American voters complain about candidate quality and money in politics. Ben Litchfield's 2023 primary provides a lens into why people vote against the types of candidates they say they want.
Leaves out the elephant in the room, which was Monica Gary siphoning off enough votes from Griffin to throw the election to Durant. Rather a glaring omission, I'd have to say. And "electability" is a totally valid reason for voting for, or not for, a candidate. Ben's a good guy. He's a great guy, actually. But the other story behind the story is that Monica was the first potential candidate approached by the Democratic party about running as their nominee. Griffin was the second choice. If Minica had agreed, instead of insisting on maintaining her independent status, it would have been a totally different race all over again.
We can thank Senator Scott Surovell for recruiting Gary & Griffin who effectively split the non-GOP vote. Thank you Scott, what a way to lose a seat...
Back in the 70's it was predicted that the rise of television would lessen people's social involvement.
It happened-you didn't need to visit over the fence with your neighbor because you could listen to whoever was on your TV Now we have many more screens-and we are not dependent on in person social interaction. Also in person interaction can often be a lot more work. It's a lot easier and less time consuming to just turn on the screen then join a group or become involved outside the home. What's the solution? I have no idea.
My personal experience with Griffin’s campaign reminded me too much of how Strickland and other Spotsy district legislators with an R by their name have behaved since I moved to this area. It was off putting to say the least.
Love that you finally mention that sitting legislator from NOVA…That story would have been helpful when it happened… Prior to the primary you mention above.
Info that the NOVA legislator was asking our candidates for help to further his own goals in exchange for endorsements and money was out there for those of us who were following that race from the beginning.
But that leaves most voters in the dark; most voters aren’t following closely.
Monica Gary turned the legislator down. She wanted to run as an independent. Fine, whatever, that’s her right. I get why that poses an issue for people. But she can and she did and it was a hurdle Dems were *always* going to have to figure out.
Ben Litchfield turned him down, too. Ben wanted to put our district first, not someone else’s.
(We aren’t NOVA, yall. I’m from there. I know. Like Ben mentioned at one of those forums, our district sits between DC and Richmond - we are unique and our needs are different.
We don’t need to be giving money to other districts when we have a need for it right here. Wouldn’t you want someone who will work to get us what we need?)
With “no one” to back, NOVA touched base with someone who helped get a law passed once and talked him into throwing his hat into the ring at the last minute. It’s a good law! But i have yet to see/hear evidence that Griffin was interested in running before he was approached and promised money and endorsements.
That an out-of-towner decided to put his thumb on the scale for OUR district because he wanted something for himself and his better-to-do district is the story that could have been - SHOULD have been - told by local journalists. The info was out there.
It was largely ignored by people who say local stories and good journalism matters.
Maybe presenting a fuller picture would have garnered more votes for Litchfield. Maybe not. But I maintain that there was a story there that would have swayed voters based on my experience explaining it to people I know here. And even if it didn’t? Voters would have been informed.
Democrats need to put more emphasis on voting in the primaries. Most voters don’t. That needs to change. The primaries are for weeding out candidates. Dont want money to win? You have to vote in the primary. Sick of old white dudes winning? You have to vote in the primary.
Something needs to be done about money in politics, too. Someone taking in millions shouldn’t automatically be made out to be the chosen one. It’s disenfranchising people, I think. “What’s the point in voting when the guy with the most money will win anyway?”
But we also need journalists to do their jobs appropriately. I only saw one independent journalist write about Griffin’s donation to Durant. Unfortunately, it was behind a paywall so most people couldn’t read it. It was a shame. I got hit with excuses about it from multiple people, but not the guy who did the deed. He blocked people who asked him instead of coming out ahead of that issue and explaining himself.
Where was the press on that? The fact that Griffin blocked voters for asking him directly about it was also a story that needed to be told? Or do we only point out that behavior in substacks when Republicans do it?
Most people aren’t vetting candidates, and I think a lot more people are inclined to fact check after a piece information is presented to them.
Unfortunately, I didn’t read any coverage on the fact that Griffin and Litchfield gave nearly-identical answers during their “debates,” but Litchfield was able to take that talking point and expand on it with facts and figures in a way Griffin could not. Maybe I missed that? Seems like something a journalist would mention if they want factually report on a town hall.
Voters need to really listen to what candidates say. We need to demand more than a talking point. If a candidate doesn’t have a voting record (which everyone should double check), how they answer questions is important.
Do they take the time to respond? Do they rattle off a talking point that doesn’t answer your question? Do they call you names? Block you?
Ben’s answers at that first candidate forum impressed me. We dont agree on everything, but he rattled off a lot more than “book bans are bad” and that has become increasingly important to me. He has helped us in Spotsy fight against the book bans. He and Luke Wright showed up to a Students Demand Action event I helped organize — MONTHS before the primary. He listened to my concerns on several issues, from our schools to COVID to the healthcare desert have here.
He was out there meeting with voters and doing the work for months. People want to be heard. Not talked down to. Not ignored. He was listening.
Isnt that what we should want in a legislator? Someone who wants to make their communities better? Who will take a moment to listen to our concerns?
Those candidates ARE out there, but people are scared of voting for them. We will all pay the price for that.
My overall take on this particular state Senate election?
Because one guy from NOVA didn’t get what *he* wanted, we all lost.
Maybe if we had journalists around here that would present readers with all the facts and stories surrounding the people on our ballots, voters would be more informed and willing to vote for the candidates who want to help their communities instead of getting rich off them.
Voting is voting is voting. Just like in high school, a lot of people simply vote for the more popular kid. With Griffin's business ties in the area, he was more well-known and thus pretty much bound to beat any newcomer.
Litchfield has also been out in the community talking with people and attending events for years. He’s attended and spoken at school board meetings in both Stafford and Spotsylvania.
Griffin is actually the one I didn’t know existed until he suddenly appeared two months before the primary.
For the Durant question - the effect Monica Gary's vanity campaign had on the race. You think a progressive took more votes away from Griffin or Durant?
For the primary, there's no mention in your commentary of Matt Strickland. Griffin's decision to run didn't happen in a vacuum.
He entered when it seemed probable that Strickland would be the Rep candidate, not Durant. A full MAGA extremist, yet one with a veteran background which would play extremely well in this district so built around veterans.
You think a newly arrived lawyer from Massachusetts who likely could not find his way around the district without GPS plays as well to that crowd as a former Marine and business owner?
BTW - if you lose by 2000 votes in a 10000 vote race, most folks call that a landslide.
Look, Mr Litchfield shows a lot of promise. I wish him well. But I'd say his lack of success had much less to do with money than a lack of connection to the district (other than to you apparently), and that Griffin's ability to raise money reflected those roots and his long connection to the district he would presume to represent, more than there being any nefarious plot to deny Gentle Ben a seat he was entitled to.
Not quite sure where the antipathy toward Mr Griffin comes from, but it seems to have been an underlying theme during the past election, and remains so even today.
"Griffin's decision to run didn't happen in a vacuum." -- yes, but it wasn't Strickland that caused it. It was Senator Scott Surovell who can't keep to his own district. Surovell recruited both Monica Gary and Joel Griffin to run... and it cost us the seat!
YES! THANK YOU! I’ve been trying to get people around here to understand this for months.
At the end of the day, an out-of-town Democratic senator F’d us over. That’s it.
Surovell had two Dem candidates to choose to back, Ben Litchfield and Luke Wright. But because the Dem he preferred wouldn’t do as he wanted, and he couldn’t convince the independent to switch parties, he enticed someone else entirely and kicked Wright out (he apparently convinced Wright to back Griffin because he wasn’t raising a lot of money. what happened to Wright was also fishy an wrong, IMO.)
The whole thing WREAKS and the story needed to be told last year as it happened. That it didn’t is a journalism fail.
Surovell needed to leave us alone; his lust for power definitely cost us.
Leaves out the elephant in the room, which was Monica Gary siphoning off enough votes from Griffin to throw the election to Durant. Rather a glaring omission, I'd have to say. And "electability" is a totally valid reason for voting for, or not for, a candidate. Ben's a good guy. He's a great guy, actually. But the other story behind the story is that Monica was the first potential candidate approached by the Democratic party about running as their nominee. Griffin was the second choice. If Minica had agreed, instead of insisting on maintaining her independent status, it would have been a totally different race all over again.
We can thank Senator Scott Surovell for recruiting Gary & Griffin who effectively split the non-GOP vote. Thank you Scott, what a way to lose a seat...
Back in the 70's it was predicted that the rise of television would lessen people's social involvement.
It happened-you didn't need to visit over the fence with your neighbor because you could listen to whoever was on your TV Now we have many more screens-and we are not dependent on in person social interaction. Also in person interaction can often be a lot more work. It's a lot easier and less time consuming to just turn on the screen then join a group or become involved outside the home. What's the solution? I have no idea.
My personal experience with Griffin’s campaign reminded me too much of how Strickland and other Spotsy district legislators with an R by their name have behaved since I moved to this area. It was off putting to say the least.
Love that you finally mention that sitting legislator from NOVA…That story would have been helpful when it happened… Prior to the primary you mention above.
Info that the NOVA legislator was asking our candidates for help to further his own goals in exchange for endorsements and money was out there for those of us who were following that race from the beginning.
But that leaves most voters in the dark; most voters aren’t following closely.
Monica Gary turned the legislator down. She wanted to run as an independent. Fine, whatever, that’s her right. I get why that poses an issue for people. But she can and she did and it was a hurdle Dems were *always* going to have to figure out.
Ben Litchfield turned him down, too. Ben wanted to put our district first, not someone else’s.
(We aren’t NOVA, yall. I’m from there. I know. Like Ben mentioned at one of those forums, our district sits between DC and Richmond - we are unique and our needs are different.
We don’t need to be giving money to other districts when we have a need for it right here. Wouldn’t you want someone who will work to get us what we need?)
With “no one” to back, NOVA touched base with someone who helped get a law passed once and talked him into throwing his hat into the ring at the last minute. It’s a good law! But i have yet to see/hear evidence that Griffin was interested in running before he was approached and promised money and endorsements.
That an out-of-towner decided to put his thumb on the scale for OUR district because he wanted something for himself and his better-to-do district is the story that could have been - SHOULD have been - told by local journalists. The info was out there.
It was largely ignored by people who say local stories and good journalism matters.
Maybe presenting a fuller picture would have garnered more votes for Litchfield. Maybe not. But I maintain that there was a story there that would have swayed voters based on my experience explaining it to people I know here. And even if it didn’t? Voters would have been informed.
Democrats need to put more emphasis on voting in the primaries. Most voters don’t. That needs to change. The primaries are for weeding out candidates. Dont want money to win? You have to vote in the primary. Sick of old white dudes winning? You have to vote in the primary.
Something needs to be done about money in politics, too. Someone taking in millions shouldn’t automatically be made out to be the chosen one. It’s disenfranchising people, I think. “What’s the point in voting when the guy with the most money will win anyway?”
But we also need journalists to do their jobs appropriately. I only saw one independent journalist write about Griffin’s donation to Durant. Unfortunately, it was behind a paywall so most people couldn’t read it. It was a shame. I got hit with excuses about it from multiple people, but not the guy who did the deed. He blocked people who asked him instead of coming out ahead of that issue and explaining himself.
Where was the press on that? The fact that Griffin blocked voters for asking him directly about it was also a story that needed to be told? Or do we only point out that behavior in substacks when Republicans do it?
Most people aren’t vetting candidates, and I think a lot more people are inclined to fact check after a piece information is presented to them.
Unfortunately, I didn’t read any coverage on the fact that Griffin and Litchfield gave nearly-identical answers during their “debates,” but Litchfield was able to take that talking point and expand on it with facts and figures in a way Griffin could not. Maybe I missed that? Seems like something a journalist would mention if they want factually report on a town hall.
Voters need to really listen to what candidates say. We need to demand more than a talking point. If a candidate doesn’t have a voting record (which everyone should double check), how they answer questions is important.
Do they take the time to respond? Do they rattle off a talking point that doesn’t answer your question? Do they call you names? Block you?
Ben’s answers at that first candidate forum impressed me. We dont agree on everything, but he rattled off a lot more than “book bans are bad” and that has become increasingly important to me. He has helped us in Spotsy fight against the book bans. He and Luke Wright showed up to a Students Demand Action event I helped organize — MONTHS before the primary. He listened to my concerns on several issues, from our schools to COVID to the healthcare desert have here.
He was out there meeting with voters and doing the work for months. People want to be heard. Not talked down to. Not ignored. He was listening.
Isnt that what we should want in a legislator? Someone who wants to make their communities better? Who will take a moment to listen to our concerns?
Those candidates ARE out there, but people are scared of voting for them. We will all pay the price for that.
My overall take on this particular state Senate election?
Because one guy from NOVA didn’t get what *he* wanted, we all lost.
Maybe if we had journalists around here that would present readers with all the facts and stories surrounding the people on our ballots, voters would be more informed and willing to vote for the candidates who want to help their communities instead of getting rich off them.
Voting is voting is voting. Just like in high school, a lot of people simply vote for the more popular kid. With Griffin's business ties in the area, he was more well-known and thus pretty much bound to beat any newcomer.
Litchfield has lived in Fredericksburg for at least a decade. I wouldn't call him a newcomer...
Litchfield has also been out in the community talking with people and attending events for years. He’s attended and spoken at school board meetings in both Stafford and Spotsylvania.
Griffin is actually the one I didn’t know existed until he suddenly appeared two months before the primary.
My apologies. I saw an earlier comment referring to him as newly arrived and assumed its generally reliable author was correct.
Lovely story.
Leaves a few things out though, as I recall.
For the Durant question - the effect Monica Gary's vanity campaign had on the race. You think a progressive took more votes away from Griffin or Durant?
For the primary, there's no mention in your commentary of Matt Strickland. Griffin's decision to run didn't happen in a vacuum.
He entered when it seemed probable that Strickland would be the Rep candidate, not Durant. A full MAGA extremist, yet one with a veteran background which would play extremely well in this district so built around veterans.
You think a newly arrived lawyer from Massachusetts who likely could not find his way around the district without GPS plays as well to that crowd as a former Marine and business owner?
BTW - if you lose by 2000 votes in a 10000 vote race, most folks call that a landslide.
Look, Mr Litchfield shows a lot of promise. I wish him well. But I'd say his lack of success had much less to do with money than a lack of connection to the district (other than to you apparently), and that Griffin's ability to raise money reflected those roots and his long connection to the district he would presume to represent, more than there being any nefarious plot to deny Gentle Ben a seat he was entitled to.
Not quite sure where the antipathy toward Mr Griffin comes from, but it seems to have been an underlying theme during the past election, and remains so even today.
Good luck with that.
"Griffin's decision to run didn't happen in a vacuum." -- yes, but it wasn't Strickland that caused it. It was Senator Scott Surovell who can't keep to his own district. Surovell recruited both Monica Gary and Joel Griffin to run... and it cost us the seat!
YES! THANK YOU! I’ve been trying to get people around here to understand this for months.
At the end of the day, an out-of-town Democratic senator F’d us over. That’s it.
Surovell had two Dem candidates to choose to back, Ben Litchfield and Luke Wright. But because the Dem he preferred wouldn’t do as he wanted, and he couldn’t convince the independent to switch parties, he enticed someone else entirely and kicked Wright out (he apparently convinced Wright to back Griffin because he wasn’t raising a lot of money. what happened to Wright was also fishy an wrong, IMO.)
The whole thing WREAKS and the story needed to be told last year as it happened. That it didn’t is a journalism fail.
Surovell needed to leave us alone; his lust for power definitely cost us.