virginia.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Virginia will be closer in 2008 than in the last two presidential elections, however it will still result in victory for Senator McCain come election day. My predictions for the Presidential race in Virginia would be this:

McCain (R): 52%
Obama (D): 47%
Others: (O): 1%

[agcatter]

about right

[bullmoose88]

The state is trending Democratic, it was 5.7% more GOP than the national average in 2004, following that same trend it puts it @ 3% more GOP than the national average.  If anything the trend in Virginia towards the Democrats has picked up even more steam since 2004, so the 04-08 trend against the national average would likely be even heavier than the 00-04 trend.  Top that off with higher black turnout as well with Obama having more appeal than the typical Democrat would in leftward FLYING Northern Virginia.  In VA I would say Hillary could be within 3 points of the national average and possibly 2, Obama looks like he can very well be even with the national average.

My math and econometrics professors always warned against taking trends from the last data point or two and extrapolating forward.

It would be more conservative and wiser to say take the trend back from say 88 or 92 and seeing where that put VA.

 In 96 it was 10.46% more GOP than nationally, 8.54% in 2000 & 5.74% in 04.  So the trend of 2-3 points nationally has been going on since 96.  Just looking at what is going on in Virginia, and Northern VA in particular it looks like the Dem trend has even gained more steam.  A trend doen't mean the trend will continue, but their is no evidence that the trend in VA is reversing itself, slowing down, and if anything it seems like the trend is picking up steam.

Second, I don't know if I totally buy into the idea of using how much more an area was (or less) than the national (or state) average.

Say for instance Candidate X in 1988 in State Y had 55% of the vote when he had 52% nationally, but 4 years later had 55% in state Y but 57% nationally...is the state any more or less favorable to his party than it was 4 years before?

What your doing does have some use and is telling, but like every other statistic, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Smash255]

The state is trending Democratic, it was 5.7% more GOP than the national average in 2004, following that same trend it puts it @ 3% more GOP than the national average.  If anything the trend in Virginia towards the Democrats has picked up even more steam since 2004, so the 04-08 trend against the national average would likely be even heavier than the 00-04 trend.  Top that off with higher black turnout as well with Obama having more appeal than the typical Democrat would in leftward FLYING Northern Virginia.  In VA I would say Hillary could be within 3 points of the national average and possibly 2, Obama looks like he can very well be even with the national average.

My math and econometrics professors always warned against taking trends from the last data point or two and extrapolating forward.

It would be more conservative and wiser to say take the trend back from say 88 or 92 and seeing where that put VA.

 In 96 it was 10.46% more GOP than nationally, 8.54% in 2000 & 5.74% in 04.  So the trend of 2-3 points nationally has been going on since 96.  Just looking at what is going on in Virginia, and Northern VA in particular it looks like the Dem trend has even gained more steam.  A trend doen't mean the trend will continue, but their is no evidence that the trend in VA is reversing itself, slowing down, and if anything it seems like the trend is picking up steam.

Second, I don't know if I totally buy into the idea of using how much more an area was (or less) than the national (or state) average.

Say for instance Candidate X in 1988 in State Y had 55% of the vote when he had 52% nationally, but 4 years later had 55% in state Y but 57% nationally...is the state any more or less favorable to his party than it was 4 years before?

What your doing does have some use and is telling, but like every other statistic, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm not saying its full proof by any means, nothing is, but its probably the best barometer to show where a state actually stands.

[MODU]

Obama definitely has the better chance of winning VA than Killary, but it would take a nation-wide landslide on Obama's side to definitely claim VA.  Killary would have had a better shot at winning the state if she wasn't "Clinton," since she does pander to the moderates much more than any other leftist, since VA is definitely a Blue Dog state.  However, as history shows, the Democrats rarely put forward a Blue Dog candidate, which is why it tends to go GOP, even when the state-level races go to the Democrats.

[MarkWarner08]

Obama definitely has the better chance of winning VA than Killary, but it would take a nation-wide landslide on Obama's side to definitely claim VA.  Killary would have had a better shot at winning the state if she wasn't "Clinton," since she does pander to the moderates much more than any other leftist, since VA is definitely a Blue Dog state.  However, as history shows, the Democrats rarely put forward a Blue Dog candidate, which is why it tends to go GOP, even when the state-level races go to the Democrats.

Which is exactly why Mark Warner would've been the perfect Democratic candidate for VA. If he runs in 2012, he might also be competitive in NC.

[joshc99]

I think it's interesting that virtually every prediction in this thread turned out wrong. Not only did Obama win by 6.3% (only 1.0% worse than nationally), but he actually lost Buchanan County. In fact, he lost quite a few Appalachian counties where Clinton won upwards of 80% of the vote.

[DS0816]

I think it's interesting that virtually every prediction in this thread turned out wrong. Not only did Obama win by 6.3% (only 1.0% worse than nationally), but he actually lost Buchanan County. In fact, he lost quite a few Appalachian counties where Clinton won upwards of 80% of the vote.

Virginia was No. 1 in being closest to reflecting President Obama's national margin. A spread of 0.96%. Look at it and Colorado for spreads, since 1996, and no wonder they were Nos. 1 and 2 (with Colo. at 8.95%, 1.69% above his national 7.26%).

[pbrower2a]

What was so amazing was that Virgina which had not gone for a Democratic nominee since the 1964 so did in 2008, and unlike in 1964, not in a full landslide. Virginia was the one former Confederate state that did not go for Jimmy Carter in 1976. It never went for Bill Clinton, a very strong nominee.

Virginia is now a true border state between the North and South, and it has become increasingly "Northern" since the 1920s. It went for Hoover in 1928 and then went for the Democratic nominee in four consecutive Presidential elections. It then went clearly for Nixon in 1960. It was one of the weaker wins of LBJ. It was fairly close in 1976, but Carter still lost it.

Virginia has become more like a Northern State. It is increasingly urban. It is probably better educated than the average. That Obama won it in 2008 after it going to Dubya by about 8% twice suggests not only a nationwide shift but that the state itself has moved in ways different from some other states. 2012 confirms that a Republican nominee will have to be very effective to win it. It is near the national average.

 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

From what I've noticed in the voting patterns, Virginia is quickly becoming more of a Northeastern state than a Southern state politically, although it's geographically a Southern state.

[barfbag]

It's more of a toss up, swing, battleground state now. The tentacles of our government in D.C. have reached our first beloved colony. Obama probably did better than Democrats would have done there in the last 2 elections so even if the next couple elections in VA reflect the popular vote, it's hard to say if a generic Democratic candidate would have carried the state or had Obama's numbers there. There has definitely been a trend too which has helped the Democrats in the Old Dominion. By 2020 we'll be able to fully experience Obama's advantages or know that Virginia's outcomes in 2008 and 2012 were a result of trends.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

It was not Obama that pulled Virginia over the line. The Democratic wave in 2008 demonstrated the extreme growth of NOVA which consists of young urban professionals, including many government workers. The young, upper-middle class educated demographic is obviously much more Democratic then the rest of the state, and the growth rates here compared to southwest Virginia have been pulling it away from GOP hands at an alarming rate. This obviously results in the state voting more like Maryland than the Carolinas. So unlike Obama's bumps in Louisiana and Mississippi, this state's movement is all trend based.

[PolitiJunkie]

Campaign away in Virginia liberals! You'll do great there, just like you did in '04!

Thanks bro!

Obama has a better chance of winning VA, than McCain does of winning PA, WI, NH, or MI

ROTFLMAO!

Uh.... no. 

You fail.

No, you fail.

Obama will probably lose, but there is an outside chance he could win.  In all probability, though, Obama will lose 52-47.

Agreed, man.

[ElectionsGuy]

You know what this says, that there will be absolute impossibilities pulled off by candidates in the future. Meaning states we know as Pennsylvania, North Carolina, or even New York could change drastically. If this thread says anything, its that some states that we say won't go republican/democrat in the future most definitely could/will.