Virginia 2009 Megathread

[Dan the Roman]

Well the Democrats should at least come out of this year with a bench, since Shannon should be the favorite for AG.

[Dan the Roman]

Safe R.

With Moran: Likely R
With Deeds: Lean R
With McAuliffe: Likely R

I tend to think the main issue will be the size of the loss. That said McAuliffe is a strong campaigner and an excellent fundraiser. McDonnell is other than Gilmore probably the most Conservative figure the GOP has ever run for Governor, and we saw what happened to Gilmore last year.

That said I expect the GOP wins the GOV and LT. Gov races and the Democrats win AG.

[Dan the Roman]

If Deeds wins the primary, he is going to come out of it with massive underdog momentum, and McDonnell as the strong favorite is going to get labeled the insider and a pseudo-incumbent. He will have money, but it looks like a very bad dynamic for him.

[Dan the Roman]

August 22 2005

Kilgore 48%
Kaine   43%

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=0d9694a4-37cd-4431-93e1-48ec1ae41681

[Dan the Roman]

Shannon also has a new campaign manager, Mike Henry.

[Dan the Roman]

SUSA VA-GOV

McDonnell 55%
Deeds 40%

http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=10811055

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=cd18a820-69ba-4847-a2fa-1cb95a6a9057&c=77

What on earth??

The poll has an R+6 party ID. Probably way too optimistic. But still, a solid lead either way.

I am smelling a result the inverse of 2005. Really, the Democrats need to get Shannon into shape he is their best bet, and there is no way someone with Cucinelli's views should be competitive.

[Dan the Roman]

While this poll has problems, I would remind people to keep in mind the 1997 and 1993 results where races which had been too close to call early in the year(and in 1997 through September) ended up being double digit landslides.

I have a friend who has been involved in Democratic politics for some time in Northern Virginia. Worked for Kaine, voted for Obama and Warner, against the Gay Marriage Amendment, and a straight democratic ticket in 2005. He is wavering and strongly considering McDonnell. While this is circumstantial, if someone like that is wavering, Deeds has a real problem not just with independents, but with what would have been Mcauliffe or Moran's base.

This is not looking good for the Democrats and I can see an 8+ McDonnell win easily, something like 52-44.

[Dan the Roman]

Looks like 1997 redux. The real tragedy is Shannon's crap campaign.

[Dan the Roman]

So PPP, SUSA, and now WAPO have shown a Republican party ID advantage among likely voters, and you still don't believe it? Come on dude.

I don't believe GOP +7.  I'd be willing to buy GOP +2, but nothing more.

There is no doubt but that the Democrats nominated their strongest candidate, and he probably would be trailing by two points if the national Democrats weren't going absolutely nuts.  Deeds is paying for the nutty actions of the Obamanations.

Ditto, see Terry, Mary Sue or Beyer, Don for the likely result.

[Dan the Roman]

How large was each group?

Rasmussen doesn't release those numbers.

Big shocker

Since the Presidential Election I haven't been able to find Rasmussen group numbers.  Anyone who trusts them is making a big mistake.  Some of there polls are far outliers to the right  like the Presidential Approval rating.  They've had Obamas approval rating tiedwith his dissaproval rating for 2 monhs.  All other polls ahve Obama's approval rating 8-24% above the dissaproval rating.  That means that they have at least a 16% difference with all polls.

They're good for elections, bad for approvals.

The key things with approvals is that by offering five options he ends up with much mushier numbers. When times are good, popular politicians poll below what they would with a straight-dissaprove question, but they also rarely get as low as they do with other firms when they are unpopular. At the same time Obama is at about 10 points below where he is with every other firm, Deval Patrick is in Rasmussen polls about 12-15 points above where he is in other polls.

There is a little bit to do with likely voters, but it also has a lot to do with what question. Same thing for Kos. Kos does not ask approve/disapprove but favorable/unfavorable which tends to lead to very different results. There is far too much conspiracy talk going on.

That said I would not trust any likely voter poll right now except PPP which at least reveals their methodology, and I would not particularly trust their numbers either. The polls are doing the same thing they did two last fall, which is pick up so much static from the political environment that they are measuring depth of support rather than breadth. While I can buy SUSA and Rassmussen's numbers as methodologically credible, I don't think anyone can seriously believe the electorate will look like what they think it is right now in November.

[Dan the Roman]

Based on the Exit poll:

- party id: Rep: 37 % dem: 33 % I: 30 %

No surprise...

- Obama job approval: 48 %

And not 57 % like wapo poll gave one week ago... it's very similar to the RAS daily track poll.

-full time working woman (28 %): have vote at only 51 % for McDOnnell. Probably the incidence of the thesis...

-16 % black. It's a little more than predicted. And Mc Donnell is weak with them: only 9 % of the vote. I would be curious to see the latino vote but the poll doesn't give this infirmation.

Also worth noting that the reported presidential vote of VA voters yesterday according to that same exit poll was 51-43 McCain. Obviously a lot of Obama voters were not inspired enough by Deeds (imagine that) to come out and vote this year. Anyone assumes those same voters will stay home when Obama is back on the ballot in 2012 does so at their own peril.

Also HIGHLY worth noting is that 1 in 5 McDonnell voters approve of the job Obama is doing, compared to only 1 in 20 Deeds voters who disapprove of the President's job. (The numbers for NJ, FWIW, indicate over 1 in 4 voters who approve of Obama's job performance didn't vote for Corzine.)

One of the most insightful comments I've read on the forum is Spade's note that all 50 governors offices can be considered "open seats" in terms of party competitiveness. Federal races obviously are much, MUCH different in that regard. At the risk of over-extrapolating too much in the other direction of the MSM's common wisdom this morning, I see Owens's upset win in NY-23 as far more indicative of 2010 midterms than 2 governors races (but still admittedly only a tiny glimpse).

Be careful in reading too much into who people "say" they voted for.  If they're unhappy (or embarassed), they often lie, especially to exit pollsters (and most pollsters in general).

FWIW, you've stated my point accurately, but let me caution that I do think governor's races are indicative of something when there are serious downballot effects like we saw in VA.  For example, Republicans, according to my maths, destroyed 6 years of gains in one evening in the House of Delegates.

That does say something to me about what may happen in 2010.  But one of the reasons why I said that I didn't see why Republicans were gleeful is because a swing back to 2002/2004-type numbers (or perhaps worse in Appalachia) in the South and Appalachia is simply not enough to take back the House. 

Now, if these swings started showing up in other suburbs outside this area, there might be something. 

So would you see the New Jersey Assembly results and lack of GOP coattails as more important than Corzine's loss?