|
Tim
Kaine, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, has
decided to debate independent candidate Russ Potts
head to head immediately after a September 13 debate
between Kaine and Republican candidate Jerry
Kilgore. This will surely please the news media, but
isn’t a shrewd decision on Kaine’s part.
Kaine
and Potts contend that the voters should hear all
three candidates debate. Kilgore refuses to debate
Potts unless two statewide polls show that support
for Potts reaches at least 15 percent.
Kaine’s
strategy in pushing to include Potts in debates is
obvious. In a statement issued by the Kaine campaign
announcing the Kaine-Potts debate, Kaine refers to
Kilgore and Potts as “my Republican opponents.”
He assumes that Kilgore and Potts are fighting for,
and will split, the same Republican and
Republican-leaning votes.
The
damage that Potts can inflict upon Kilgore is, for
the most part, already inflicted. What Kaine ignores
is the potential Potts has to draw votes from Kaine.
Kaine
has enhanced the Potts campaign more than he
realizes. A head-to-head debate is apt to cause more
erosion of support from Kaine than a three-way
debate would. The presence of Kaine and Potts on the
same stage without Kilgore will sharpen voters’
appreciation that Kaine is not the only alternative
to Kilgore.
The
reporting, the photographs and any television
footage of the Kaine-Potts debate will highlight in
the minds of voters the fact that Kaine and Potts
are on one side, while Kilgore is their opponent.
Regardless of their attacks on Kilgore during their
debate, the overriding impression will be the
competition between Kaine and Potts.
Why
would Kaine call for a two-way debate with an
independent who hasn’t yet shown support above 9
percent? The result is that Potts not only will get
more exposure than he could hope to get on his own,
but also will be treated as a serious contender. If
Kaine thinks Potts is a worthy debate opponent, why
shouldn’t voters assume that Potts is worthy of
their consideration as a gubernatorial candidate? It
will be too late in the closing weeks of this
campaign for Kaine to alter this favorable image of
Potts if and when Kaine discovers that Potts is
drawing votes from the Kaine column.
Kaine
has major problems with his base. Those who strongly
favor tax increases and who oppose Kilgore’s
social agenda have more in common with Potts than
with Kaine. The Kaine-Potts debate will remind these
voters that they have a choice.
In
the 2001 gubernatorial campaign, Mark Warner was
able to keep his base relatively intact as he
battled his opponent, Mark Earley, for moderate
support. Warner’s base had only one alternative
(other than staying at home on election day).
That
alternative — Earley — never appealed to
Warner’s base. Potts is fighting for
attention and respectability. Kaine is giving him
both.
Even
if Kaine and Potts secretly agree to refrain from
attacking each other and to mount a joint attack on
Kilgore during their separate debate, the event is
unlikely to help Kaine. Potts has repeatedly and
vigorously criticized both Kaine and Kilgore for
pledging to oppose a tax increase for
transportation.
Potts
has also staked out a position on abortion that is
far more appealing to staunch pro-choice voters than
is Kaine’s.
Those
differences can’t be sidestepped. Potts hurts
Kilgore more than Kaine so long as Potts is merely a
gadfly. When support for Potts pushes him beyond
that status, it is Kaine, not Kilgore, who loses
votes.
--
September 5, 2005
|
