Virginia

[Devils30]

As poorly as Warner did, does anyone else agree that Tuesday was a pretty bleak sign for them in 2016? Warner pretty much lost all his white southern support, got the same 37% Obama did and yet still pulled off a win. Also had pathetic turnout in Prince William and Loudoun. Tough to see the 2016 math working for the GOP here, tougher than Wisconsin and Iowa.

[IceSpear]

That's actually a good point. Even with Dems staying home and nobody giving a damn about the election, Warner is still gonna win.

[Frodo]

As poorly as Warner did, does anyone else agree that Tuesday was a pretty bleak sign for them in 2016? Warner pretty much lost all his white southern support, got the same 37% Obama did and yet still pulled off a win. Also had pathetic turnout in Prince William and Loudoun. Tough to see the 2016 math working for the GOP here, tougher than Wisconsin and Iowa.

You would be singing a different tune had the NRSC not listened to conventional wisdom, and sunk their resources into the state on behalf of Ed Gillespie early enough to make a difference (as it clearly did for Thom Tillis in North Carolina).  The fact he made it as close as he did despite being pretty much on his own without any support to speak of should tell you something.  

[Mehmentum]

Really, this shouldn't change anybody's view of Virginia.  Its a state that either party could win under the right circumstances, perhaps the most competitive state in the country.  A single election result shouldn't change that.

[Devils30]

If the NRSC had done that then the Dems would have countered by spending more. I know Warner did miserably compared to what was expected. That said, based on DC area voting patterns I'm not sure how much room Gillespie had to climb. Enough to win but a lot less than some here believe. If the 2016 nominee doesn't make major inroads with DC area voters then it's going Democratic by 5 points. Obama got 37% whites and won it by nearly 4, that's probably 5-6% adjusted for 2016.

[Skill and Chance]

Republicans now have a lock on 47% of the vote in VA (45% with the crazy high libertarian numbers in 2013), but while Dem landslides don't happen, that last 1-2% is incredibly hard for the GOP.  There does seem to be a hard Dem floor with white voters unlike other parts of the South.  They can try to flip Loudoun and Prince William with a culturally Northeastern campaign, but then rural turnout lags, and they seem to have a hard ceiling around 40% in Fairfax and 45% in Henrico.  They can try the rural turnout route like Cuccinelli in 2013, but then they fall to 45% in Prince William and Loudoun and get blown out worse in Fairfax and Henrico.  I also think Sarvis took more votes from the business-oriented Warner and McAuliffe than their opponents.

[MurrayBannerman]

You've got to think that the NRSC did not pay much attention to this race either. It's not like they poured swing state money into it.

[Landslide Lyndon]

According to Ed Kilgore what happened was that Warner ignored the Democratic strongholds in NOVA and Richmond and wasted his time campaigning at rural southwest and central Virginia because he thought that his personal brand would bring those white, working class voters back to the Democratic fold.

The result was that he got crushed like Obama in these places, while Democratic turnout catered in the cities and suburbs because he did nothing to excite and mobilize them.

[Likely Voter]

Both parties spent more in VA on an $/EV basis than any other state in 2012 and it ended right on the knife edge of the national average. It is the ultimate battleground state and will still be one for 2016.  But the long term trend has been toward the dems so it may be slightly Lean-D in 2016 but it isn't the same league as WI. And polls indicate that CO may have flipped back to be more on the R side of the line so it all balances out. (although VA has a few more EVs)

[DS0816]

Republicans now have a lock on 47% of the vote in VA (45% with the crazy high libertarian numbers in 2013), but while Dem landslides don't happen, that last 1-2% is incredibly hard for the GOP.  There does seem to be a hard Dem floor with white voters unlike other parts of the South.  They can try to flip Loudoun and Prince William with a culturally Northeastern campaign, but then rural turnout lags, and they seem to have a hard ceiling around 40% in Fairfax and 45% in Henrico.  They can try the rural turnout route like Cuccinelli in 2013, but then they fall to 45% in Prince William and Loudoun and get blown out worse in Fairfax and Henrico.  I also think Sarvis took more votes from the business-oriented Warner and McAuliffe than their opponents.

How do you figure the "Republicans generally have a lock on 47" percent of the statewide vote in Virginia?

They didn't get that much with John McCain.

They barely received that amount with Mitt Romney.

[Lief 🗽]

Democrats have figured out how to squeeze out a narrow winning coalition here. It's like Colorado. Republicans are better off going after states with a lot of swingy white working class voters (Iowa, Wisconsin, Maine, New Hampshire and obviously Ohio).

[Devils30]

New Hampshire is more white college-educated than working class, I think Hillary would begin favored there and Tuesday wasn't exactly a meltdown for NH Dems. Maine is too far left for a Republican to win barring a national landslide.

I agree that Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin are top GOP targets in 2016. Ohio in my mind is more likely to fall than Florida for Dems. Despite Crist losing, the GOP is pretty much maxed out with northern Florida whites and better turnout should help Hillary win it. She might also run a few points ahead of Obama with older northern transplants in Palm Beach, Sarasota etc.

[Non Swing Voter]

Agreed.  Democrats winning Virginia in an off-year, Republican wave election is further proof that Virginia is a lean democratic state.

Republicans need to face facts, they haven't won a senate race or governors race in a long time, whether it's a Presidential year, a mid-term year, an odd-numbered year.  They simply can't pull it off because the NOVA vote is too overwhelming. 

The one argument Republicans can make is that Warner was popular and Gillespie was underfunded.  This argument is unavailing.  The fact is that Gillespie had almost 100% name recognition in Virginia.  He was a national figure in Washington, DC. 

If Republicans couldn't win Virginia in 2014 they have a wildly uphill battle in 2016 when the electorate will look vastly different. 

Also, few people dispute that Virginia is trending democratic... so another 2 years of demographic changes will also help democrats.

Democrats should be worried about North Carolina, Iowa, and Colorado though.  I could see Iowa and North Carolina going Republican in 2016.

[Devils30]

The Dems don't need NC, at this point its still electoral vote #347. Iowa would be a loss but if we can hold Virginia and Florida then we will win the election.

[Ljube]

Agreed.  Democrats winning Virginia in an off-year, Republican wave election is further proof that Virginia is a lean democratic state.

Republicans need to face facts, they haven't won a senate race or governors race in a long time, whether it's a Presidential year, a mid-term year, an odd-numbered year.  They simply can't pull it off because the NOVA vote is too overwhelming. 

We fully understand the facts and concede Virginia for 2016. We are going to need Wisconsin as a substitute.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Agreed.  Democrats winning Virginia in an off-year, Republican wave election is further proof that Virginia is a lean democratic state.

Republicans need to face facts, they haven't won a senate race or governors race in a long time, whether it's a Presidential year, a mid-term year, an odd-numbered year.  They simply can't pull it off because the NOVA vote is too overwhelming. 

The one argument Republicans can make is that Warner was popular and Gillespie was underfunded.  This argument is unavailing.  The fact is that Gillespie had almost 100% name recognition in Virginia.  He was a national figure in Washington, DC. 

If Republicans couldn't win Virginia in 2014 they have a wildly uphill battle in 2016 when the electorate will look vastly different. 

Also, few people dispute that Virginia is trending democratic... so another 2 years of demographic changes will also help democrats.

Democrats should be worried about North Carolina, Iowa, and Colorado though.  I could see Iowa and North Carolina going Republican in 2016.

Not everyone pays so much attention to politics that they know the former leader of the RNC.   

[Devils30]

Not so sure about that. But there wasn't anything terrible or great about Gillespie as a candidate.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Agreed.  Democrats winning Virginia in an off-year, Republican wave election is further proof that Virginia is a lean democratic state.

Republicans need to face facts, they haven't won a senate race or governors race in a long time, whether it's a Presidential year, a mid-term year, an odd-numbered year.  They simply can't pull it off because the NOVA vote is too overwhelming. 

The one argument Republicans can make is that Warner was popular and Gillespie was underfunded.  This argument is unavailing.  The fact is that Gillespie had almost 100% name recognition in Virginia.  He was a national figure in Washington, DC. 

If Republicans couldn't win Virginia in 2014 they have a wildly uphill battle in 2016 when the electorate will look vastly different. 

Also, few people dispute that Virginia is trending democratic... so another 2 years of demographic changes will also help democrats.

Democrats should be worried about North Carolina, Iowa, and Colorado though.  I could see Iowa and North Carolina going Republican in 2016.

Not everyone pays so much attention to politics that they know the former leader of the RNC.   

Most people who vote in off-year elections, who live within a 100 mile radius of Washington DC know exactly who Ed Gillespie is.

yeah, I forget, Virginia doesn't exist south of the Rappahanock.

[Ljube]

Considering Warner was personally popular and expected to win this race handily, yet came within ~20K votes of losing, this shows that Virginia is still a swing state. Yes, it has rapidly trended Democratic over the past 20 years, but trends are not eternal.

2012 was the first election where it voted more Democratic than the country as a whole (after slightly undervoting in 2008), and while that trend is likely to continue, it is not set in stone. This race was more about how a personally popular incumbent can't just take re-election for granted and not do any work to get his base to turn out. 2013 was more about Republicans nominating a bad candidate.

Can Republicans win Virginia? Of course they can. It will just it will get progressively harder over time if current trends continue, and the GOP will have to have their own 2012 to win it safely or risk narrowly losing it in a tied national election, or there will have to be some political shift in the state or the nation that redraws the map.

If Republicans won the Governor's race last year and this Senate race by even a few thousand votes, no doubt they'd be talking about how Virginia is obviously trending Republican. They'd completely miss the point that each race is unique and Virginia is still a swing state.

The Republican campaign in Virginia this year, or lack thereof, shows that the RNC has realized what everybody else already knows - Virginia is to Republicans what Georgia is to Democrats. There simply aren't enough votes for a Republican there.

So, forget about Virginia. The path to 269 runs through other states.

[Mister Mets]

Really, this shouldn't change anybody's view of Virginia.  Its a state that either party could win under the right circumstances, perhaps the most competitive state in the country.  A single election result shouldn't change that.

The right view on Virginia is that it's a swing state by pretty much any definiton of the term. The election results don't change that.

Some on the forum seem to think it's a very liberal state, which isn't true and certainly isn't supported by the narrow reelection of a Senator who remains personally popular.

[Skill and Chance]

Considering Warner was personally popular and expected to win this race handily, yet came within ~20K votes of losing, this shows that Virginia is still a swing state. Yes, it has rapidly trended Democratic over the past 20 years, but trends are not eternal.

2012 was the first election where it voted more Democratic than the country as a whole (after slightly undervoting in 2008), and while that trend is likely to continue, it is not set in stone. This race was more about how a personally popular incumbent can't just take re-election for granted and not do any work to get his base to turn out. 2013 was more about Republicans nominating a bad candidate.

Can Republicans win Virginia? Of course they can. It will just it will get progressively harder over time if current trends continue, and the GOP will have to have their own 2012 to win it safely or risk narrowly losing it in a tied national election, or there will have to be some political shift in the state or the nation that redraws the map.

If Republicans won the Governor's race last year and this Senate race by even a few thousand votes, no doubt they'd be talking about how Virginia is obviously trending Republican. They'd completely miss the point that each race is unique and Virginia is still a swing state.

The Republican campaign in Virginia this year, or lack thereof, shows that the RNC has realized what everybody else already knows - Virginia is to Republicans what Georgia is to Democrats. There simply aren't enough votes for a Republican there.

So, forget about Virginia. The path to 269 runs through other states.

It does remind me a lot of Georgia, but Georgia is better for R's than Virginia is for D's.  They are guaranteed 53% in Georgia and Dems are guaranteed 45%.  In Virginia, barring something very exceptional, D's are guaranteed about 49% and R's about 47%.  The last 2-4% are very hard, but it's better than being 7% back in GA.

[backtored]

Democrats have figured out how to squeeze out a narrow winning coalition here. It's like Colorado. Republicans are better off going after states with a lot of swingy white working class voters (Iowa, Wisconsin, Maine, New Hampshire and obviously Ohio).

That map is highly unlikely. The GOP needs to win states like Colorado and Virginia to have long-term viability. Those states are still a lot more conservative than top-ticket results often show and Republicans understand that both states are very important and very winnable.

[Ljube]

They are neither important nor winnable. Look up the election results in 2008 and 2012.


This is an Electoral College tie that will most likely result in a Republican being elected president. And it's the most likely victory in 2016.

[The_Doctor]

Virginia will be a swing state. And given the near misses of the Republicans in 2013 and 2014, there is probably a majority there for a Republican candidate. Romney did not lose that badly in Virginia; he carried 47.26%.

Assuming that as your baseline, a strong Republican campaign can take 49.5% of the state. Which is pretty much what they need to do to win, assuming 1.5% goes to other candidates (as it did in 2012). It's not that far of a leap from 47.26% to 49.5%. In other words, Republicans need just 85,000 more votes to get there, from the Romney total of 1,822,522.

Republicans can compete in Virginia, and Gillespie has demonstrated how a Republican can actually win the state. Particularly the point about outreach in North Virginia. I can't forecast if Virginia will go Republican in 2016, but it is plausible, reasonably so, that it can be Republican.

[New_Conservative]

Virginia will be a swing state. And given the near misses of the Republicans in 2013 and 2014, there is probably a majority there for a Republican candidate. Romney did not lose that badly in Virginia; he carried 47.26%.

Assuming that as your baseline, a strong Republican campaign can take 49.5% of the state. Which is pretty much what they need to do to win, assuming 1.5% goes to other candidates (as it did in 2012). It's not that far of a leap from 47.26% to 49.5%. In other words, Republicans need just 85,000 more votes to get there, from the Romney total of 1,822,522.

Republicans can compete in Virginia, and Gillespie has demonstrated how a Republican can actually win the state. Particularly the point about outreach in North Virginia. I can't forecast if Virginia will go Republican in 2016, but it is plausible, reasonably so, that it can be Republican.

Unless the Republicans make some incredible outreach to Arlington County voters, I don't see the Republicans winning Virginia in 2016.