A 2012 Senate Parallel in the 2013 Virginia Governor’s Race

The 2013 race for Virginia Governor is already shaping up as one for the ages. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is (by almost any measure) the most conservative nominee for Virginia Governor in modern electoral history, while Terry McAuliffe is a candidate with a number of flaws and is seen by many as too much of a political insider. Adding further intrigue to the race, the recent nomination of ultra-conservative Bishop E.W. Jackson as the GOP candidate for Lieutenant Governor has meant trouble for the Cuccinelli campaign.[i] Nevertheless, this race is still anyone’s game. Ken Cuccinelli has a number of devoted supporters who are very enthusiastic about his campaign; few would characterize Democratic enthusiasm for Terry McAuliffe as being as deep and wide.

So what do the 2012 Senate races (as the title of this piece suggests) have to do with the 2013 race for Virginia Governor? Let me explain. In four of these Senate races—Missouri, Indiana, Montana, and Ohio—a conservative-leaning (and with the exception of Ohio, Libertarian) third party candidate received between 4.5 and 7 percent of the vote of the vote. The presence of these conservative-leaning third party candidates on the ballot likely cost Republican candidates votes—and in the case of Montana, the presence of the Libertarian may have cost the race for Republican Denny Rehberg. (A Libertarian also pulled around 4.6 percent of the vote in the Arizona Senate race, although Republican Jeff Flake still defeated Democrat Richard Carmona.)

Like the aforementioned 2012 Senate races, the 2013 Virginia Governor’s race features a conservative-leaning third party candidate in addition to the two major party candidates. This candidate, Libertarian Robert Sarvis, could play the role of spoiler in this race by pulling a similar percentage of the vote as the conservative-leaning third party candidates in the 2012 Senate races.

There are several reasons to suspect that Sarvis could pull a similar percentage of the vote as his 2012 Senate race counterparts. First, according to recent polls both Terry McAuliffe and Ken Cuccinelli have upside down favorability ratings with the overall electorate and also suffer from popularity issues within their own party. In other words, a substantial number of voters are ambivalent about both candidates and are thus still up for grabs.

Second, Mr. Sarvis represents a credible alternative for disaffected Republican voters and has the potential to pull votes away from Ken Cuccinelli. No other third party candidate appears on the ballot, so an equal threat does not exist for Terry McAuliffe. By any measure, Robert Sarvis is at least as credible as the 2012 Senate candidates who received between 4.5 and 7 percent of the vote in their respective races. Of note is the fact that Sarvis was the Republican nominee for State Senate in 2011 against Democratic State Senate Leader Dick Saslaw.

Sarvis may appeal to disaffected Republicans who do not want to vote for Ken Cuccinelli. Once again, this would be similar to 2012, where some Republicans could not bring themselves to vote for controversial nominees Richard Mourdock in Indiana and Todd Akin in Missouri. (The 2012 GOP candidates in Montana and Ohio, while conservative, were nowhere near as controversial as Mr. Akin and Mr. Mourdock).

Come Election Day 2013, history may repeat itself as Terry McAuliffe is elected Governor of Virginia with a plurality of the vote.  Here Montana may serve as the best guide to overall vote percentages; like Senator Jon Tester (D-MT), Terry McAuliffe may receive somewhere around 48 or 49 percent of the vote. While not a majority, this could be enough to win the election for Mr. McAuliffe if Robert Sarvis pulls several percentage points from Ken Cuccinelli and thus serves as a spoiler in this race.