IT WAS an uphill battle. It was also a losing battle. So it came as little surprise when the results were so prominently displayed across the large television screen in the Omni Hotel in Charlottesville - Ed Wayland couldn't unseat his challenger, incumbent Del. Paul Harris (R-58th).
Wayland - a Democrat who lives in Charlottesville and works at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Legal Aid Society - made a respectable showing, garnering 41 percent of the vote. He cut Harris' percentage of the vote from 63 percent in the previous election to a slightly less commanding 59 percent. Running against a widely popular candidate, Wayland's results were better than expected. The "vote we got was better than we thought it would be," commented Wayland.
Wayland spoke with an affable air. Before a room full of Democratic loyals, he honorably acknowledged defeat. "My heart is full," he said. "I just congratulated Paul on his win ... I told him that I wished him well." Not ashamed - but not pleased - Wayland acted nobly.
But behind his public appearance, there was a sense of resentment. It was ubiquitous, seeping into every reflection on the race. Will Harvey, the Albemarle County Democratic Chair, said that Wayland "wasn't afraid of talking about issues. ... And darn cutesy slogans, I don't need any more of them."
Wayland stood behind issues, but lacked a message. Harris hid behind a message, failing to face many issues. Wayland's campaign manager, Michael Diz, said that Wayland campaigned on his record of service to the community and on Harris' record of service in the House. "We told the voters things that Paul didn't," Diz said. On the other hand, Wayland couldn't give the voters a more powerful message to latch onto than Harris' "Faith, Family, Freedom." Focusing solely on issues, with less money and with very little public exposure, is a recipe for political paralysis. Wayland learned it the hard way, and said that, in retrospect, he would have refined his message.
One major obstacle to which Wayland hinted was the role of the press. Instead of sorting out the issues behind which each candidate stood, they simply reported the back-and-forth between Wayland and Harris. Wayland seemed especially dismayed at how voters latch onto personalities, to messages, to images, but not to issues. One might say that the issues were his message. But the press didn't make those very clear.
The problem is that Wayland let his idealism trump his perception of political reality. Diz said the "battle is between image and substance. I think the voters will care about substance once it's all out." Wayland needs some good instruction in realpolitik. The voters do care about a candidate's record, but they easily become saturated with the influx of information. Wayland sacrificed showing his strength for showing his opponent's faults. It was a calculated risk. It failed.
Consequently, he generated the general impression that he was running a negative campaign. True or not, when Harris identified it as such, he was unable to defend himself. Then again, backpedaling is never advisable when you've got 30 seconds to get your message across. "Paul Harris said that I was misrepresenting his record," remarked Wayland, with the caveat: "Nothing I said was inaccurate. Nothing I said was misleading." In fact, he pointed out, of the two bills on which he cited Harris' record, the local Horizon Institute Committee's research vindicated his observations.
As for money, Harris had a clear-cut cash advantage. Wayland and Diz felt that this played a small role in the final analysis. "If you spend more than [$75,000 to $80,000], I wonder what it's going to."
So what did this race come down to? Paul Harris made a display of his personality, charisma and message. Ed Wayland forwarded his ideas and issues - falling prey to a misguided political idealism. Harris was keen. Wayland, well, he fell by the wayside.
(Jeffrey Eisenberg is a Cavalier Daily columnist.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | YesterdayOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | 2 days agoIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAmid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
