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.
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.
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!
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.
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...
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!