Tomorrow is election day, and we’ve marshalled all of our volunteers to cover the polls and make the final push – your help would be an incredible boost. If you can help, please email Tyee Davenport at tyee.davenport@jodyforva.com right away.

If you can’t make it out to volunteer, a last-minute contribution will help us get our volunteers into position and our voters to the polls. The more resources we have, the better job we can do tomorrow. In the last four years, we’ve seen race after race that was so close that a winner wasn’t declared until well after election night.

To contribute, please go to our ActBlue page right now.

Your action could be the one that puts us over the top – we’re not going to stop fighting until all the polls are closed and all the votes have been counted.

- Jody
__________________________________________

 A strong leader needs three things: A vision, the ability to bring people together behind that vision, and the skills to see it through. Jody Wagner has all three.

Please support Jody with a contribution today.

As a member of Tim Kaine and my senior leadership teams, she’s proven she’s got the vision to help make us best managed state, best state for business, and the best state for a child’s lifetime success. When she brought Democrats and Republicans together to pass a plan that’s putting people to work improving infrastructure at our colleges and universities, she proved she can bring people together. And when she helped me eliminate the deficit and balance the budget in 2002, she proved she’s got the skills to get the job done.

Jody’s not just a strong leader. She’s a mom who’s raised four kids in Virginia and knows how important education is in keeping us on top. And she’s built a small business – again, right here in Virginia – so she knows what it takes to create jobs and grow our economy.

Jody’s accomplishments, along with your support, have given her momentum in this race. Meanwhile, her opponent is getting more and more desperate in his attacks.

Today, you can help ensure tomorrow’s success with a contribution that will help get our volunteers in position and ensure that no one votes without hearing about Jody’s record.

Please give today for a win tomorrow.

- Senator Mark Warner

 Contributions or gifts to Virginians for Wagner are not tax deductible.

Editorial: Wagner for lt. governor
The Democratic candidate can bring a trove of useful knowledge and experience to the job.
 
 Voters merely following the negative ad war in Virginia’s lieutenant governor’s race are missing the real picture: The lesser-known candidate, Democrat Jody Wagner, is by far the stronger choice.
 We endorse her over Republican incumbent Bill Bolling, who, having spent his term waiting in line to run for governor, was outfoxed for this year’s top spot on the GOP ticket and is looking for another four-year place-holder.
 Wagner, who herself talks more like a gubernatorial candidate, has more to recommend her for the job.
A former corporate lawyer, then a successful Tidewater small businesswoman, Wagner was state treasurer in the Mark Warner administration, where she turned her razor-sharp mind to getting Virginia’s fiscal house back in order. Warner had inherited a wildly popular, but disastrously conceived car-tax relief program that proved such a drain on state coffers it put the state’s triple-A bond rating at risk.
 She brought the same nonpartisan fiscal discipline that was the hallmark of those years to the job of secretary of finance under Gov. Tim Kaine before resigning earlier this year to run for lieutenant governor.
 The job is part time, its official duties limited to presiding over the state Senate, casting tie-breaking votes and serving on a few commissions. It also can be a stepping-stone, though, to the governor’s mansion, and for that reason, if no other, voters should give careful consideration to their choice.
 Unfortunately, Wagner has been drawn into responding in kind to Bolling’s political attacks, in which he ridiculously lays blame at her door for Virginia’s revenue shortfalls — due entirely to the global recession, not any lack of foresight on her part.
 Rather, Virginia’s relatively strong fiscal standing among the nation’s recession-wracked states is evidence of how prudently it has been managed during the Warner-Kaine years.
 For her part, Wagner repeatedly hits the Republican for skipping almost all the meetings of various boards and commissions on which the lieutenant governor has a seat — criticism that at least has the virtue of being true, but contributes to a nasty tone this election season.
 We can understand why Bolling, who declined to meet with our editorial board, went on the attack. We can think of nothing he has done since trading in his state Senate seat to suggest he should keep his current job.
 Wagner, though, has positives to talk about.
 Her role, for instance, in working with House and Senate conferees this year to get a deal on Kaine’s higher education bond package, which included money to build the Virginia Tech Carilion Medical School in Roanoke.
 Wagner has a detailed knowledge of the state budget and a realistic grasp of Virginia’s needs for economic development, education and transportation. As lieutenant governor, she says, she’d put her energy into working with lawmakers to push forward on these fronts.
 Put Wagner to work helping Virginia get through these bruising economic times. Vote for her on Nov. 3.

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/223949

Friends,

They’re bailing as fast as they can! We’ve been shown two polls in the last week that have this race within a single point, and we know that our opponents are worried about Bill Bolling because after the RNC’s $50,000 contribution, the Republican State Leadership Committee just added $25,000 and Bob McDonnell just transferred $25,000 from his campaign to Bolling’s.

We’ve got a meeting tomorrow at 4pm to make our final media spending decisions for the campaign because that’s the deadline for setting our advertising levels – the deadline is the exact reason why national Republicans are choosing right now to try and bolster Bill Bolling’s failing campaign.   The Bolling campaign is counting on this new money to make the difference and allow them to drown out our voices with TV ads in the final week of this campaign.    We simply can’t let that happen, and we need your help – your contribution – right away to fight back.

- Jody

Please give now at www.jodyforva.com or Act Blue.

The Washington Post

Jody Wagner for lieutenant governor
In Virginia, a problem-solver is a better bet than a pol.

Monday, October 19, 2009

JODY WAGNER, Virginia’s former secretary of finance, is the sort of Democrat that helped cement the Old Dominion’s status as among the cleanest, best managed and most business-friendly states in the country. She is easily the better choice as Virginia’s next lieutenant governor and would represent a sharp improvement over the incumbent Republican seeking reelection, Bill Bolling.

In Virginia, the real importance of the job of lieutenant governor — the reason the job is sought after — is not in presiding over the state Senate, attending functions or serving on a handful of boards and commissions. Rather, the person who wins the job has a plausible claim to standing in the on-deck circle for the governorship four years hence. Just ask Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D), or, as he was known four years ago, Lt. Gov. Kaine.

Smart, tough-minded and capable, Ms. Wagner would be among the best-prepared public officials to assume the job. A former corporate lawyer, she started a successful family business (making kettle corn) before going to work for then-Gov. Mark R. Warner (D). Then, as Mr. Kaine’s finance secretary — she resigned this year to launch her campaign — she developed an authoritative command of state government, spending and income, critical knowledge for the challenges posed by the recession.

Unlike the usual run of officeholders in Richmond, she is more pragmatist and problem-solver than partisan political warrior. As the only one of the six statewide candidates to have had hands-on experience with the state’s budget, she would be uniquely well placed to serve as a resource for whichever candidate is elected governor.

Mr. Bolling, by contrast, has been a politician for almost 20 years. He had every intention of running for governor this year, but was outmaneuvered by fellow Republican Robert F. McDonnell, the former attorney general. He is a quick-witted and affable fellow but more attuned to political expediency than the actual business of governance.

A conservative lawmaker before he was elected lieutenant governor four years ago, Mr. Bolling voted for some of the more ambitious spending packages in the state’s history, particularly ones proposed by Republican governors during the dotcom boom. Now he attacks Virginia’s outlays as having been profligate. He opposed Mr. Warner’s tax increase in 2004, a large chunk of which went to boost public schools. Now he talks about the vital importance of an enormous increase in teacher salaries.

Of particular interest to Northern Virginia, his ideas on transportation funding are patently unworkable. He proposes raiding already bare-bones core state services to pay for transportation but bobs, weaves and ducks when pressed to say which ones — education? public safety? human services? health? — he would target.

First, here’s a link to a post by Change Commission member Suzi LeVine from Washington State, courtesy of Josh Putnam at Frontloading HQ, which provides detailed notes from the meeting.  Suzi’s observations are interesting because Washington is a caucus state and thus she can address issues that those of us from formerly-caucus states have tried to block out of our minds forever.  See also post on superdelegates (i.e. , automatic unpledged delegates) at DemConWatch.

Second, here’s a link to the materials provided at the meeting.  Thanks as always to DNC Director of the Office of Party Affairs and Delegate Selection (Virginian) Patrice Taylor who does an excellent job with these meeting and issues, as well as being a nice person, and the rest of the excellent DNC staff.  Note: There is a file embedded within this post, please visit this post to download the file.

I.    TIMING

Recall that the Convention resolution setting upon the Commission mandates:  (1) no primaries earlier than the first Tuesday in March for most states; (2) the first Tuesday in February as opening day for pre-window states (IA, NH, SC, NV); (3) examination of  front-loading; (4) examination of enforcement of  rules on timing; (5) consideration of RNC revisions.

Roberts reported that Chairman Kaine has had productive discussions with RNC Chairman Steele re timing issues.  Roberts then offered  addressed some proposed  options re timing – (1) would encourage (but not require) regional clusters of primaries, with bonus delegates to encourage clusters; (2) no discussion of clusters, but bonus delegates for moving back in the calendar.

Bonus issues – in 2008, there was a 10% bonus for staying in the May-June 10 period, and 30% bonus for moving back.  Commission Chair Clyburn discussed other incentives, including convention seating and hotel selection.

Primary process length – members wanted to spread out the delegate selection process – e.g., limit the number of delegates elected during a period of time.   The DNC could set certain number of delegates to be selected at each week.  On the other hand, we don’t want to drag out process too long and allow the GOP to finish up early and give their candidate too big a head start. 

Regional clusters  – make it easier for candidates to reach voters.   Del. McClellan argued that regional primaries incentivize volunteers, build enthusiasm, raise money, and allow voters to see candidates in neighboring states; you can be relevant without being first.   A member from NM raised a concern about  small states clustering with large states, but  Jeff Berman responded that it’s not mandatory, it is up to each state to make decisions.  Note that we need to be realistic about dealing with state legislatures, and have appropriate enforcement mechanisms.

II.   SUPER DELEGATES

The Convention resolution called for a significant reduction in the number of super delegates (SDs)  and reflection of voter preferences.

In 2008, there were 900 SDs – 19% of convention – DNC – 445, Congress – 300, Govs – 30, distinguished party leaders – 22, unpledged  add-on – 80.

Patrice Taylor, DNC staff, suggested four options.  All involved eliminating the unpledged add-on positions (which I have never understood) and making the following changes:  Option 1 – make all SDs non-voting; Option 2 – reduce the number of SD by 40%-50%; Option 3 – expand the elected PLEO category, with priority given to Congress, DNC members; Option 4- All SDs would be automatic pledged delegates.  (The RBC would determine how they would be pledged.)

Other proposals included increasing the number of elected delegates, but this  would mean a larger convention and might pose logistical problems; and keeping the  same number of SDs – but giving them each a 1/2 vote.

Cong. Clyburn indicated that this it isn’t just about the convention – it’s about including elected officials in the whole process, but suggested that providing members of Congress with non-voting Honored Guest status might be acceptable.  Congressional Democrats should be heard on this issue.

Jeff Berman suggested that  statewide elected officials (Governors and Senators) continue as automatic/unpledged, pledged PLEOs will be voting delegates, and there would be  automatic honored guests for others.

The prevailing view seemed to be that we want to send message that we want to honor voters and not have a category of delegates who might unravel the process.  It is now out of control.

Del. McClellan suggested that party chairs, should stay unpledged so as to be perceived as unbiased.   She suggested that DNC members should be automatic, but pledged delegates.   Another suggestion was to have unpledged delegates announce their preference at the time of their state primary.

III.  CAUCUSES

19 states and territories have caucuses

Suggested Options:  (1) develop best practices guide and (2) develop best practices guide  and direct RBC to measure caucus stat adherence to best practices.  Jeff Berman spoke in favor of an assessment process, whereby the RBC would make sure that key pieces were in place, when approving delegate selection plan. 

There was continued discussion of absentee, diversity, and participation issues.

The Commission was given documents regarding primary calendars, including those provided by state statute, and a map of caucus states.

I.  TIMING – the resolution setting up the Commission provided that the process should not begin until the first Tuesday in March, except states which are allowed to go earlier, and those must be after Feb.  1.

The DNC allowed for submission of comments by email and some were presented – including suggestions for regional primaries, rotating regional primaries, spreading out primaries, and praise for the Potomac Primary.

Curtis Gans, Director of the Study of the American Electorate at American University made a presentation.  He criticized the 1988 Super Tuesday Southern primary for starting the race to early primaries; this resulted in a process based on “state selfishness.”  It is more important to select the best person to be president than for a state to get more attention.   He recommended a bipartisan, durable system with less frontloading and less moving around.  He recommended starting with smaller, diverse, individual primaries, and a spread-out process – not regional primaries.   Regional primaries may result in different candidates representing different regions and split the party.  He opposes a rotation where it all changes every four years.  He favors a long process which worked this year, allowing candidates flexibility to skip certain states, 20-day filing deadlines to allow new candidates to file.   Spread out individual primaries will encourage grassroots and discourage negative campaigning – if you have 20 primaries on one day, you need to rely on negative TV.  He would prefer to start the whole process in March, but is okay with IA, NH, SC, and NV going early — it worked well in 2008.   In response to a question from Jeff Berman, he stated that there is an opportunity for cooperation with RNC in setting calendar and the GOP is likely to agree on starting date.

Hon. Dan Blue (Comm. Member, NC State Senator) – late primaries can be good.   In 2008, NC linked the presidential primary with state office primaries, the late primary got a lot of attention, and Obama and Democratic candidates won in November.  Grouping of 29 states on the same day is crazy – you need to break it up, spread out process. 

Note – It was claimed that most states have presidential and state primaries on the same day, but it’s not clear that this is true and certainly hasn’t been true in Virginia.

Hon. Jennifer McClellan (Comm. Member, Va. House, DPVA Vice Chair for Org) – Jennifer started by putting in a plug for Virginia’s  statewide candidates.  Virginia is unique – elections every year – the primary season is a kick off to a two year election cycle that can impact our governor’s race (the following year).  Having a primary that counts (with candidates coming in) motivates our base and raises money for both years.  The Potomac primary was helpful – same media market (most expensive, most voters in DC).  The only way that works was because that region was the only one having a primary.  She also noted the obstacles posed by state law and the need for a bipartisan approach – we cannot afford to run our own primary and other states are similarly situated.  Need to respect the role of the state legislature and parties. 

My thoughts:   The most important point re timing is that the DNC (even with the RNC) does not have the power to set a single primary date and is not writing on a blank slate.   State legislatures set primary schedules and proposed changes need to account for political realities – like IA and NH are going to go first.  Thus I believe that a rotating process, consisting of changing dates in every state every four years is a non-starter.  Super regional primaries, that don’t change, do run the risk of favoring candidates from certain regions (although famously this was not the case in the 1988 Super Tuesday Southern primary).  Mini-regional primaries, like last year’s Potomac Primary (VA, DC, MD), allow campaigns to focus their resources and states should consider such groupings.  As to the basic schedule – a long term process, starting in March for most states (with the now traditional early states of IA, NH, SC, and NV going after Feb. 1) makes sense.  Spreading out primaries, using bonus delegates, as was the case with NC and other states this year also allows for a full vetting of candidates and should result in a better choice.

II.  SUPER-DELEGATES – Commission resolution called for reduction in number and having delegates reflect the will of the voters.

E-comments – too many super delegates, their votes should be worth less than elected delegates, should reflect voter choices, elected officials should be allowed to participate without running against grassroots, candidates shouldn’t spend time wooing super delegates, all should be pledged.

Don Fowler (SC, former DNC Chair) — automatic unpledged delegates is the appropriate term (DNC has never used the term Super Delegate).  He supports having them, but the number and percentage is much too large and should be reduced.  These delegates are there for a reason other than selection of candidates – their guidance is helpful in addressing party issues.   Established by Hunt Commission (after 1980) to provide leadership, guidance, and counsel if there is a crisis; it was never intended that SDs would override voter’s choices.  There are now twice as many as there were initially; now all Congress, DNC has grown (over 400) — now 17% of the total delegates are SDs.  He recommends limiting DNC to Chair and 1st VC of each state, DNC national elected officers (120); Congress limited to only committee chairs or ranking members (and maybe subcommittee chairs or ranking members ) (150); keep governors (30), distinguished party leaders (25).   This would reduce total from 900 to 300 super delegates.  He noted that it would take a lot of political work at DNC.   He recommended that the Commission take a long range look at process, not just a response to 2008.

Other comments:  Another approach is to keep automatic delegates, but make them pledged – this would  be helpful to keep elected officials involved in party processes.;  Fowler would keep them unpledged.  It was a mistake to force members of congress and party leaders to have to run as delegates.  In 1984, there was a congressional caucus to chose SD members of Congress – this was essentially the first primary and helped Mondale.  We don’t want to go back to that process. 
Jennifer McClellan raised the concern that you might have states with no congress people in leadership positions and therefore no representation  – you could have members of Congress as additional automatic delegates, but have them pledged.  Fowler disagreed with this approach because it would put pressure on members of Congress to vote for candidates that they did not favor.   Fowler rejected the suggestion  that members be allowed to attend, but have no vote  – that’s what we had before 1984 and most didn’t attend.

My thoughts:  I think Fowler’s proposal is a good start – it could be augmented by expanding the number of PLEO (party leader and elected official) slots which are pledged, by e.g., an additional 140 members.   This would cut the number  of unpledged SDs by 2/3 and the total number by ½.

III.  CAUCUSES – Commission Resolution called for DNC criteria for caucus processes to  ensure adequate planning and staffing, setting of times and location to ensure full participation, use appropriate balloting measures, allow candidates to communicate with pledged participants, and encourage greater participating including absentee.

E-comments – initially confusing, but was an exciting process; caucuses allow greater participation; should have absentee participation; need space to accommodate everyone.

Larry Gates (Comm. Member, Kansas DP chair) – There are 18 caucus jurisdictions (14 states).  We need to encourage greater participation – absentee system.   In some states, state legislatures simply don’t want to fund primaries, so that’s what we have to do.

How would absentee work – if it is an assembled caucus, you would allow a proxy (I don’t like that idea), or move all to Saturday (that poses problems too – some people work on Saturday and poses a problem for some religious voters).  Concern that absentee participation negates the point of caucuses.  Gates suggests that it would not be no excuse absentee voting – need a reason.

Concern – too many different formats – suggest greater uniformity, which will allow better training, less confusion – e.g. Iowa is very different from Texas.  Note – there are different types – assembled (IA), unassembled or firehouse where vote and leave (old VA way), coordinate with primary (TX two step).
Concern about lack of secret ballot – but some states (IA) like the open process.

My thoughts – From a Virginia perspective, we used to have assembled caucuses (1980 and earlier), then unassembled caucuses (prior to 2004) –both were confusing, severely limited participation, and generally terrible processes that I would never want to do again.   If other states want to do it (IA) or if that’s the only choice because the legislature won’t give you a compliant primary, then they will still be used.  Greater standardization is a good idea, but states should be allowed flexibility to use the processes with which they are comfortable.

Lunch recess until 1:30.