Election Day 2013: McAuliffe elected governor of Virginia

Election Day: Democrat Terry McAuliffe has been elected Virginia's next governor, defeating Republican Ken Cuccinelli after an acrimonious campaign marked by negative ads from both sides.

Steve Helber/AP
Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe (D) speaks during a rally at James Madison University with former President Bill Clinton, rear, Oct. 29. On Nov. 5, McAuliffe was elected to succeed term-limited Gov. Bob McDonnell (R).

Democrat Terry McAuliffe has been elected Virginia's next governor, defeating Republican Ken Cuccinelli after pledging to expand the state's Medicaid rolls and portraying his rival as someone who would turn back years of progress.

Turnout for Tuesday's election was low, and both candidates worked through Election Day to reach as many potential voters as possible.

McAuliffe, who once led the Democratic National Committee and is a confidant of former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton, said he would expand Medicaid to provide health coverage for 400,000 people under the federal health care law. By contrast, Cuccinelli, the current attorney general, vehemently opposed the law and was the first to challenge it in court.

A third candidate, libertarian Robert Sarvis, also was on the ballot. He drew support from about 1 in 6 independent voters.

Turnout was expected to be around 40 percent of registered voters and both candidates leaned on their campaign organizations to find every last supporter.

The state Board of Elections said the number of voters submitting absentee ballots was up by one-third over 2009, suggesting Democrats' efforts to bank votes early had paid dividends.

The campaign's negative tilt turned many voters off. McAuliffe enjoyed a 10-to-1 advertising advantage over Cuccinelli during the final days.

"I really hated the negative campaigning," said Ellen Tolton, a 52-year-old grant writer. "I didn't want to vote for any of them."

About 3 in 10 voters said neither major party candidate had high ethical standards, and almost half of voters said they had reservations about their choice for governor or were casting a ballot against the other candidates, according to the exit polls.

The exit poll included interviews with 2,295 voters from 40 polling places around the state. The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Just over half said Cuccinelli's positions on the issues were too conservative, and 4 in 10 called McAuliffe's too liberal.

Richard Powell, a 60-year-old retired IT manager who lives in Norfolk, described himself as an independent who frequently votes for members of both parties. He said he cast his ballot for McAuliffe, although not because he's particularly enthusiastic about him. He said he was more determined not to vote for Cuccinelli, who he said overreaches on a variety of medical issues.

Voters were barraged with a series of commercials that tied Cuccinelli to restricting abortions, and while Powell said the negative advertising "got to be sickening," abortion rights played a factor in his vote.

"I'm not in favor of abortion — let's put it that way — but I find that restricting abortion causes far more social harm than allowing abortion, so that was an issue for me," he said.

From the outset, the campaign shaped up as a barometer of voters' moods and a test of whether a swing-voting state like Virginia could elect a tea party-style governor. As one of just two races for governor nationwide, political strategists eyed the race for clues about what would work for 2014's midterm elections when control of Congress is up for grabs.

The winner will succeed term-limited Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, for a four-year term starting in January. Obama won the state in 2008 and 2012, but far fewer voters participate in off-year elections and that gives the GOP better odds.

Republicans bet a deeply conservative candidate would be their best shot, passing over a lieutenant governor for Cuccinelli, a crusader against the federal health care law. Democrats chose a loyal partisan who once led the Democratic National Committee and recruited the Clintons to raise millions for him and rally the party faithful.

The 45-year-old Cuccinelli went into Election Day trying to overcome a deficit in the polls, a crush of negative ads and a lingering wariness among fellow Republicans about his conservative views. His day took him from his home in northern Virginia south toward Richmond, where he planned to watch the results with supporters.

At a stop in Spotsylvania, he faced criticism for his position on abortion.

"I believe that it's a woman's choice," Connor Roberts, a 21-year-old McAuliffe supporter, told Cuccinelli.

The unflinching Cuccinelli responded: "We just have a fundamental disagreement."

Cuccinelli pinned his hopes on voters' frustrations with the federal health care law he attempted to foil. He tried to make the election into a referendum on the law, which McAuliffe supports.

The message was on point with voters like Carl Prendergast, 83, who along with his wife voted a straight Republican ticket.

"We just need less government, more conservative candidates," he said.

Ahead in the polls, the 56-year-old McAuliffe sought to avoid an eleventh-hour error. On Tuesday morning, McAuliffe stopped by a campaign office to rally volunteers near Richmond. He urged them to knock on one more door and phone one more friend as the campaign neared its end. McAuliffe said that effort was needed to combat low turnout.

"This is the greatest democracy in the world. We want everyone to vote," McAuliffe told reporters.

Cuccinelli also was urging people to vote.

"I hope that Virginians pay attention to substance," Cuccinelli said. "I hope the truth counts here. If it does, and if the momentum keeps going the way it does, we're going to come out on top here."

Associated Press Writer Brock Vergakis contributed to this report from Norfolk and Virginia Beach, Va. Associated Press writers Ben Nukols in Manassas and Steve Szkotak in Richmond also contributed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.