Let’s first dispense with the ‘just the facts’ portion of this magnum opus:
http://elections.delaware.gov/results/html/election.shtml.
Now let me tell you what I think about those facts:
1. The Gordon machine was the single most effective game-changer during the primary.
Gordon/Bullock/Dennis P. Williams/KWS, for starters. Slates can still work if there are the bodies to work for those slates. Assuming Gordon is elected, and I think he will be, you can look for a more ‘city-centric’ county government. Specifically, I have to think that there is already at least some sort of implicit understanding that county police will assist Mayor Williams in addressing some of the city’s ongoing violent crime issues. Now, whether this turns out to be a good thing remains to be seen. BTW, I know that some of my like-minded colleagues believe that Gordon and/or KWS can be defeated in November. I think it’s unlikely. Why? Obama, blue state, presidential year, lots more D’s, discouraged R’s, so-called ‘lower-information voters’ who tend to vote straight tickets. I think Gordon is more secure than KWS. He did, after all, get something like 45% in a 4-way primary, while KWS got 33% in a 4-way primary. IC candidate Mobley’s at least got a shot. Mark Blake? I’m thinking not so much.
2. For once, Wilmington really made the difference this year.
You know that old saw about the ‘exception that proves the rule’? This year, Wilmington voters made the difference in several races. Turnout was significantly higher than normal in the City, and significantly higher than in other subdivisions throughout the state. The impact was most profound on the county races. As we know, elections have consequences. Which is why I, for one, will have no problem if the county partners with the city more than had happened under Paul Clark. Wilmington could use the assistance and, oh, did I mention that elections have consequences?
3. Grassroots campaigns work, and they cost a lot less than the alternative.
That’s why Bryan Townsend was likely outspent 4-1 by Tony DeLuca, and still got 58% of the vote. It probably would have been over 70% of the vote had it not been for the self-styled power brokers who circled the wagons around Tiny Tony. Now, let me explain what I mean by a grassroots campaign. They are volunteer/candidate-driven campaigns run from the ground up. The candidate and volunteers directly interact with the voters, persuade voters through multiple direct contacts, identify supporters, and get them out to vote/volunteer on election day. One huge plus with grassroots campaigns is that you effectively expand your volunteer base as you’re ID’ing voters. Jack Markell ran a grassroots operation in 2008, which is why he was able to defeat the top-down endorsement-laden campaign of John Carney. I firmly believe that, had Mitch Crane’s campaign harnessed the enthusiastic volunteers who were excited by his candidacy, he easily would have won the IC race. Anyway, that grassroots organization is firmly in place for Bryan Townsend, which is one reason why I expect him to win handily in November.
4. Jack Markell is in danger of becoming a Drawbridge Democrat.
When you develop and harness an enthusiastic grassroots volunteer organization, and when you become everything you ran against the next time around and effectively turn your back on the grassroots that got you elected, you shouldn’t expect to retain grassroots support. People feel like they were used. You want to be the imperious Overlord and lift up the drawbridge after you’ve been granted entry to the castle? Fine. Just don’t look for us to canvass, make calls, write letters, etc. This year, Jack became what he campaigned against in 2008. More than a little of his luster has been lost as a result. Something tells me that the Jack Pack will be travellin’ a lot lighter this year. On merit.
5. Kind of a corollary to #2: Tons of lit cannot compensate for personal unpopularity.
Both Paul Clark and Tony DeLuca demonstrated this truism. And they had no grassroots campaign to compensate. I do consider the Gordon campaign to be a grassroots effort, as he had enthusiastic supporters who went out and worked for him. Granted, many of them represented organized constituencies, but they were enthusiastic and they campaigned like it. As far as lit, I think that the $$’s spent in the Gordon/Clark race were largely wasted. There was a point where even I stopped looking and just tossrd the stuff away. If the lit isn’t moving voters, then more and more lit won’t move them either. I’m not disparaging the use of campaign literature (one of the best oxymorons of all time). Used judiciously, it’s an effective component of a well-rounded campaign. I’m just pointing out that it is no substitute for a real outreach campaign. As Tony DeLuca learned.
6. Primaries are GOOD.
This probably should be #1. I want choices. I don’t want a party to dictate my choices to me. As a progressive and someone who despises the incestuousness of the Delaware Way, I want to vote for candidates who offer up the possibility of credible change. While I did not get that choice in every single race this time around, I had enough options to make me want to come out to vote. I think they’re good for the Party. Even though turnouts are relatively small, they’re not microscopic as we saw on the R side. They galvanize volunteers, they help prepare volunteers for bigger roles in electoral politics down the line, they keep voters interested, and they keep politicians, um, as honest as they can be. Participatory democracy requires the opportunity to participate. And, for all this talk about fissures in the Party, I see very little irreparable wreckage coming out of the primaries.
7. My best and worst picks.
I clearly missed big with Taschner vs. Bullock. Did not understand the degree to which Gordon/Bullock ran as a ticket and, as previously stated, completely underestimated the city turnout. Since Bullock has generally been more, um, contemplative (read: not scorched earth) about how to deal with the city’s crime problem than many, he could play an important role in lending some, um, restraint to plans on how to address that problem.
Townsend over DeLuca, clearly. I hedged my bets on the numbers (53-47) only b/c I just couldn’t predict what impact the Delaware Way despots would have on the race. But, everything I saw suggested that it would be a wider gap than that, and it was, 58-42.
Overall record: 22-5 (.815). Other incorrect picks: IC, SD 19 (I had Booth over Bodie), RD 23 (I had Jerry Grant over Paul Baumbach), and RD 40 (I had Adkins over Lowe in a meaningless primary).
That’s it for this week. What did I miss, and whaddayathink?