RALEIGH – Both of the major Democratic candidates for governor, Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue and State Treasurer Richard Moore, currently have television ads on the air for a primary that is still four months away. That one fact reveals a lot about the differences between the Democratic and Republican fields in 2008.
What’s also revealing about the Perdue and Moore ads is that they are well-produced, effective spots. See for yourself. North Carolina Democrats are used to winning state elections. They have a deep well of talent, experience, and financial resources. Not only do they fully expect to retain the governor’s office in November, but many political observers I know, regardless of party or ideology, tend to agree.
One good reason for Democratic confidence is that both Perdue and Moore are impressive candidates. Perdue has a varied background and significant expertise in education, health care, and state government. Moore also served a stint in the N.C. House, headed the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety for former Gov. Jim Hunt, and has made national headlines as the two-term state treasurer. Both are personally charming and can be effective in public appearances and debates (though I’ve also seen tempers and frustrations get the better of each, on occasion).
Plus, the Democratic candidates have collectively raised far more money than the Republicans have. It’s important to disentangle causation from correlation here, however: while a large advantage in campaign cash can certainly translate into a political victory, by allowing the campaign to define issues for the undecided and mobilize its own base to vote, it is also the case that a large advantage in campaign cash reflects the considered judgment of the political class that the recipient is going to win. Each party has a core donor base that gives according to partisan or ideological affinity. But there is also a critical set of donors – often those deriving significant business from state government or under particular threat from state regulatory decisions – who give in order to be on the winning side, in the hopes of having the ear of the next administration. Right now, most of these folks are placing their bets on blue, not red.
Some have criticized Perdue and Moore for taking petty personal shots at each other, on matters such as resume puffery and the political misuse of state employees, rather than focusing their efforts of areas of substantial disagreement. But I think the criticism is unfair. There have been disagreements on important substantive issues, such as Perdue’s idea of a budget-savings commission and Moore’s plan to reform the Department of Transportation (I like both, by the way). The most headline-grabbing attack of late, the accusation that Moore’s Local Government Commission did an inadequate job of assessing the financial risk of what Perdue calls the “Randy Parton Party Palace,” happens to be essentially correct, though the Moore campaign’s counterattack that Perdue previously had or aspired to fundraising links with the Parton Party Posse is also factual.
It’s not surprising that Perdue and Moore have focused much of their fire on fiscal issues. First off, there’s not a lot of practical difference between Perdue and Moore on such issues as education and health care. Also, each team includes veterans of Easley campaigns who recognize that a reputation for fiscal restraint – whether earned or not – is a valuable tool to keep Republican challengers at bay in the fall.
In 2000 and 2004, Mike Easley won in large part by undercutting the Republican candidates on taxes and spending. His ads attacking Vinroot and Ballantine on the subject were among the best (and most entertaining) of each election cycle. The result? Easley won a quarter of self-identified conservatives in 2000 and 31 percent in 2004. When asked in 2000 whether they favored more or less government, North Carolina voters said less by a 54 percent to 41 percent margin. Yet Easley snagged a third of that conservative majority. It was too much for Vinroot to overcome. The strategy worked even better for Easley in 2004.
With all this having been said, I don’t think the November result is a foregone conclusion. The identity of the Democratic presidential nominee may reshape the dynamics of the race, as could international events, rising economic worries (harmful to incumbents of both parties), the possibility of a bitter Perdue-Moore primary homestretch, and the rising salience of the transportation issue among the urban and suburban swing voters who now settle North Carolina’s gubernatorial contests. It’s premature to call the 2008 race.
But as a purveyor of political punditry, I would say that, wouldn’t I?
Tomorrow: More on the key 25 counties that now generate two-thirds of North Carolina’s votes for governor.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.