!! ...to what?

At the RPV convention Bob McDonnell had a section of his speech he spent running through the issues and going "Democrats just say no... but Republicans just say yes". Bob seemed to be tripping over this part of his speech at the convention as if he wasn't totally comfortable with it yet. This slogan was used immediately after the convention as the name for the ticket airport rally tour.

When I first heard the "Just Say Yes" slogan at the convention I knew their was something wrong with it, but I couldn't pin point it. My first thought was that it was conceding to the Democrats their idea that the Republican party is just an obstructionist party, and promising to change that course.

While admitting Republicans may be part of the issue, the real problem with the slogan comes out when you ask the question just say yes to what? When any issue is proposed people can say yes to it, or say no to it. When solutions to issues arise that disagree with our conservative principles, should we just say yes? If we are focused on saying yes, so we are the party of positive change instead of obstructionism, then we will take the moderate solution to difficult issues.

The focus of this campaign like any campaign should not be saying yes to ideas, but applying the constitution and the ideas of the founding fathers to the issues that face this commonwealth. I want a governor who isn't focused on saying yes to possible solutions. I want a governor who is willing at times to say no to the moderate position on issues inorder to force people to take the more conservative idea when the occasion arrives.

Republican Response to the Democrat Primary.

In response to the Democrat primary results, Bob McDonnell issued the following video message.


Pat Mullins the new RPV chairman also issued a press statement. The following paragraphs are some of the highlights.

“Virginia Democrats have nominated a slate of three candidates that would raise taxes as soon as possible and lead with the people’s checkbook as their weapon. Should they succeed in their mission, these three candidates would increase the financial strain on Virginians and private enterprise, depress economic growth and stifle job creation.

“Given the dismal voter turnout in their primary election, it is clear that there is little excitement in their party and an even smaller appetite for the kind of expansive government their candidates represent. By contrast, our party is enthusiastically behind our excellent ticket of Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling and Ken Cuccinelli, as proven by the attendance of over 8,000 Republicans at our recent convention. Everywhere I travel in Virginia, local Republican interest is high, which bodes well for our chances in November.

“Finally, the rejection of Terry McAuliffe indicates that even Democrats are disillusioned about the direction their party and leadership have taken. When a wealthy, insider financed, nationally prominent, personal friend of the Clintons is rebuked in such a manner, it is a clear indicator of a party in disarray from top to bottom. On the Republican side, we are energized and look forward to the road ahead.”

As a note on the excitement that is building within the Republican Party, just like on the ticket airport tour, it appears the Republicans had packed attendances at their campaign headquarters openings.

Let's keep up the energy, stay positive, conservative, and issues oriented, and we should win in November.

2009 Convention Results (With CD Breakdowns)

The grand total results for the convention have been available for a while. I first saw them on the AP. Pat Mullins also e-mailed out the final results for each race a few days ago. Also the congressional district breakdown for the attorney general race was first released published by Not Larry Sabato and Shaun Kenney. However here is the results with the congressional district breakdowns for each of the three races. (To the best of my knowledge it is the first time the complete results have been posted online.) I was waiting for a little while on talking about the results in the hope that I could get hold of the results from the different units and analyze that. It seems however that certain members of the executive committee very vehemently opposed releasing these results and they are unavailable.

The first thing about these results is how well each of the victors did. Bolling, Cuccinelli, and Mullins won by 84%, 57%, and 70% respectively. It was also very gracious of Muldoon, Brownlee, Foster, and Stanley to concede and pledge to work for and with their former opponents. I am confident the success of our nominees and the graciousness of their challengers will unite our party over the summer, and towards victory in the fall.

In the Lieutenant Governor's race a couple things stand out. First off Bolling didn't do poorly in any congressional district. The lowest he received in any cd was 73.3%. Any candidate would love for that to be their lowest return in a district. Another thing that stands out is how poorly Patrick Muldoon did in the 9th district. In his home district he received 11.19% of the vote, and it was his 9th strongest congressional district. There were only two districts where he received a lower percent of the vote: the 8th and 3rd districts. I was honestly shocked as I expected Muldoon would beable to bring a lot of supporters to the convention from the 9th. Either the letter sent out by the 9th district leaders did in Muldoon, or he is just not very popular or well known in his home district. The other interesting thing is that Muldoon took the highest percent in the 10th district. With 202.39 weighted votes he took 26.7%, 10.33% better than he did statewide. I'm not sure exactly why Mulddon did that well in the 10th district, but maybe 10th district voters are itching for a change and are becoming sick of the establishment for some reason.

In the Attorney General race Ken Cuccinelli won eight of the eleven congressional districts, and came in second in the three he lost. John Brownlee won the 9th and the 4th, and Dave Foster won the 8th. There were also only two congressional districts Ken won where he received less than 50%. They were the 3rd and the 5th districts. Keeping Ken below 50% in the congressional districts he won was an essential part of the Brownlee/Foster plan to force a second ballot. They were atleast successful in two of the eight districts Ken won. Ken took over 65% in the 7th, 11th, and 1st districts and over 60% in the 10th and 6th districts. While Ken's home district is the 11th, the 7th gave Ken the highest percentage of the vote based in part on a surprisingly large victory in Chesterfield Co. Both Ken and Dave Foster won their home districts, the 11th, and 8th. John Brownlee only pulled 38.45% in the 6th district where he resides. Ken was able to win Salem and Roanoke cities, and almost took Roanoke county from John Brownlee. While John lives in the 6th district some would consider the 9th his home district since he has worked their as a prosecutor for a while, and he was able to win the 9th with 63.03% of the vote. However a win in the 9th only does you so much when it has about 700 less delegate votes than the 11th district.

From a campaigning perspective one of the important lessons of Ken's convention victory is the importance of building a statewide network. In a primary you can jack up vote totals in high density localities to win. In a convention each locality is assigned a certain number of votes. This forces you to compete in every location if you want to win, and you need to try to get a significant percentage of each localities votes. Ken's statewide network that the convention forced him to create enabled him to compete in every single district, and will hopefully be the backbone that propels him to victory in November. Ken's extensive political connections as an active state senator almost guaranteed him victories in Loudon, Fairfax, and Prince William counties as soon as he announced. Having the political connections heading into the race enabled him to win these three large localities easily. Political connections are something any candidate needs to develop before running an effective campaign for statewide office.

While the chairmanship race was more of a contest than the Lieutenant Governor's race, Pat Mullins and co pretty well swept the floor. There are two things that jump out though. Bill Stanley almost won his home congressional district. He took 48.84% in the 5th district which is a very solid showign for an underdog with only three weeks to campaign. The congressional district where Stanley did second best was the 11th district where he took 36.05%. The 11th district is the district Prince William County votes in, and it was one of the few ways Jeff Frederick's supporters had an opportunity at the convention to protest what happened to Jeff this past spring.

That's as much as I can draw out of the congressional breakdowns for the convention results. I'm hcurious to here what you think the results say. Also it would be very nice in future conventions to have access to unit results so that we can analyze them and see where candidates strengths are in each district, and what correlations and trends the unit results tell us. Hopefully this is something we will have access to after the next convention whenever that may be.

On one final note it will be interesting to see if Deeds and his statewide network and connections can pull of a victory tomorrow.

Cuccinelli's Convention Victory

Senator Cuccinelli is now the Attorney General nominee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He was elected with 57% of the vote at the convention last Saturday.

This was a moment of triumph for the conservative wing of the RPV. We saw the Virginia's conservative champion in the state senate nominated to run for state wide office. Another thing we saw was the social conservatives and the liberty Caucus/Ron Paul supporters unite to give Ken the nomination. We united behind Ken not because we wanted someone who could get elected in November (though he will) or someone who won't offend people. We united behind Ken because he has spent his career articulating and fighting for the things we hold dear.

Another important aspect in this race is the part homeschoolers played in this nomination contest. Lynn Mitchell summarized it well on her blog.

To say the Virginia home school community was on fire for Ken Cuccinelli is an understatement. Parents worked for months collecting signatures on petitions, hosting meet-and-greets, spreading the word, and signing up as delegates to the RPV Convention.

The majority of home schooling families believe in less government, more individual responsibility, less taxes, responsible spending, and individual liberties. When they find a candidate who has those same beliefs -- and unequivocally states them -- they will back him.

As a homeschool dad Ken worked hard to use homeschoolers in his campaign. While John Brownlee had "Homeschoolers for Brownlee" signs, if you lined up all the homeschoolers who were their for Brownlee and all the homeschoolers supporting Ken it wouldn't even be a contest.

Since I haven't found a good video of what heppened right before Ken's convention speech, I would like to take a moment and describe it. After John Brownlee left the stage, the convention lights were dimmed. At that moment "Don't Tread on Me" flags that were passed out during Brownlee's speech started waving all across the convention. There were 200 large flags and thousand of small ones. The convention hall turned into a sea of yellow. At the same time pictures of the flag were placed on the main screens and an audio montage ofnews clips about the GM takeover, bailout, and DHS homeland terrorist report was played. When the montage was over, the lights came back on, Ken was at the podium, and the convention hall was electric.

If you would like to rehear Ken's speech here it is below. I hope you will join us in working hard to get the entire ticket as well as our candidates for the Virginia House of Delegates elected this November.


Ken Cuccinelli's convention speech.


Ken's acceptance speech.

Cuccinelli: Thank You-What a Weekend!

June 3, 2009

Dear Fellow Virginians,

First and foremost, I want to thank every single person that came to the convention this past weekend - it was a raging success in every way.

I appreciate the hundreds of volunteers that made our victory this past weekend possible, the thousands of Virginians that had sufficient faith and trust in me to not only give me their vote, but to spend all day Saturday to do it, and the thousands of other Republicans that gave our whole ticket a huge bump coming out Richmond!

Say what you want about conventions, primaries, etc., they are tons of fun, exciting and a great way to get several thousand people fired up for five months of campaigning!

Second of all, I need to extend compliments to John Brownlee and Dave Foster. I have been involved in GOP politics as a volunteer and a candidate for 18 years. I don't ever remember such a high quality, issue focused, party contest as the one the three of us just finished. None of us can take credit for that by ourselves - we all share it.

We had innumerable debates and candidate forums, and the level of debate was exceptional. We had so many debates that John finally started joking that we could all give each other's speeches. I think he was right!

John and Dave brought strong resumes and strong campaigns to this contest, and each of them have graciously offered their support and assistance. I'm going to need it!

I'm going to need your help too! The first help we need is donations. Our Democrat opponent has $900,000 more on hand than we do (he was unopposed for the Dems' nomination). Won't each of you please donate today?!? We have some catching up to do!

More details on going forward soon, but now, some funny war stories from the weekend!

Friday Night - Gala and BBQ

I appreciated the opportunity to speak at the Restore the Founders' Vision PAC BBQ on Friday night. I'm told there were 750 people there, though I could only see about 50 because the lights were 6 feet in front of my face blinding me. But there was no missing the response the crowd had to protecting the constitution and defending Virginia's sovereignty under the 10^th amendment. Wow!

I think people may be waking up, and we need them to if we're going to win in November.

Then I shot back to the Gala to join Teiro and talk up delegates after Gov. Romney finished his remarks. Talk about packed, they had to set up tables in the hallway! That's a great problem to have - overcrowding! Look out Dems!

Then came the suite...

The Sweet Suite

Okay, can I just say that you people are ravenous cannoli eaters? It was all gone in something like 30 minutes in the suite. My girls must make good cannoli (I wouldn't know, I didn't get any...)!

We also had to reorder food SIX times! They had to keep all the cooks late to keep up with our ravenous hoard. We packed the Hilton ballroom through much of the night, and people were very patient as I tried to get to talk to everyone in line (thank you all!).

At the doors of the ballroom, our volunteers were giving folks a Cuccinelli for AG sticker on the way in, and they went through over 2500! Zoiks! There were a lot of folks there Friday - very impressive.

Needless to say, I was getting a good feeling Friday night.

I also have to say, the Hilton was awesome. Just awesome. I don't like the price tag for the suite ($15,000 - donate please), but they did everything we asked of them fast and happily. Everything about the Hilton beats out the Marriott: bigger rooms, faster and friendlier service, accommodating as they could be, and better food.

Saturday

A confession: I hadn't finished my speech before Saturday (and I was up until 2 a.m. Friday night working on it after the suite), and I wrote it with variations depending on circumstances.

So, I grabbed breakfast in the AFP suite in the Hilton ballroom, and started talking folks up. Teiro went over to the RPV breakfast to chat with delegates (talk about a trooper, Teiro was Wonder Woman all weekend).

Then Teiro and I worked our way down the street to the coliseum, chatting people up along the way. We finished our waters outside (grrrrr), and went in and split up to keep chatting with delegates. This continued until speakers started coming out and it became rude to talk during speeches...

That's when I went into our war room to finish my speech during Hannity and McDonnell's speeches.

After practicing downstairs once, I printed out the speech and then went into the halls to work delegates. I was also in the coliseum when the nominations committee report was read, and the explosion when we were announced as a candidate gave me rising confidence (I was ready to vote by noise-meter).

Eventually, it was my turn to speak, and we started with the unusual audio clip and the flags. I approached the podium toward the end of the audio clip and noticed the clock was WAY below where I had expected it to be. Where I expected it to read about 10 seconds gone, it read 40 seconds gone.

So, I was immediately in speech-cutting mode, before I even opened my mouth. Whoops. What had happened was good old fashioned miscommunication. It had been my understanding that my 10 minute clock started running when I set foot on the stage, but it started when the audio clip started. Regardless, I knew I didn't get to argue it at that point! Ouch.

So, while I was giving it, I was cutting the speech on the fly. I was also enjoying the view, the flags, the people, and the energy was almost visible. Looking back, that view was truly something, and I'm very grateful for the memory.

I wrapped up my speech with a few seconds remaining and the noise was deafening. Teiro came out and then the kids... which led to the next either miscommunication or whatever, not sure. The kids were on stage only about 15 seconds and the noise was still going when they started announcing Dave to speak.

Now, this bothered me in two respects, first of all, it wasn't fair to Dave, as Teiro and I were herding our kids off while Dave had to navigate through all of us to get started and I doubt it was the kind of "clean," i.e., unimpeded, start that he had planned or wanted. Second, that was the ONLY thing the kids were publicly involved in, and I don't mind saying that I was upset that in their one moment, they were shoveled off stage so curtly. Oh well, they did enjoy it, so that was good, and we know the production folks were just trying to keep things moving.

Then came the craziness of voting and counting, and I had a strong sense that we were going to be okay on the first ballot.

Because I'd been totally focused on getting the votes needed to win, it was only at that point that I started to think about what I would say in an acceptance speech.

Then I was informed that some of the results were coming back in and John and Dave had decided to move for nomination by acclimation. This was a gracious gesture AND it saved people a LOT of time, as the counting clearly was going to take a while! Their remarks were very kind.

In the meantime, all was chaos back stage. It was a real scramble back there for the production folks, while I was relaxing with all of my family members that had come to Richmond and jotting down some quick thoughts for my remarks. By the way, please send in those postcards that I know you all took home from the convention!

Then came the acceptance speech - I tried to keep it as short as I could - and then it was rah-rah time with the whole ticket!

A thousand thank yous to people passing on the way out was not enough, but it had to do, as I was nearly numb from the day.

We went back to the hotel, gathered our thoughts and our kids, and went out to dinner. During dinner I got a phone call with a speaking opportunity at 1 p.m. THE NEXT DAY in Williamsburg, and so I took it, and we were off again!

What a whirlwind! Thanks again to everyone that came to the biggest convention anywhere in the free world in the last 15 years, and thanks to those who supported me for the nomination, but now I need to ask everyone for your support, as we can only win with a LOT of help from now through November.

I look forward to seeing you all soon!

Note to Facebook Friends

I don't think I will be able to answer my inbox any longer, as I'm just overwhelmed timewise. My apologies, but I wanted to let everyone know. I still hope folks will join! (http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/profile.php?id=523714007&ref=ts)

See you on the campaign trail!

Sincerely,

Senator Ken Cuccinelli II

Tell others to sign up for The Cuccinelli Compass at Senator Cuccinelli's Website:
http://www.Cuccinelli.com (look in the upper left corner)

Please donate at:

www.Cuccinelli.com/donations.htm

Authorized and Paid for by Ken Cuccinelli for Attorney General

Please do NOT "Reply" to this e-mail. Please direct your replies to KC4AG@Cuccinelli.com.

Thoughts on the RPV State Convention

Most of my thoughts on the first day I already posted. However I would like to add a few more thoughts and then list off the highlights from Saturday.

1. I think it is ironic that a party that supposedly believes in transparency in government has so little in its actual operations. While Kay Cole James is an impressive person she was selected as the chairman of the convention. Why did McDonnell have to send out an e-mail urging people to vote for her, and why was her name written in the convention program as the temporary chair? What difference would it have made to have a regular vote on the issue? The disdain the party leadership has for people thinking and acting independently was driven home when a congressional district chairman came down and asked another party leader if he should consolidate a large unit so they could shout down any amendment to the rules, or effort to put in a different convention chairman. Who cares what the people think let's script and direct them as much as possible. Again I think Kay Cole James is amazing. This is simply a comment about the state of our party leadership that selects a party chairman and convention chairman for us.
   
2. Some people jokingly referred to the convention building as the Temple of Bob McDonnell. This resulted from the fact that as an uncontested nominee he still won the sign war, and his staff were given special access to the convention hall that other campaign staff were not.
3. As a Cuccinelli volunteer I have to say it was a very impressive operation. Friday night with a number of our supporters attending gala's and dinners we put fliers on every seat in the convention hall in under an hour. While the blue and red shirted Cuccinelli volunteers weren't as distinct as the neon green Brownlee supporters, they were everywhere passing out stickers, brochures, flags, and keeping track of their delegations.
4. No matter how many things Republicans may disagree on or mess up, Republicans know how to be patriotic. Whether it was Lauren Giere, or the UVA acapella group singing the national anthem, reciting the pledge of allegiance with thousands of fellow Americans, the red white and blue everywhere, or Adnan Barqawi's speech Republicans know how to make one proud to be an American.
5. This was Cuccinelli's convention. He was the reason many of those delegates were their. If anyone doubted it before Saturday, the loud sustained applause that erupted when the nominations chair said his name reinforced the fact. Just like at the Dulles rally, he received louder applause than anyone else. Ken is bringing the excitement to this party right now.
   
6. Mike Farris's name recognition increased as a result of this convention. Bolling used Dr. Farris's endorsement repeatedly in the leadup to the convention and even mentioned him in his speech. (Bolling was also the only person to reference homeschooling in his speech. Thank you Bill for recognizing the importance of homeschooling.) Many people also mentioned how a certain energy has returned to the party that they hadn't seen since Dr. Farris ran in 1993. If Dr. Farris wants to run for office later this convention may of helped bring his name back into people's memories.
7. Convention speeches matter!! While the organization before and during a convention are critical so are the speeches given by the candidates. Bolling's speech reminded voters that he is a tried and true conservative who has accomplished many things for the party and has won elections. It was a very uplifting speech. Muldoon reinforced the fact that he was running a "slash and burn" campaign. His speech was vitriolic and one long hit piece on Bolling. He failed to ever bring up his own revord and accomplishments. It drew a number of boos and probably lost him votes. In the AG contest Brownlee gave a very solid speech. He didn't use notes or a podium which was very impressive. However he essentially gave his stump speech which many of the delegates had heard before. While Cuccinelli talked about the same issues he has discussed on the campaign trail, he went about it an entirely different way. Using the Don't Tread on Me flags was a stroke of genius. It played well to the audience and reminded the convention that Ken is the candidate who will fight to limit the size of government. Some suspect that the speech pushed Ken over the edge and gave him a first ballot win. The final speech to mention was Bill Stanley's speech. Few people knew Bill and he needed to wow the audience. While he gave a good speech, his poor clock management probably didn't help him.
8. I was very impressed with the RPV outreach to new media. They did a very good job with Blogger's Row, and the attention the candidates showed to the bloggers demonstrated that it wasn't just a show.
9. Overall it was an excellent convention that recharged and united the party as move forward to victory in November.
   

Adnan Barqawi explains what it means to be an American.

One of the convention highlights was Adnan Barqawi. He is a recent Virginia Tech Graduate who was a part of the Cadet Corp. He and his family immigrated from Kuwait when he was 17, and he explained to the convention how he fell in love with this country, and what it means to be an American and live the American dream.

"I do not call myself an Arab-American or a Middle Eastern-American, but an American. Some Americans need hyphens in their names, because only part of them has come over, but when the whole man has come over heart, and thought and all the hyphen drops of its own weight."

Please listen to this truly inspirational young man. It will brighten your day.





He was such a popular speaker that a group has already popped up for him on facebook that already almost has 200 members. This young man has a bright future ahead of him. Thank you Adnan for reminding the convention what it means to be an American and the importance of personal responsibility.

GOP Ticket Stops at Dulles

Yesterday the McDonnell/Bolling/Cuccinelli ticket made a six stop tour of the commonwealth. I had the opportunity to attend the rally in Dulles. A group of about 50 people with a couple camera crews packed into a small conference room for the event. Sen. Jill Vogel introduced the candidates and all three of the candidates shared their thoughts on the major issues facing the commonwealth. Just like at the convention, Cuccinelli received the loudest and longest sustained applause. It seems clear that he brings energy and enthusiasm to the ticket. I hope McDonnell sees that and takes advantage of it.

McDonnell made the point that this is the most experienced ticket in Virginia history and detailed the combined number of elections won and years in public office served by the ticket. All the candidates focused on energy and jobs (with a special focus on cardcheck) and acknowledged that those issues would play a major role in the campaign. McDonnell used the "Just Say Yes" portion of his convention speech. (Something that seems a little forced.) He also emphasized the importance of results over rhetoric. Bolling brought up the importance of school choice, and Cuccinelli mentioned the importance of doing everything in accordance with the constitution. He made the point that we should have solutions the founding fathers could support if they were here today and understood 21st century America.

It was an energetic event with people excited about winning in November and working hard to make sure we win. Please check out these reports on the Weyers Cave and Norfolk events.

More Good News for McDonnell/Bolling

Only three days after claiming the nomination today has been full of good news for McDonnell/Bolling.

A recent Survey USA poll of Northern Virginia (Fairfax, Loudon, Prince William, and Arlington counties) has McDonnell tied with McAuliffe and Deeds and only 5 points behind Moran. For McDonnell to be competitive in an area Democrats need todominate is a very good sign.

McDonnell: 44%
McAuliffe: 44%

McDonnell: 43%
Deeds: 43%

McDonnell: 42%
Moran: 47%

The new fundraising numbers also are very good. The latest financial reports cover April 1st through May 27th. PWConservative sifted through the reports and McDonnell raised $3.7 million in that period and has $4.9 million cash on hand. He raised more than all the other Democrats combined in that period, and has over double the cash on hand than the Democrats combined.

Bolling has also enjoyed similar success fundraising over the past two months. He raised $448,000 over this period and has $928,000 cash on hand over three times more than the nearest candidate.

The RPV had a very energetic and unifying convention last weekend and the top of the ticket is polling well and fundraising well. Let's go door to door these weekends and make sure the GOP succeeds this fall.

Also Ken Cuccinelli has a significant fundraising gap to make up with Democrat Steve Shannon. Pleas consider donating to the Cuccinelli for Attorney General campaign.

Ken Cuccinelli
for Attorney General of Virginia
$

David Ray: Convention or Primary

The following is a repost of an article Shaun Kenney posted by State Central Committeeman David Ray. It is a thougtful, well researched, and thorough analysis of whether the RPV should continue to nominate its candidates by convention. It is a must read for anyone interested in how the RPV should nominate its candidates.

__________________________________________________

David Ray is a State Central Committee member from the 11th District and a staunch conservative. This is a rather lengthy and intense debate within the Republican Party of Virginia, and has long been a topic of coversation. Ray does an outstanding job of outlining the problem in its entirety, and distributed this work to most of the folks on Bloggers Row at the state convention.

I forward it with his permission here for your perusal (nay — you should print this and read over lunch this week) and consideration.

Convention vs. Primary?

This weekend, the Republican Party of Virginia will select its statewide nominees via a convention in Richmond, Virginia. The last time Virginia Republicans nominated a statewide ticket via convention was 2001, when we nominated Mark Earley for Governor, Jay Katzen for Lieutenant Governor, and Jerry Kilgore for Attorney General. Virginia Republicans nominated a candidate for U.S. Senate by convention last year, but the time before that was in 1994, at the legendary Oliver North convention in Richmond. Many of the delegates in attendance this weekend have never attended a nominating convention.

Since the Republican State Central Committee voted on March 8, 2008 to nominate its 2009 statewide ticket by convention, many grassroots activists have decided to participate in our convention. However, others have decried the decision to use a convention to select our nominees, instead of doing what parties do in most other states – nominate via primary.

Many folks, particularly from the more transient parts of Virginia, are perplexed at the decision to nominate via convention instead of via primary. Some are even angry at the decision.

This pamphlet seeks to lay out the respective cases for each method of nomination, and seeks to persuade the reader that the State Central Committee made the right decision in March 2008. The case for each method has both a practical and a philosophical component. This pamphlet will explore these components for each.

Before proceeding, a little history and background are in order. Prior to the 20th Century, party nominations were routinely decided by some form of convention, for everything from Governor and U.S. Senator to U.S. Representative to Mayor, Sheriff, or local prosecutor. The Progressive Era of the late 19th Century and early 20th Century ushered in various changes in American politics. Among these changes was the move to take nominations away from the political parties themselves and put such decisions in the hands of the general voting public. The method chosen to effect this change was the direct primary – a publicly conducted election in which registered voters actually chose the nominees for public office on behalf of the political party with which they most identified and/or sympathized. This move was pioneered first in Wisconsin, and by the mid 20th Century, primaries were the most common method of nomination for every partisan public office in nearly every state.

Some states still allow parties to use conventions (e.g., Delaware, New York, Virginia), some require candidates to pass a given convention threshold before being placed on a primary ballot (e.g., Connecticut, Massachusetts, Utah), some show favoritism to the convention process while leaving a primary bypass option (e.g., Colorado, Minnesota), and Iowa actually requires a nominee to be chosen by convention when no candidate receives a sufficient plurality in the primary. Michigan selects its Gubernatorial and U.S. Senate nominees by primary, but selects its lower statewide office nominees by convention, some weeks after the Gubernatorial primary. Pennsylvania uses conventions to select nominees only in special elections. Louisiana had no partisan primaries at all from 1975 to 2007.

Also, some states require primary voters to register their party identification with the state prior to being allowed to vote in a party’s primaries. Some states (like New Hampshire), while implementing such formal public registration, allow all voters, regardless of party, to vote in any primary they choose. This practice is called crossover voting. Other states allow only legally registered party members, as well as independents, to vote in a given party’s primaries, but bar legally registered members of other parties from voting in that party’s primaries. Still other states, including several former Confederate states (such as Virginia), have no legal party registration at all. In the case of non-party registration states, from a legal standpoint, there is no such thing as “crossover voting,” since no one, under the law, belongs to any particular political party, and primary elections are open to every voter.

Arguments for a primary

We’ll begin with the practical arguments for a primary. Primary advocates assert that primaries, given their inducement for participation by all registered voters, provide the winner with better name I.D. The thinking is that, in a primary, the candidates will spend money on paid media ads, the news media will devote more time and ink to covering the contest, the party will be spared any expense in conducting the contest (since the state fully funds the actual machinery of the primary election), and a successful primary candidate will have assembled a precinct by precinct operation to win the primary, thus giving him a ready-made organization for the Fall campaign, and a field-tested operation to boot. With all of these advantages, primary advocates say, any primary victor would have a better chance to win the general election. Finally, primary advocates assert that the rigors of a primary campaign, combined with successfully assembling a campaign organization, will most frequently lead to the nomination of the most electable candidate.

From the political party’s perspective, there are three general incentives to utilize primaries. The first two have already been discussed – the purportedly stronger general election candidate, and the husbanding of financial resources for the Fall campaign. The third item offered to parties by a primary, particularly in states that have no legal party registration, is the list of primary voters. The primary voter list ostensibly offers parties and their nominees a rich source of volunteers, donors, and eventually voters for the nominees in the general election.

The philosophical defense of primaries is that they are, at their core, more democratic, more reflective of the will of the electorate (or the partisan electorate, where participation is circumscribed by state law). The rationale here is that nominations should reflect the popular will instead of the will of a select few, such as party insiders, big wigs, or other “big boys” whose interests may diverge significantly from those of the general public. As such, primaries are seen as a way of taking the nomination decision out of the old smoke-filled rooms and placing it into the hands of the electorate.

Also, primaries are described by advocates as more inherently fair, since they are held at each voter’s local precinct voting location. They are viewed as more accessible, since they run most of a work day, during which state laws require employers to give employees time off, if necessary, to vote. This latter requirement makes them accessible to shift workers. Also, because of absentee voting, primaries are considered more accessible to the handicapped, the aged, those bound to a home or a hospital bed, all federal employees, and military personnel serving overseas. Finally, since nearly all states hold primaries on a day other than Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, they are more accessible to Christians and Jews who might abstain from participation on a Sabbath. (It should be noted that Tennessee primaries are held on a Thursday, and Louisiana holds all its elections, except federal general elections, on a Saturday.) These latter two arguments are the most emotionally compelling, since there is really no political capital to be gained advocating a nomination method that appears to discriminate against devout/observant religious adherents or soldiers fighting for our liberties overseas.

So, with a compelling one-two-three punch case like the one laid out above, who could possibly support nominating a candidate by any method other than a primary?

Arguments for a convention

Before we make the case, let’s define the term. What is a political convention? It is nothing more than the assembling and convening of a group of like-minded free citizens to make decisions on its own behalf, such as electing officers, nominating candidates, and/or adopting resolutions or a party platform.

Again, we’ll begin with the practical argument. Conventions are much more organizationally intensive than primaries. In a primary, candidates often focus exclusively on precincts where they are strongest. In a weighted convention (as we use in Virginia, and as most states which use conventions do), candidates can ill afford to write off any territory, since support lost in one precinct or county or city cannot be made up elsewhere. In a weighted convention, even the largest jurisdiction is limited in its overall percentage of the total votes needed to nominate, so a candidate needs to maximize his strength everywhere. Such maximization of strength makes it more likely the winner will be ready to repeat this exercise in the general election. While in the Fall a nominee may still revert to the practice of focusing primarily on his stronger areas, he will be better situated to maximize his turnout in his weaker areas as well.

Also, a list of convention delegates is overwhelmingly more valuable to the party and its nominees than a primary voter list for all of the following reasons. Primary lists are quite a bit larger than a convention delegate list. In 1993 and 1994, around 14,000 delegates participated in Republican statewide conventions. In 1996, nearly 500,000 Virginians voted in the Republican U.S. Senate primary. No campaign could begin to sift through 500,000 names to find the most likely volunteers or donors. No local party committee could remotely hope to cull from such an overwhelmingly large pool the folks most likely to become new committee members. In addition, especially in states like Virginia with no legal partisan voter registration, the primary list is riddled with crossovers, independents, and other voters who are only marginally engaged in the election. It is a foolish waste of any party’s or any nominee’s time to wade through such a list in its entirety, yet no method exists for narrowing this base to something more workable.

However, those willing to spend a Saturday (or an entire evening, when mass meetings or conventions occur on a weeknight) attending a convention are exponentially more likely to become future volunteers, donors, and/or local committee members. This pool provides even greater growth and strength to political parties and their future nominees. Strong county and city committees are indispensable to the long-term health of a party and its nominees. And party committees are strongest in states that use conventions (e.g., Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Virginia), and weakest where conventions are never used (e.g., California, Illinois, Maryland, Texas, Wisconsin). Sooner or later, regardless of the method of nomination employed, either a nominee is weaker than the party would like and/or it’s a bad year for that party. In such instances, there is absolutely no substitute for a strong, vibrant, well-organized, and well-heeled local party committee. Local party committees offer even the most poorly-funded nominee a ready-made volunteer campaign staff – something a primary list could never provide as quickly or as effectively. A strong local party committee can be ready for the Fall campaign by the morning after the convention. A primary list will always take weeks (if not months) to obtain, sift through, and draw volunteers from.

Candidates spend quite a bit less money in conventions than in primaries winning the nomination. This allows less well-funded candidates to be competitive (thus mitigating a well-funded candidates’ huge money advantage). This is true, given the more grassroots intensiveness of a convention campaign. Money simply does not tip the scales in favor of the richest candidate(s) in a convention as it does in a primary. Additionally, regardless of how well or poorly funded the winner is, more of his resources can be saved for the general election, when stockpiled funds are more valuable. Better to have more cash flow in October than to use the money for the nomination in the Spring. No contested nomination victory is free, but it’s pointless to bankrupt the nominee (via expensive media buys and mass mailings) just as he begins to gear up for the Fall campaign. And, while seeking the nomination, the money a candidate does spend goes more towards grassroots organizing – a more valuable Fall campaign tool – than to media outlets (most of whom favor Democrats) or consultants. No consultant fee ever won over a swing voter, but a broad-based grassroots campaign certainly can.

Granted, every nomination contest has the potential to be ugly and dirty. But, for all the hard feelings exposed in a tough convention campaign, these are magnified all the more when the fight is held in full public view via a scorched earth mudsling fest on television. Sure, candidates or their surrogates try to rough up their nomination opponents. What else is new? But it’s best to avoid airing dirty laundry outside the family as much as possible. Yes, the other party’s nominee can still drag your candidate through the mud in the Fall, but there’s no compelling reason to make his job easier.

For the political parties, conventions also provide a fundraising opportunity. Ads can be sold in a convention program, and various convention sponsorships can not only cover the cost of holding the convention, they can help give the party necessary funding to support the eventual nominees in the general election. In short, conventions make money.

Also, in Virginia, a convention offers a political party the ability to select its nominee at an earlier date than the primary, which is usually held the second Tuesday in June (except in redistricting years, during which legislative and county magisterial district nominations are usually held in either August or September). While the primary filing deadline is the second Friday in April, a convention deadline can be set months earlier. In 2007, the 29^th State Senate District Republican Committee set a filing deadline in January. Bob FitzSimmonds, the only candidate to file, knew he was the nominee in January and was thus able to begin preparing his Fall campaign 10 months out.

Finally, a convention offers a political party a way to ensure it does not have an absolutely unelectable nominee. If only one candidate runs in a convention, unopposed, the party retains the option of selecting no nominee whatsoever. Imagine if David Duke or Gail Parker were the only candidate to file in a primary. Under Virginia law, the party would be compelled to accept this person as its nominee. But in a convention, the delegates could always choose “no nominee.” Opting to reject the only candidate in a convention still allows the party to select a more acceptable nominee later.

So much for the practical reasons why a convention is better than a primary. Many may still prefer primaries to conventions, after weighing the comparative assets and demerits of each, from a practical standpoint. But the philosophical critique of primaries and the corresponding philosophical defense of conventions should eliminate all support for primaries.

First of all, conventions cost the taxpayer nothing. As the party of fiscal responsibility and reduced government spending, Republicans should embrace this saving of taxpayer funds.

Also, conventions allow political parties to exert more control over their own internal processes, especially regulating who participates in their nomination processes. While nothing short of having voters register party membership directly with the party itself will ever ensure there are no crossover participants, few Democrats are as likely to formally take part in a Republican convention (or vice versa) as they might be to cast an easy vote in a Republican primary. Ideally, each party ultimately should keep track of its own members and limit nomination decision-making only to its actual members. Lest this task seem too overwhelming, consider this: if the AFL-CIO, a national organization representing millions, can keep track of all its members for purposes of its own elections (electing union leadership, voting to approve labor contracts), then so can the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee.

Conventions allow parties to set their own criteria for who is and isn’t eligible to receive its nominations. Parties can set their own deadlines, filing fees, and any other requirements. Also, convention delegates have a realistic chance to meet all the candidates for office (something many primary voters never have). This dynamic allows delegates – those actually making the selection – the opportunity to take their measure of each candidate. While no method ensures that the a priori best candidate is chosen, people who have had sometimes multiple opportunities to meet a candidate are far better suited to deem which candidates would make the better general election nominee and the best public servant.

The single greatest reason primaries are terrible is their unjustified intrusion of state power into the internal affairs of a private association of free citizens voluntarily joined together in furtherance of a common agenda. The state has only ONE valid interest with respect to elections – ensuring that the general election be conducted honestly, and that the winner be eligible constitutionally to hold the office to which he has been elected. That is the beginning and the end of the state’s valid interests.

Imagine, if you will, the state government notifying the Club for Growth, the SEIU, the National Rifle Association, EMILY’s List, or the Virginia Society for Human Life that it would be regulating the endorsement process of each of these groups. Such regulation would include the qualifications for endorsement (such as years of membership in the group, the number of other supporters required to sign a qualifying petition, and even the amount of the filing fee to qualify), the window during which the groups might consider their endorsement options, the date on which the endorsements must be completed, the locations where the groups must conduct the selection process, and the hours of the day during which the formal selection process must occur. If government were to intrude this violently with the free choices of private organizations, we would expect lawsuits. And we would certainly be treated to passionate tirades against such government tyranny. Few Americans would feel there was any valid reason to trample upon the free association rights of a private organization.

For years, assorted public policy organizations have been assessing candidates for public office, and every cycle, these groups announce their endorsements. Each group has chosen the criteria needed to earn its endorsement, as well as the timing of such a choice. Some groups endorse earlier in the cycle than others. Some endorse in primaries. Some do not. And the endorsement decisions are not subject to any appeal. If, for example, Frank Wolf believes his record on the right to keep and bear arms has earned him the endorsement of Gun Owners of America, but GOA chooses to endorse Vern McKinley instead, that’s just the way it goes. Even if Frank Wolf believes a majority of GOA dues-paid members prefer him to Mr. McKinley, he cannot appeal GOA’s decision. Once the endorsement is made, it’s over. Frank Wolf is entitled only to try convincing the general public that his nearly 30 years of public service merit the reward of another 2-year term in the U.S. House of Representatives. And the time to submit himself to the electorate to pass on his case is on November 2, 2010 – not the arbitrary date of June 8, 2010 chosen by the state.

In the same way, no state has any justifiable or compelling interest in usurping a political party’s free association rights (a First Amendment right) by dictating qualifications for nomination of candidates, setting a filing fee, imposing an arbitrary petition signature requirement (including the ludicrous mandate than no fewer than 400 signatures come from each Congressional district, in the case of statewide candidates). If a political party wants to select a wholly unelectable candidate, or even an ineligible candidate, that is not any concern of the state.

The Progressive Era waned after the election of Sen. Warren G. Harding (R-Ohio) to the Presidency in 1920 – 89 years ago. But primaries remain with us to this day – and they’re defended by more than pie-in-the-sky reformers who dream of a political world in which no private interest interferes with the serious business of public policy. Primaries are also the overwhelmingly favorite method of nomination by incumbents. Incumbents, because of their past electoral success, always start out with better name I.D. than their nomination challengers. Because of their incumbency, they have better access to funding from outside sources than challengers. As noted above, these incumbency advantages are magnified in a primary, and they are correspondingly diminished in a convention. No wonder incumbents prefer primaries – they’re part of an incumbency protection scheme that the government (which they control) has furnished them.

Incumbents often see themselves as presumptively entitled to renomination. Regrettably, many party regulars share this view. However, incumbents are nothing more than other job applicants for the position they already hold. While incumbents are entitled to cite their experience in office as an asset, and party members are certainly free to consider incumbency when making a nomination decision, no incumbent has a right to renomination. Every incumbent needs to earn renomination every time his seat comes up for election. And no state law should skew the political landscape in favor of incumbents.

But, state laws are written for incumbents by incumbents. In Virginia, this incumbency protection racket has reached an even more insidious low. The Virginia Code, § 24.2-509 B, provides as follows:

“A party shall nominate its candidate for election for a General Assembly district where there in only one incumbent of that party for the district by the method designated by that incumbent … [emphasis added]. …A party, whose candidate at the immediately preceding election for a particular office other than the General Assembly (i) was nominated by a primary or filed for a primary but was not opposed and (ii) was elected at the general election, shall nominate a candidate for the next election for that office by a primary unless all incumbents of that party for that office consent to a different method [emphasis added].”

In layman’s terms, General Assembly incumbents can unilaterally dictate the method of their own renomination. All other incumbents must be nominated by a primary first in order to acquire the right to demand another primary. (All Republican members of Virginia’s Congressional delegation currently have this right, under the law.) Setting aside how this law could ever withstand Equal Protection scrutiny under the 14^th Amendment, it is unmistakable that the Virginia Code was specifically designed to benefit one class of candidates (incumbents) over all others. Thus it is, under Virginia law, that if a political party wants to make sure its incumbents (other than members of the General Assembly) are more accountable to the party that nominated them, then it needs to ensure that no such candidate is ever nominated by primary. No matter how beloved an incumbent might be among members of his own party, he remains nothing more than another applicant for his job. The state, therefore, must not confer on any incumbent an institutionally unfair advantage over his opponents. Nor should any incumbent, by securing a primary in his current re-election campaign, be able to ensure an unfair advantage over his opponents in the next election, or enjoy a unique legal power vis-a-vis his nomination challengers.

Besides the simple fairness of ensuring a more level playing field for all nomination contenders, incumbent and non-incumbent alike, conventions also ensure greater accountability from incumbents to the party that nominated them. Incumbents work for the people who elected them, after all, not the other way around. So it’s most appropriate that, if an incumbent wishes to serve another term, he should have to seek renomination from the actual party activists who worked to elect him before. Conventions subject incumbents to greater party scrutiny. They also ensure that an incumbent who has strayed too far from the party’s principles has to face directly, in person, more of the party members he has betrayed. An incumbent who realizes his party’s activists will be deciding whether or not to renominate him may, in turn, be less likely to stray from the party’s platform.

A nomination, after all, is a gift bestowed on a candidate by a party – not an entitlement. The nomination ultimately belongs to the party conferring it – not the candidate receiving it and not the general public.

This latter point is why, no matter how sympathetic the plight of the shift workers, the homebound, the religious adherents, or the military personnel, there is no compelling reason for any government (federal, state, or local) to dictate and regulate how, when, if, or on whom a party may confer its official endorsement (i.e., its nomination) for public office, because there is no right held by members of the general public to participate in the internal processes of a private organization. No voting citizen would assert he has the right, under the law or the Constitution, to help the Sierra Club pick its endorsees. Correspondingly, no voting citizen has any such right to help a political party choose its nominees.

Now, lest someone envision horror stories of political parties excluding blacks, Catholics, Jews, or some other targeted group, the reality is that, if a political party wants to be electorally viable, it needs to include each of these groups, as well as any other citizens who might otherwise sympathize with its agenda. But this is a political concern – not a legal one. If a political party began excluding people from participation for bigoted reasons, it would ultimately be eradicated from the political landscape, or relegated to irrelevant status. Government has no valid state interest in maintaining the viability of any political party. Government didn’t create political parties, and it has no business seeking to sustain them or seeking to ensure they only nominate credible nominees.

In sum, conventions, which are conducted completely by private entities to transact a private internal matter, are not on trial. Primaries are. Setting aside all the respective merits of the practical justifications for a primary, the question needs to be asked: what is the compelling state interest that justifies denying a political party its First Amendment free association right to control its own internal decision-making processes? The simple answer is, there is none. Primaries are a gross violation of a fundamental constitutional liberty – free association. Thus, primaries should be abolished.

Frequently, when party committees debate whether to use a convention or a primary, each side tries to “prove” its method is better, based on electoral history. The chart below provides a fairly extensive (though not necessarily comprehensive) list of federal and statewide nominees who won a contested nomination race in Virginia since 1977. In some races, like Jay Katzen’s 2001 Lieutenant Governor race, the other contestants withdrew before the nomination was decided, but the winner did emerge from what was at one time a contested race. Such winners are included here. Convention and primary “winners” are those who won the general election. Convention and primary “losers” are those who did not. Primaries produced about as many winners as losers, while conventions yielded far more losers than winners. However, it should be noted that only one convention winner (among 21) was an incumbent – Rep. Tom Davis (R-11) in 1996. Meanwhile, the list of primary winners contains 6 incumbents (among 22) – Sen. Chuck Robb (D) in 1994, Sen. John Warner (R) in 1996, Rep. Herb Bateman (R-1) in 1996, Rep. Jim Moran (D-8) in 2004 and 2008, and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-10) in 2008. Finally, among the 41 convention losers, 19 of them lost to a candidate also nominated by convention. These 19 losers, shown below in bold, are effectively a wash. Of the remaining 22 convention losers, 20 were running against an incumbent (designated with an asterisk (*)). No incumbent federal office holder in Virginia has been denied renomination since 1966, when two incumbent Democrats lost primaries – Sen. A. Willis Robertson and Rep. Howard W. Smith (8). Sen. Robertson is the only incumbent statewide office holder in Virginia to lose renomination since 1901.

Convention winners (21):

Marshall Coleman (R), 1977 Attorney General

Tom Bliley (R), 1980 U.S. Representative 3

Dick Davis (D), 1981 Lieutenant Governor

Jerry Baliles (D), 1981 Attorney General

Jim Olin (D), 1982 U.S. Representative 6

French Slaughter, Jr. (R), 1984 U.S. Representative 7

Jerry Baliles (D), 1985 Governor

Lewis Payne (D), 1988 U.S. Representative 5

Chuck Robb (D), 1988 U.S. Senate

Doug Wilder (D), 1989 Governor

George Allen (R), 1991 U.S. Representative 7

Bob Goodlatte (R), 1992 U.S. Representative 6

Leslie Byrne (D), 1992 U.S. Representative 11

George Allen (R), 1993 Governor

Jim Gilmore (R), 1993 Attorney General

Tom Davis (R), 1994 U.S. Representative 11

Tom Davis (R), 1996 U.S. Representative 11

Randy Forbes (R), 2001 U.S. Representative 4

Jerry Kilgore (R), 2001 Attorney General

Rob Wittman (R), 2007 U.S. Representative 1

Tom Periello (D), 2008 U.S. Representative 5

Convention losers (41):

Joe Canada (R), 1977 Lieutenant Governor

Andy Miller (D), 1978 U.S. Senate

Nathan Miller (R), 1981 Lieutenant Governor

Dick Davis (D), 1982 U.S. Senate

Kevin Miller (R), 1982 U.S. Representative 6

Edie Harrison (D), 1984 U.S. Senate*

Lou Costello (D), 1984 U.S. Representative 7

Wyatt Durrette (R), 1985 Governor

John Chichester (R), 1985 Lieutenant Governor

Buster O’Brien (R), 1985 Attorney General

Linda Arey (R), 1988 U.S. Representative 5

Maurice Dawkins (R), 1988 U.S. Senate

Jerry Curry (R), 1988 U.S. Representative 2*

Kay Slaughter (D), 1991 U.S. Representative 7

Jim Chapman (R), 1992 U.S. Representative 2*

Steve Musselwhite (D), 1992 U.S. Representative 6

Gary Weddle (R), 1992 U.S. Representative 9*

Mike Farris (R), 1993 Lieutenant Governor*

Bill Dolan (D), 1993 Attorney General

Ollie North (R), 1994 U.S. Senate*

George Landrith, III (R), 1994 U.S. Representative 5*

Mark Warner (D), 1996 U.S. Senate*

John Tate (R), 1996 U.S. Representative 2*

John Otey (R), 1996 U.S. Representative 8*

Lewis Payne (D), 1997 Lieutenant Governor

Joe Barta (R), 1998 U.S. Representative 9*

Cornell Brooks (D), 1998 U.S. Representative 10*

Lawrence Davies (D), 2000 U.S. Representative 1

John Boyd (D), 2000 U.S. Representative 5*

Demaris Miller (R), 2000 U.S. Representative 8*

Mike Corrigan (D), 2000 U.S. Representative 11*

Louise Lucas (D), 2001 U.S. Representative 4

Mark Earley (R), 2001 Governor

Jay Katzen (R), 2001 Lieutenant Governor

Meredith Richards (D), 2002 U.S. Representative 5*

Lisa Marie Cheney (R), 2004 U.S. Representative 8*

Shawn O’Donnell (D), 2006 U.S. Representative 1*

Al Weed (D), 2006 U.S. Representative 5*

Philip Forgit (D), 2007 U.S. Representative 1

Jim Gilmore (R), 2008 U.S. Senate

Sam Rasoul (D), 2008 U.S. Representative 6*

Primary winners (22):

Chuck Robb (D), 1977 Lieutenant Governor

Stan Parris (R), 1980 U.S. Representative 8

Frank Wolf (R), 1980 U.S. Representative 10

Don Beyer (D), 1989 Lieutenant Governor

Bobby Scott (D), 1992 U.S. Representative 3

Chuck Robb (D), 1994 U.S. Senate

John Warner (R), 1996 U.S. Senate

Herb Bateman (R), 1996 U.S. Representative 1

John Hager (R), 1997 Lieutenant Governor

Mark Earley (R), 1997 Attorney General

Jo Ann Davis (R), 2000 U.S. Representative 1

Eric Cantor (R), 2000 U.S. Representative 7

Mark Warner (D), 2001 Governor

Tim Kaine (D), 2001 Lieutenant Governor

Jim Moran (D), 2004 U.S. Representative 8

Bill Bolling (R), 2005 Lieutenant Governor

Bob McDonnell (R), 2005 Attorney General

Jim Webb (D), 2006 U.S. Senate

Mark Warner (D), 2008 U.S. Senate

Jim Moran (D), 2008 U.S. Representative 8

Frank Wolf (R), 2008 U.S. Representative, 10

Gerry Connolly (D), 2008 U.S. Representative 11

Primary losers (23):

Henry Howell (D), 1977 Governor

Ed Lane (D), 1977 Attorney General

Jack Herrity (R), 1978 U.S. Representative 8

Ira Lechner (D), 1982 U.S. Representative 10

Dick Saslaw (D), 1984 U.S. Representative 8

John Flannery (D), 1984 U.S. Representative 10

Bob Weinberg (D), 1988 U.S. Representative 10

Marshall Coleman (R), 1989 Governor

Kyle McSlarrow (R), 1992 U.S. Representative 8

Henry Butler (R), 1992 U.S. Representative 11

Jim Chapman (R), 1994 U.S. Representative 2

Demaris Milller (R), 1998 U.S. Representative 8

Don McEachin (D), 2001 Attorney General

Jerry Kilgore (R), 2005 Governor

Leslie Byrne (D), 2005 Lieutenant Governor

Creigh Deeds (D), 2005 Attorney General

Phil Kellam (D), 2006 U.S. Representative 2

Tom O’Donoghue (R), 2006 U.S. Representative 8

Andy Hurst (D), 2006 U.S. Representative 11

Anita Hartke (D), 2008 U.S. Representative 7

Mark Elmore (R), U.S. Representative 8

Judy Feder (D), U.S. Representative 10

Keith Fimian (R), U.S. Representative 11

---

A note here about weighted conventions. Many may wonder how each city and county in Virginia is assigned its respective convention weight by the Republican Party. Weights are calculated based on a formula measuring how well past GOP Presidential and Gubernatorial nominees performed in that city or county. Because of this formula, there is an added incentive for local GOP committees to work even harder to increase favorable turnout for the Presidential and Gubernatorial nominees.

It should be noted that this year’s Virginia Republican convention has already made a profit.