Is that your interpretation or is that (middle paragraph) from Rasmussen, Carl?
Interesting tidbits from the article:
"This is the third straight 2005 Virginia election poll with "leaners" included in the totals. Leaners are those who initially do not express a preference for either major party candidate but lean one way or the other when asked a follow-up question.
Without leaners, Tim Kaine has a one-point edge, 42% to 41%, over Jerry Kilgore. " ie, Kaine has a larger percentage of semi-sorta-undecideds included in his figures than Kilgore. Hard to say who that is good news for, I could spin that either way.
"Overall, Kilgore is viewed favorably by 56% of Virginia voters and unfavorably by 38%. For Kaine, the numbers are 62% favorable and 34% unfavorable. These numbers highlight a huge difference between the Virginia election and this year's contest in New Jersey. In the New Jersey race, neither candidate is viewed favorably by more than 41% of voters."
Either Virginians are just much gentler people than Jerseyans (doubt that), or contrary to the general mood in this thread neither candidate is at all "mediocre", or there's simply been less negative campaigning (would make sense, with Potts in the race and all, but again, not the vibe I'm getting here).
I'm surprised that the favorables are that high, with both parties nominating mediocre candidates and the negative ads, I thought Viriginians wouldn't be enthusastic about either candidate.
