Who’s this Deeds fellow who beat out two very well funded, star-studded political machines? He’s definitely not Mr. Deeds–he lacks the millions.

Terry McAuliffe, honorary member of the Clinton family, and former DNC chair, lost the Virginia Gubernatorial race yesterdat that just two weeks was essentially a given for him. Nate Silver, at FiveThirtyEight, called it a collapse like Howard Dean’s in Iowa. The graph below, from 2004, illustrates that faithful primary in ‘04 that sent Dean down a precipitous fall:

McAuliffe, along with Brian Mora, a prosecutor and legislator for two decades, conceded to Creigh Deeds last night. Deeds won 50% of the vote, McAuliffe earned 26% and Moran 24%.

What gives? Terry McAuliffe had an all-star campaign team, Bill and Hillary Clinton as fervent campaigners, and a war chest of over $7.5m. He spent an average of $90 per vote.

Moran was a favorite from the beginning of the race. He has tremendous name recognition across the state, and both him and McAuliffe ignored Deeds as a contender–until the last couple of weeks.

Running a blitzkrieg media campaign the last few weeks, fueled in part by a Washington Post endorsement, the right-of-center Deeds surged from a distant third position to winning 10 out of the 11 congressional districts in Virginia. If he wins the race against Republican Robert McDonell (his opponent four years ago for the VA Attorney General position–McDonell barely won, after another late surge by Deeds), he will definitely be on a VP shortlist in 2012 or 2016. Same goes for McDonell.

How could McAuliffe lose such an important race, using what many would consider more than impressive resources and staff. He received a lot of media attention and had a platform that was not too exciting, but not too unpleasant. He had a machine behind him, and icons next to him. All in all, he ran like a Clinton.

Which is probably why he lost. The Clinton brand is in need of a major makeover. Their popularity has petered out. Bill was loved by Democratic circles, and pretty much anyone who was not a die-hard Republican, in the 90’s. Hillary was lauded and respected during that time and into the aughts. Since then, their legacy has fizzled out.

“Bill was too soft and lazy with al-Qaeda and Bin Laden.”

“Bill should have done something about regulating derivatives–he is responsible for the recession after 2001″

“Hillary was too rough on Obama.”

“Hillary feels she deserves to be president.”

“The Clintons are looking out for themselves first, the party second.”

These are arguments made against the Clinton brand that have, unfortunately, tarnished their image. Some have sticked (al-Qaeda and unquenchable presidential ambitions, respectively), some haven’t (Bill is a racist; Hillary is unfit to be president). They have all hurt the name.

McAuliffe was running with the name. As respectable of a resume as he has, McAuliffe decided to rely more on the Clinton machine and brand than his own polished political instincts. He invited Bill and Hillary to campaign for him, added long-time Clintonistas to his staff, and ran as a rabid moderate (if there is such a thing) off of Bill’s Third Way ideology. He earned as much media attention as a Clinton would, reaffirming his name in the suburbs (which he lost), and making himself self well-known across Virginia.

He ran as a Clinton, and he lost as one, too.

Now the aftermath. McAuliffe can’t blame the Clitons for his loss. That would be like Hillary blaming McAuliffe for hers. They all have to figure out how to remake the brand that was one of the most sellable during the booming days of the mid-90’s. They have to repackage it and sell it to a new type of voters: voters that feel empowered and know more about politics than ever before. It is in their best interest to do so, fast. Their political survival depends on it.

In the end, they will always be Clintons. Might as well make themselves marketable again.

You might want to check these out, too:

• poliPicks

Tags:   clinton · terry mcauliffeNo Comments