Google Ads


Site Stats

VA-Sen: First Poll Shows Dems in Decent Shape

by: DavidNYC

Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 8:01 AM EST


Public Policy Polling (PDF) (11/10-13, Virginia voters, no trendlines):

Jim Webb (D-inc): 49
George Allen (R): 45
Undecided: 6

Jim Webb (D-inc): 49
Bill Bolling (R): 38
Undecided: 12

Jim Webb (D-inc): 49
Ken Cuccinelli (R): 39
Undecided: 11

Tim Kaine (D): 50
George Allen (R): 44
Undecided: 6

Tim Kaine (D): 48
Bill Bolling (R): 41
Undecided: 11

Tim Kaine (D): 50
Ken Cuccinelli (R): 40
Undecided: 11

Tom Perriello (D): 42
George Allen (R): 47
Undecided: 12

Tom Perriello (D): 41
Bill Bolling (R): 42
Undecided: 18

Tom Perriello (D): 44
Ken Cuccinelli (R): 41
Undecided: 15
(MoE: ±4.2%)

It's a new cycle, and so we're back to polls with zillions of permutations. Our friends over at Public Policy Polling take a look at what's likely to be one of the more interesting races of the the 2012 campaign, and you can't really complain if you're a Dem - especially not after this month's bloodbath. Of course, PPP is moving back to something closer to a registered voter model, but it's actually a bit more than that. In an email to us last March, Tom Jensen told us:

We call people who voted in at least one of the last three general elections. We don't explicitly ask them at this point in the game if they plan to vote in the fall. I imagine 97% of the people who answer the polls will vote this fall but since we're not explicitly screening yet we don't call them likely voters.

This sample voted for Obama 49-44. It's been a long time since PPP's visited Virginia, but in their final 2009 poll (PDF), they showed a McCain 48-47 electorate (using a likely voter screen). Will there still be (groan) an enthusiasm gap two years hence? It's way too early to say, but count me among those who thinks the economy has entered a period of perma-suck.

Anyhow, here's a little rundown of everyone's favorables:

Allen: 40-41
Bolling: 20-25
Cuccinelli: 31-39
Kaine: 43-40
Perriello: 22-32

Webb, for his part, has a surprisingly decent 43-37 job approval rating. I'm also pretty heartened by Perriello's toplines given his pretty tough approval scores - though I'm a bit skeptical that a one-term congressman in a fairly large state is actually known to over half of all Virginians. Personally, if Webb doesn't run, I'd love to see Perriello go for the nod, since the guy is clearly a fighter and would make it a hell of a race.
DavidNYC :: VA-Sen: First Poll Shows Dems in Decent Shape
Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

VA-Sen: First Poll Shows Dems in Decent Shape | 107 comments
And they had Obama beating all Republicans
from a five to an eleven point margin.
Good numbers for Kaine.
I don't know about the Senate, but this makes me want him to go after his old job again next election; if he can poll ahead of Bolling and Cuccinelli in a federal election, he can beat them at the state level.
I've always thought the same about Mark Warner, and he's more likely because...
...he was, before choosing the bird in the hand by running for Senate, always open about wanting to be Governor again.

I'm had it in my head since Warner won his Senate seat in 2008 that I could see him ditching the Senate before his first term is up to run for Governor in 2013.  If he wins he then appoints his own Senate successor who also runs in his/her own right a year later, and if he loses he keeps his Senate seat and can run for reelection to Senate a year later.  But there's been no buzz about any such thing, so I imagine he's not really thought of it, or at least talked about it to anyone who would leak it.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
I
doubt Warner runs for governor again, if he had truly wanted the job again he could have just ran in 2009 and have let someone else (Kaine?) run for Senate. Warner could be building up his reasume for a possible presidencial run come 2014 and running for Governor again would make him look like a constant job switcher (Senator to Governor to president?).  

17, Gay Male, Democrat, NJ-8  
[ Parent ]
It's a given Warner always has wanted to be Governor again......
It's not disputed that Warner always wanted another term as Gov.

And the reason he didn't run in 2009 is the 2008 Senate race was a much easier win in what obviously was a very favorable political environment for Dems, in contrast to the common knowledge that McDonnell was going to be the GOP nominee and would be very strong.  It was obvious by the time Warner decided for Senate that winning VA-Sen 2008 would be a million times easier than winning VA-Gov 2009, even though I do think Warner, whose personal popularity in VA was similar to Manchin's in WV, ultimately would have beaten McDonnell.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
I seem to recall reading that Warner also had family concerns
 in not running for Gov. in 2009.
Something along the lines that he's living in NOVA (Alexandria?) and didn't want to have to move his children back to Richmond. But as a Senator, he could just commute to work in DC from there.
[ Parent ]
Alexandria
Warner lives in Old Town Alexandria. I live pretty close to him and have seen him around from time to time.  

28, Male, Democrat VA-08  
[ Parent ]
As I said before
The rumors of Kaine's weakness and Allen's strength were greatly exaggerated.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

Absolutely right, DGM, and I've been with you the whole way on both things. (nm)
nm

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10
[ Parent ]
Whatever
gets Kaine out of the chairmanship of the DNC is fine by me, but I perfer having Webb run for re-election considering he'd be the strongest to win imo (as long as he actully campaigns and doesn't pull a Coakley)  

17, Gay Male, Democrat, NJ-8  
[ Parent ]
I don't think Kaine has done a poor job as chairman
Hell, the DNC's fundraising has been the strongest it's been in a while.

He's been worlds better than Michael Steele as RNC chair (regardless of how the House went!)

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
My
dog could be a better chairman than Steele but I don't believe Kaine is the chairman that Dean was. Fundraising could be as strong as it can be but Kaine (along with Obama) allowed the GOP to pretty much win the message war which was one of the major causes of this GOP wave.  

17, Gay Male, Democrat, NJ-8  
[ Parent ]
Dean was no better than Kaine
Howard Dean was as poor a fundraiser for us as Michael Steele is for Republicans.  And yes that hurt us.

But Dean offset it with a 50-state strategy that deserved a lot more respect than Beltway Dems gave it.  Steele of course has done no such thing, he's a disaster in every facet of the job.

Kaine is a far better fundraiser than Dean, and his strategic focus doesn't matter because we have a Democratic President, and everything flows from the White House.  Dean didn't have that, so he had to do more on his own; not apples-to-apples in that regard, Kaine is subordinate to Obama.

On the whole Dean deserves neither the props the netroots give him, nor the contempt the Beltway pros give him.

But he certainly was no better than Kaine.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
Both have different skill sets.
It's that simple. Kaine is a great fundraiser. Dean is a great party builder. Kaine works well with Obama. Dean is fiercely independent and follows his instinct.

Dean was great in leading our party out of the wilderness of loss it was in, but now we need a DNC Chair who can work with Obama.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

[ Parent ]
So here's a thought
If Webb retires, Kaine runs and wins, you'd have a situation where not only are both senate seats held by a former governor, but also held by the former Governor and his Lt. Governor. I wonder how often that happens.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

Very Jedi/Padawan

[ Parent ]
I think this would be not bad

Someone thinks about Webb running for governor in 2013?

Obviously, following the numbers, the best would be to have Kaine and Webb running in 2012 (senate) and 2013 (governor). But the order is unclear:

Webb for senate and Kaine for governor?

Kaine for senate and Webb for governor?

[ Parent ]
Exit poll showed HUGE enthusiasm gap in 2009......
The exit poll, which was off by a point by showing McDonnell up 58-42 when he won 59-41, revealed an electorate that went for McCain 51-43.  This in a state whose actual 2008 electorate went for Obama 53-46.  And still that same 2009 exit poll showed Obama with a 48-51 job approval, only barely underwater; this PPP poll effectively corroborates that with a more friendly sample.

The 2009 exit poll party ID was 37R-33D-30I, and ideologically it was 42M-40C-18L.

So yeah, there was quite the enthusiasm gap.

On a micro level, I studied the precinct-based turnout in HD-34, where I live and where incumbent Dem Margi Vanderhye lost her seat in what is a Dem district.  All but one precinct that Vanderhye won had lower absolute turnout in 2009 than in 2005; that's not lower as a percentage of population or as a percentage of registered voters, but lower in absolute vote totals, which is much worse than lower percentage turnout since their was modest population growth and voter registration growth over the preceding 4 years, mostly in Democrats' favor.  And all but one precinct the GOPer, Comstock, won had higher absolute turnout than 4 years earlier.

I'm actually quite confident that a motivated Democratic base combined with the reality of today's Virginia electorate will translate to Obama being able to carry the state.  In fact, I would say that if Obama has job approvals in the 50s nationally and gets reelected, he will have carry Virginia in the mix.

Obama has the advantage of being able to play in Virginia and the 3 western states of CO, NM, and NV as an offset to losing OH and FL.  He still is going to have that expanded map, and if he can hold it and finish his Presidency with reasonably good job approvals, we'll have those states in the new map going forward from 2016, too.

All this translates to more success downballot for us, too.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

Great Analysis!
I couldn't agree more with what you are saying here. With high NoVa turnout (especially among people my age) and the margins that it generates it creates a huge vote margin that the GOP must overcome further south. With Obama at the top of the ticket he is able to somewhat blunt those typical margins through an increased African American turnout where they vote at or near their percentage of the population (20%). My gut tells me that without Obama and another generic D they would likely be about 16-18% of the vote totals. Obama is likely worth at least 2% of an African-American electorate. Given that there are enough whites that will vote Democratic in NoVa (as compared with a state like GA) this is likely enough to get him near 40% of the white vote which is about all that he needs. Demographic changes in VA are real. The conservative southern part of the state (look at VA-09 which is under ideal population of about 65,000) is shrinking and the exurbs which are moderate is fast growing (VA-10 is over 100,000 above the ideal population). Lots of young tech professionals are moving here and they are not likely to vote Republican but as we know they certainly don't vote in every election.

I think you and I discussed this a few days ago but yes Virginia going blue is huge to Obama's path to 270. Looking at the 2004 map with census changes you likely get Obama 245 with Kerry states. Toss in CO, NV and NM which all look like they are trending our way and you get 265. Toss in VA and are over the magic number. He could even lose FL, OH, IN, NC and NH and still go over that magic 270 as a result of VA. Way too early to predict but the bottom line is that Obama has real options with the path to 270 and they don't all involve "Florida" or "Ohio".  

28, Male, Democrat VA-08  

[ Parent ]
Yes, except Iowa
IA voted more heavily for Obama than Virginia, and also voted for Gore, so you add Iowa's 7 electoral votes and you have 272. Granted, Virginia is behind Iowa in that calculus, and I think for reasons like its low unemployment rate, that it'll stick with the Obama coalition in 2012. CO, IA, VA, NH, NV and NM are definitely our firewall states.

Either way, although there may be further retrenchment in parts of Virginia like the Southwest and perhaps parts of Southside or other rural parts, I still see the strength of the NOVA-Hampton Roads-Richmond-Charlottesville vote machine carrying the day for Obama. I'm unsure how VA will do in 2011, however..

[ Parent ]
Thanks for pointing out my omission...
Totally forgot that Kerry botched it in Iowa! Makes the math even easier for Obama with those 6 EVs in mind. 2011 you are right. I have no idea what the turnout will be which could be a problem for us.

28, Male, Democrat VA-08  
[ Parent ]
Without
having any detailed knowledge of the efforts in the state, I'm sure the Democrats focused more on the northern than on southern Virginia. But can't they try to round up votes in the other parts of the state as well? I don't know how many potential voters there are in this part of the state, but hey, if they can add just 25,000, would it make sense to spend some time working there?

I'd also add Arizona to the list of Southwestern states Obama should make a play for. He only lost the state by nine points despite McCain being at the top of the ticket, whereas Kerry lost the state by 11 points. If they can swing Indiana by 11 points, why not try to do the same in Arizona?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
The focus in Virginia was statewide, but there is nothing more to gain...
...in southern Virginia that wasn't tapped other than black voters.

Obama did horribly with rural whites in the state.  He underperformed in western Virginia compared to past Democrats including Kerry, specifically because it's part of Appalachia and Appalachian whites always have hated Obama with a passion.  There's one union-heavy coal county on the WV border that voted Republican for President for the first time; they voted for Kerry, they voted for Mondale, and they may have even voted for McGovern although I'm not sure about that.

This was in spite of Obama personally aggressively campaigning in southwest and Southside.

Obama's Virginia coalition is black voters, other racial minorities, and urban and suburban whites.  Rural whites are as hostile as ever to Democratic Presidential nominees, and a black one with a funny name is unacceptable to them.

The only good thing about this is that Obama has nothing more to lose, and Republicans no margin to gain, with rural whites.  Republicans can't win the state without turning a lot of Obama voters into Republican voters in 2012.  And what makes this hard is that most of those people never vote Republican; McCain outpolled Dubya '04 by 10K votes, and McCain's vote total was the record for a Republican in the state.  But Obama got 500K more votes than Kerry and won the state by 250K votes.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
If both sides are tapped out
in the southern part of the state, I guess we need to focus on the north. Did Obama essentially get all of the votes he could have gotten in 2008, or is there room for improvement?

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Small improvement possible
Likely there is some small room for improvement in Northern Virginia among young transplants. Though he just about maxed out young transplants in 2008 (like me) there are ALWAYS lots of young transplants constantly moving here. These people are far more likely to vote Democratic. There would need to be a huge effort to get these people registered. Though most of them are educated (they move here for government or tech work (like me) ) so once you register them they would probably be far more likely than minorities without college degrees to vote but the key is to make sure that they register. Tons of the young people are moving from NY, NJ and the midwest so its not like there is a huge flux of Evangelicals moving from Alabama here.  

28, Male, Democrat VA-08  
[ Parent ]
It's simply the same gameplan as 2008, which did, in fact, include a massive...
...voter registration drive.

Yes after 4 years some of the 2008 new voters (whether first-time voters or transplants) are gone, and another batch of new voters (post-2008 transplants and people who will be 18-21 come November 2012) must be aggressively courted.  But it's the same gameplan as last time, and it will go even smoother this time because the campaign already did this successfully once and knows exactly what to do.

It would be nice if they could go so far as to get Mitch Stewart to take over Virginia again, but for all I know he wants something better than that the 2nd time around.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
I read
before the 2008 election that something like 94 percent of the voters in Ohio who were able to be registered were actually registered to vote. I'm sure that goes down as each election passes and people leave the state and new people enter the system, but unless there was some awful event on the scale of Hurricane Katrina in Ohio, it's not dropping to 75 percent. I'd also guess that a lot of that small percentage who isn't registered will simply never be registered because they have no interest in voting. So, basically, pretty much everyone in Ohio is registered, and those who aren't as 2012 will be relentlessly pursued by each side until they register or each side acknowledges they won't register.

Would you say something similar is happening in Virginia? As you and I both acknowledge, there will always be some new people to register, but unless there's a truly transient population in each state, eventually, there's nobody left. Have we reached that point in Virginia? And if not, where are the prime target areas for the Democrats besides NoVa?

And if Mitch Stewart is looking for something better to do--as in, challenging but potentially just as rewarding--he should see what he can do in Georgia, or perhaps even Texas. I'm sorry to sound like a broken record with this, but I can't get that state out of my head. There's a pool of four to five million voters that never shows up, and there are a few million more that aren't registered, many of whom are minorities. Trying to mobilize the state would be really expensive, I know, but if the Obama team can try to work out a stable source of funding for an initial investment from big donors, I could see a small percentage of his small donor base willing to chip in the rest. Does it sound impossible to get 100,000 donors to contribute $250 just for this effort? To me, it doesn't.

I don't know when an appropriate point to start is--would anyone really be interested in this stuff starting this January, for instance?--but if it's early enough, and the campaign sees promising results, the Republicans will be either faced with the choice of downplaying the Democratic efforts and getting left behind, or throwing money into the state themselves. You and others who tell me it's just not that at that point of turning blue yet could easily be right. But if they can secure the money for an investment in the state, there's no reason not to do it. Imagine it's August, and the Republicans see the results of our efforts that began months ago and polling that shows us being competitive, they will probably have to drop money into the state--not just for the presidential race, but for Senate and House races, too. Remind me, when was the last time Kay Baily Hutchinson ran in a truly competitive campaign? (There's also the chance she won't even be the nominee. Is Michael Williams going to start out in nearly as strong as a position as she will?) Even if they end up beating us by five points instead of 11, every dollar they drop in this state will be one less going to Ohio, Iowa, or Virginia.



"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Stewart to Texas
I'd love to see Obama drop $20 M in Texas and build up a staff there because
1. it will surely help us with a close state legislature
2. it will really help the Dem in the Senate race
3. it would probably speed up the D takeover of Texas by 1 Presidential election (like 2020 instead of 2024)
and 4. it will make the Republican waste precious time and $$  
[ Parent ]
VA Outreach
I did some canvassing in VA for the 08 elections and most of the time we worked in and around the DC suburbs. A lot of us started before the Iowa's caucus but thought it would be futile with Obama's lead before NH. I remember seeing about 200 people volunteering in the DCCC headquarters right after the convention. Amazingly we were soon asked to be in the ex-burbs like Louden. The weekend before the election my friends and I had to drive to Richmond to find a single canvassing packet (and there still was only 1 for the 6 of us). We would drive to a county HQ and they'd say "we're out go further south" and we did that for like 5 hours. It was amazing. And the people who's door we knocked had already been "hit" 3 times each on average. After going to the 3rd county I knew Obama was a lock to win. If almost every voter's door was going to be knocked on the weekend before the election Obama was going to be fine.

I just compare that to knocking on doors this summer for the now ex-congressman Schauer (MI-07)  where we had 5 volunteers for an entire county that contained a massive university (Michigan) full of hard core Democrats.

[ Parent ]
Still Obama can win without Virginia (Ohio and Florida)
03 votes DC
03 votes Vermont
04 votes Hawaii
11 votes Massachusetts
04 votes Rhode Island
29 votes New York
10 votes Maryland
20 votes Illinois
03 votes Delaware
07 votes Connecticut
55 votes California
12 votes Washington
04 votes Maine
07 votes Oregon
16 votes Michigan
14 votes New Jersey
05 votes New Mexico
10 votes Minnesota
04 votes New Hampshire
10 votes Wisconsin
20 votes Pennsylvania
06 votes Iowa
06 votes Nevada
09 votes Colorado
---
272 votes (270 votes are necessary for win the majority of the 538 votes)

I think the firewal would be NM, NH, WI, PA, IA, NV and CO. Without Virginia.

But, of course, I think they are chance of win more states, Virginia surely the first (would have 13 votes following the projections), and Obama will work for it.

[ Parent ]
Imagine
Just imagine if Palin is the republican nominee. I'd expect not to get results in numerous Republican states until late, late that night. I think states like South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas to be really tight. Still no hope for Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Alaska, Nebraska, Kansas, and Alabama.

[ Parent ]
I make this argument
quite frequently, but I think it's worth doing so. Unless these states truly snap back to their Republican mean, places like Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, Montana, and North and South Dakota look to be targets if there's enough investment. Georgia is supposedly not cheap, and I doubt Arizona is much better, but how expensive can the others be? If his fund raising is strong, I absolutely want him to mount serious offensives in those states. I'm almost ready to say the same thing about South Dakota even if John Thune is the nominee (although probably not, because he'd easily carry the state, and even if the money was used to send a message, it'd be better spent in other places). He could easily drop a few million in those states to do nothing else but keep the Republicans on their toes.

I almost want to include Texas on this list, because even though I am sort of skeptical he could really win the state, if he can register enough voters and advertise, that could be a boon for House candidates and maybe even the Senate candidate. And if he has enough money, why not?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
All of this
seems awfully optimistic, especially given what just happened a few weeks ago. I tend to think that the Obama '12 version will be a lot closer to the Obama '10 version than the '08 model. He's not the shiny new thing on the block anymore, and while AA turnout will certainly be up, I doubt the youth vote is what it is again. Or if it is that it breaks as hard towards Obama.

Also I would worry about WI and MI swinging red, and maybe  part of ME, especially given what has just happened. That mucks up the calculations somewhat as well.  

[ Parent ]
The young vote
Not coming out is certainly a significant concern. Them voting for Republicans I don't think is. There were something like 10-15 million young voters who came out in 2008 but didn't in 2010. Everything I've read about that group suggests they're disappointed in Obama but there doesn't seem to be any indication this group will vote for Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin in any significant number.

I'd be surprised if the Republican won Wisconsin. Even with an extremely high level of Democratic apathy in my state, one of the most unpopular Democratic governors in America, an extremely strong Republican Gov. candidate and a Sen. candidate who ran an extremely strong campaign, the Republicans only won by 5 points.

[ Parent ]
Two things
make me think that we can get something similar to what we had in 2008. The first is that Obama will be at the top of the ticket. Maybe he won't have the appeal he had the same time, but it's probably easier to motivate people with him at the top of the ticket. The second is that the Republican will likely do whatever he or she can to not only turn young voters off but make them work against him or her, especially because the campaign has already started and will stretch out even longer than it did last time. So, come this spring, when these guys are screaming about the evils of gay marriage and the fraud of global warming, they will provide a nice contrast with Obama.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
When thinking of just the college vote
They never turn-out in mid-terms like they do in presidential elections, probably even more so this past time around.  And I doubt they are disappointed in Obama as most of them don't pay attention to anything they need to until two months or less before the vote.
[ Parent ]
We can be optimistic
but realistic. Aren't the votes of minorities and young people usually up by a lot in presidential years by default? We will need to work on turning them out, sure, but I don't think it'll be that much of a problem unless he's just brutally unpopular with everyone.

Your worries are actually one reason why I want to focus on voter registration. If we can't convince the people that are already registered to vote for us, we can find new people. That won't make a difference if he's imploding and behind by 15 points in some of these states, but if it's close, it could make all of the difference in the world.

As far as the youth vote goes, if we can believe the exit polls, it was only up by one point compared to 2004 (17 to 18 percent). It did swing pretty hard to Obama compared to 2004, and maybe it won't be as strong, but why would it swing back down so heavily? Obama might not be the shiny new car that he was in 2008, but who's going to replace him? I have a hard time believing any of the current contenders for the nomination on the Republican side damages him that much.

As far as states like Wisconsin and Michigan, compare 2004 and 2008 using exit polls. In Michigan, in 2004, Kerry lose the white vote by 10 points and only got 89 percent of the black vote, which made up a smaller percentage of the total vote, but he still won the state by 3 points. In Wisconsin, in 2004, he also lost the white vote by 10 points and did even worse amongst black voters, only winning 86 percent of their vote, yet he still managed to win the state by a point. In 2008, Obama won Michigan by 16 points and Wisconsin by 13 points, so it looks like he's got a long way to fall before he loses those states.

For argument's sake, let's just give Obama the same share of the white vote that Kerry got in Michigan, with the totals for each race in the electorate being the same. Instead of winning 51 of the white vote in Michigan, let's give him 44 percent. Also assume that he gets the same percentage of the black vote in each state that he got in 2008, which was 97 percent in Michigan, and everything else holds. He still wins Michigan with 50.24 percent of the vote.

I could see him losing Wisconsin before Michigan, if only because it's a whiter state and for some reason he received less black support there than he did in a lot of other states, but again, he's got such a buffer in each state that he'd have to fall pretty badly before losing them. Is he going to collapse 10 points amongst white voters in the next two years? Maybe, but that's a pretty steep drop.

I don't think he'll take either state for granted, but I'd be much more worried about Ohio or Florida than either Wisconsin or Michigan.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
I wonder if President Mondale agrees with you? n/t


Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
Not really the same thing
Dems gained 26 House seats and 0 Senate seats. GOP did significantly better than that this year, and you can argue they should have done even better than they did. Plus they swept all sorts of statewide offices and state legs that Dems did not do in 1982. Also, Reagan wasn't fueled by fickle, unpredictable voting blocs like minorities and young voters.

So there's a comparison but you can't really relate the two. Depends a lot on who the GOP nominates though. And the economy, of course.  

[ Parent ]
What about President Dole then?
And Obama's numbers right now are actually pretty damn good all things considered. Even small improvements in the economy will give Obama a big boost (not to mention that young voters and minorities turnout big-time in presidential elections).

Obama's favored to win re-election no matter who the Republicans nominate.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
No, DGM, you're wrong, immediate past performance guarantees a repeat in every election......
We're going to lose another 6 Senate seats and another 64 House seats, and Obama, too, will lose.

This will repeat until we're down to zero, or maybe they'll expand the House so we can keep losing seats even when we don't have any.

Your argument that circumstances change dramatically in short periods of time is bunk.

(For the snark-challenged, this is snark.)

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
Hey now, we'll hold a seat or two
We do have those 90%+ districts in New York and Chicago after all!

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
*sigh* Democratic echo chamber at its worst
Face reality dude, only overly-hopeful liberals believe that Jose Serrano isn't facing a double-digit defeat in 2012.  

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
ZOMG, Nancy Pelosi will lose big to John Dennis!


My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
Nancy Pelosi is the Blanche Lincoln of 2012. obv.


21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
She'll be one of the lucky ones
She'll actually crack 35% of the vote!

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
The GOP only lost
26 seats because they only had 191 seats. It's next to impossible to lose 50-60 seats when you are already in the minority.

As for the Senate, many GOPers survived because some of them were New England liberals who separated themselves from Reagan. Today, with the parties far more nationally cohesive, such a thing is unlikely.

And the GOP lost 6 governorships and 10 legislative chambers. Again, that's not a lot compared to 2010, but remember that the Democrats already had a lot of those, and Republicans were being cut to the bone.

Don't sugercoat 1982. It was a horrific disaster for the GOP, and Reagan had lower approvals than Obama right now.

All that matters in the economy. Political science shows that if the economy is good in 2012, everything in the universe will shift around to give Obama a victory.

[ Parent ]
All those states, except SC, are the targets for 2012
much moreso than Missouri.  South Carolina will be the bridge too far.

The Dakotas for sure and maybe Montana are off the table if Thune is the nominee (and maybe Romney too), but Obama will slaughter any of leading GOP candidates.

The GOP thing we are looking at now is similar to what happened with the Dems in 2008... solid candidates like Bayh and Warner gave up because they couldn't fade the lack of attention.  The leading Republicans are all very terrible candidates with almost no chance of outperforming Mccain.  Unless that changes the downballot benefits in Virginia and Montana will be considerable for incumbent Dems.

[ Parent ]
SC isn't as far a stretch as you think
He did pretty well there in 2008 without contesting the state in the GE. He came within 10 points, handily won the youth vote, and won 26% of the white vote - better than even GA.

Moreover, although there haven't been that many SC approval polls that aren't Rasmussen, several of them haven't had his numbers that bad. A February 2010 poll had his rating there 48%, and the most recent (Rasmussen) poll had him at 43%.

Granted, the exit poll was 34%, but that's because AA turnout and youth turnout plunged.

If he can rebound to a 52-53% approval rating in 2012, SC may be a worthwhile investment, at least as a reach.  

[ Parent ]
Interesting...
I plan to look more at the Clark and Washoe precinct numbers from this year, but what I've seen in Henderson (where I live) looks encouraging. While I suspect some of the "Republicans for Reid" won't be crossing over for Obama in 2012 (unless the GOP gifts us with someone as horrifying as Palin), he'll most likely more than make up for that with increased Democratic turnout and win Nevada comfortably again.

I'm feeling quite good about Obama holding states like Nevada and Virginia in 2012, since the demographics are trending in our favor. And consequently, I don't think Jim Webb is in as much danger as others have feared. And if Heller stays out of the Senate race here or gets teabagged in the primary, we can easily pick up Ensign's seat as well.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

[ Parent ]
Palin, Gingrich and Huckabee
have zilch appear to the mountain west.  Only Romney could make Nevada competitive, and I doubt he'd get within 6 points.

The GOP is in deep shit in the mountain west.  If they run a moderate Hispanic woman in New mexico, they can do fine, but no such person will be the GOP Presidential candidate.

[ Parent ]
If
Perriello runs for his old seat again would high AA turnout be enough to win this seat or is the 5th pretty much lost since Robert Hurt isn't the nut Goode was. I'm hoping Perriello gives this seat another shot and if he loses then it's probally lost forever.  

17, Gay Male, Democrat, NJ-8  
Sorry
My guess is it'll be made more Republican in redistricting.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Maybe or maybe not, there's a limit to what redistricting can do......
Virginia has a 20% black population, a 30% total nonwhite population, and 11 House seats.  And yet Dems now are a 8-3 minority in those seats.  A "fair" map would be 6-5 either way, but it's hard to gerrymander 8-3 with a Democratic state Senate who can force a map that keeps at least a 4th seat very competitive.  VA-02 is the most competitive GOP-held seat now, with VA-05 next in line.

Realistically I don't know that VA-05 will be made any safer since Charlottesville, Albemarle, and predominantly black communities in Southside have to go somewhere, and no Republican wants them.  You can split them up, but you hurt a neighboring Republican no matter what.  Again, a Dem state Senate I would hope would be smart enough to refuse to accept anything that doesn't make a couple currently GOP-held seats at least somewhat competitive.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
I feel like it would be easy
to take C'ville and Albemarle out of the 5th and put them into Goodlatte's 6th. The 6th went 57% for McCain and 63% for Bush so putting some Dem territory in there wouldn't hurt his ability to get re-elected, while you shore up the 5th.

I think the big thing may be Randy Forbes' district which went for Obama and really has no where to dump Dems to, since its surrounded by the 2nd (competitive already), 3rd (VRA), and 5th. It also borders Cantor's 7th but I doubt anything could be done there even if he would allow it.  

[ Parent ]
Cantor
didn't break 60% this year against a nobody. Pathetic. He shouldn't be weakened any further if he's that lame.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Cantor
There is no way that the state GOP will allow Cantor's district to become any more Democratic. While I don't think he is in danger they aren't stupid and realize that in a wave election the Speaker of the House (in their mind) could be in trouble. If you are the state GOP that is a possibility that you cannot afford. If it makes Hurt/Forbes/Riggel more vulnerable than so be it but you must protect Eric Cantor at all costs.

28, Male, Democrat VA-08  
[ Parent ]
Plus some people
are forgetting Democrats will hold the State Senate, (and thus veto power), over whatever redistricting plans come up. The current map is a Republican gerrymander. So there's a limit of what more they can do with it. Particularly with Forbes and Rigell's districts already so marginal, and Cantor's trending Democratic, and there being the need the strengthen Wolf's district so that Republicans have a better shot at holding it when he retires.  
[ Parent ]
Veto Power
Means they can do incumbent protection. Any more and it will go to the courts for 2011. And the Democrats really don't want that because they critically need a favorable State Senate map in 2011 to have any hope of holding that chamber.

So my suspicion is they will take 8-3 on the congressional level because they have no choice, and in exchange get a favorable state senate map. After all, do you really expect the Democratic state senators to sacrifice their own seats to throw the congressional map to the courts which at best might go for 7-4?

26 Right-leaning, Euro-Conservative, Anti-Tea Party Independent

[ Parent ]
Right now VA is a Republican gerrymander
If anything, it'll be Senate Republicans who put their seats at risk by taking it to the courts.

There won't be an 8-3 map made, I'll guarantee that.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
As usual DGM is 100% correct and theoretically should save me...
...many keystrokes.

But I'm too long-winded for that, so I feel compelled to elaborate that the GOP did, indeed, have the trifecta a decade ago and maxed out on what they could do.

The courts will be less friendly than the last gerrymander, so really McDonnell and the GOP House must weigh their risk between what the state Senate demands versus what courts might impose.  The state Senate has incentive to let the courts decide if Republicans won't compromise; the Republicans don't have that incentive.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
We would have won Cantor's district if we tried harder in 2008
I doubt anyone remembers, but that district was on very early Democratic target lists around January of 2009 (along with a slew of California districts).

Republicans would be smart to shore up Cantor's district further since he is #2 in GOP Leadership.  

[ Parent ]
Cantor didn't crack 60% in 2010,
bizarrely.  Even though I doubt he spent much time campaigning there, I'd be wary of taking too many Republicans out of there (or putting some of Forbes' Dems in it), given his position.
[ Parent ]
His Dem 's opponent actually ran a good campaign......
I don't remember the guy's name, and of course he had zero chance to win, but he had good ads with a good message.  I didn't think much of it at the time, since Cantor's district is safe R even in Democratic wave years, but in hindsight it's obvious the Dem's campaign paid off as well as it could have.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10
[ Parent ]
Forbes District can be significantly improved easily...
by moving Petersburg into the underpopulaton VA-3. Petersburg went 76-23% (10,300 to 3,200) against Forbes. It was closer to 90% for Obama. If you take Petersburg out then Obama wouldn't have won VA-4.  
[ Parent ]
But where do you stuff it?
Scott's district is already overwhelmingly Democratic, absorbing every black voter in SE VA physically possible to absorb.  
[ Parent ]
I suppose the only way there
Is to stuff the AA voters in other districts - obviously the Norfolk + Portsmouth would be self-defeating (both to the intention of shoring up VA-04 and to retaining VA-02), VA-01 is a 55-60% McCain-Bush district, so maybe a little bit there, but Cantor is really the only option. Cantor is surprisingly weak, but I do think he could handle a little more of Henrico or something, otherwise it's VA-01 into Newport News.
[ Parent ]
At some point, it becomes overstuffing.
And gets struck down as weakening black voting power.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
VA-01
McCain only won it 51-48, believe or not. Before you start talking about stuffing more Dems in there, you absolutely have to find something to do with the heavily Democratic northern end of the district.  

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.
[ Parent ]
Incidentally..
This is the reason they can't really go after Connolly and VA-11.

The current Republican-designed map already crams every Democrat it can into VA-08, neither VA-01 nor VA-10 can really afford to take more Democrats, and I can't imagine Eric Cantor wants to face voters in any Democrat-leaning parts of Northern Virginia either.  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

[ Parent ]
Petersburg is right along the line where VA-3 and VA-4 meet
VA-3 is underpopulated. I'm not saying VA-3 wil absorb every pocket of black votes in SE VA. Petersburg would be a logical section to add to VA-3 and Forbes district would become much safer because of it.  
[ Parent ]
Yup, the current VA-05 is surrounded by
currently R districts, so there's a limit on what incumbent protection can do (assuming the standard response when there's a split in the state houses)

I don't think VA's going to gain a seat -- if so, I assume N. VA has gained pop, so seats like VA-05 have to expand north (and possibly east) -- but that's into exurban areas?

Or can a VRA district be crafted in S. VA?

[ Parent ]
Possibilities in VA
You can (2008 pop. est.) make two minority-majority seats in VA. There's of course no reason Republicans would ever want to do that, since they hold every seat down there isn't the existing black-majority VA-03.

(Interestingly enough, you can also make a minority-majority seat in Northern Virginia with those estimates if you wanted/needed to.)

As for the 5th...
Remember that the 9th has to expand. I haven't looked to see if it could end up with some of the black population from the 5th. If you could do that, you could perhaps give the 6th a little more of SW Virginia and Charlottesville and they'd cancel each other out.


36, M, Democrat, MD-03

[ Parent ]
Should be interesting....
I agree with you as at some point it will be hard to really gerrymander things further especially given that the 9th  is significantly short of population, the  5th  and 6th are slightly short of population. The 9th could pick up Martinsville and maybe Danville (purple areas) but then you are starting to get close to Hurt's home in Chatham. The GOP wants to try and shore up the 10th for when Wolf retires and his district is about 110,000 over population so that is a lot of people to move. Basically it means that likely the 5th or 6th as they are not going to touch Cantor's is going to have to get into the NoVa exurb area. While those areas are not overwhelmingly Democratic they are purple as compared with red areas further south. If you toss in an un chopped Charlottesville/Albermarle County you have a swing district right there.

Here is an article from the Charlotessville Daily Progress that talks about this. I see what they are saying but they are ignoring the fact that Wolf needs to shed about 110,000 from his district and his home is in Vienna not in the Valley. They are going to have get creative with his districts map.

http://www2.dailyprogress.com/...

28, Male, Democrat VA-08  

[ Parent ]
Agreed.
There is just too much blue territory in Northern, North-Central, and Eastern Virginia to get a 9-2 or even a 8-3 Republican map out of, at least long term.  Wolf, Forbes, and whoever beat Nye already have blue districts.    A couple others are only pink.  Moran and Connelly's districts will probably have to contract.  Scott's district can't take up enough Democratic voters to completely shore up VA-02 and VA-04.

The Democrats in the state senate should take nothing less than a 7-4 map and should be willing to kill any map to the point where a judge has to draw the maps.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Connolly and Moran's district actually have to expand some
Growth inside and around the beltway has stagnanted. VA-10 needs to contract significantly.  
[ Parent ]
VA-11 (Connolly)
Actually needs to contract slightly. It's about 24,000 over target right now. Moran's district needs to grow on the order of 33,000 people.

Male, VA-08
[ Parent ]
I don't
know if it's lost forever unless the politics of the district take a sharp turn in their direction. I guess that's possible--we don't know what the new configuration will be, for one thing--but it was a district that Goode held for a long time. (But, interestingly enough, he was a Democrat when he was first elected, even if he was a very, very conservative Democrat.) Despite the Republican wave, Perriello wasn't really blown out at all. Compare that to 2006, when the Democrat running against Goode got 40 percent of the vote. Maybe it's just because the race was actually contested this time around, whereas it might not have been in 2006, but if anything the area in its current configuration looks to be trending blue. That doesn't mean Republicans will never pick it up, but it looks to be competitive regardless.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
I'm back!
The last month has been total hell for me:  the biggest issue is that my wife was involved in a serious horse accident and I've had to be a mother and a father to my 9 year old child...it's quite stressfull.  The second issue is that election day absolutely sucked.  Oh well, life will go on.

These poll numbers look pretty encouraging, but I wonder if Webb will actually run in 2012.  Even if he doesn't run, I like our chances with Perriello or Kaine.  

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

Welcome back
Sorry to hear about your wife!
[ Parent ]
Is this the same exact sample...
Is this the same exact sample that gave us the Obama approvals/matchups yesterday?  Because while I was heartened by them, they looked just slightly too good to be true.  I want to believe them, but I guess I'm a little wary after 11/2.
(concern troll off)
Same sample
Yes this is the same sample. It is a +5% Obama sample and he won by 7%. Though it is 55% women which is a bit high.

28, Male, Democrat VA-08  
[ Parent ]
What is your
definition for a perma-suck in regards to the economy?

If we regularly start adding 150,000 jobs month, that still won't be enough to bring us back to a normal state of affairs for a long time, not by a long shot, but we'd still be moving in the right direction. If it's something even better, where job growth is slightly larger, it's even more of a plus. In other words, it's all about the trajectory. If people feel like things are actually getting better, my guess is that it will be, at worst, a wash, and at best, something that will help the White House. I'd even go so far as to say that this could be true even if the recovery doesn't reach everyone right away, so that if people feel like there's finally some light at the end of the tunnel, they'll let up on Obama.

Luckily for him, he's still got a long, long time before the next election. I'm willing to bet that we could essentially skate along for most of 2011 but reap the rewards of job growth finally seeming significant if it starts to pick up no later than the spring of 2012.

Anyway, in regards to Virginia, the nice thing about this map is that it actually puts us in a good spot. I'd even say we'd be in a good spot if Obama were five points down right now, because unless things get a lot worse, he's clearly going to be able to work his magic on some people, moving his numbers up. But they are already fairly high to begin with, and that's before any sort of negative campaigning happens. Now, you could certainly make the argument that it's unlikely that we'll win Virginia but lose Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, but as long as we are playing in Virginia, North Carolina, and the Southwest, we have several different ways in which we can still get to 270.  Even if we lose Ohio, I don't think it'll be by ten points, unless he's losing his reelection bid in a landslide.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

perma suck is
1-2% GDP growth
<100-125k job creation month to month.

I think an entire 2011 worth of that will make Obama somewhat vulnerable.

If he hits 2-3%, 125-200k, he's probably in decent shape, and of course, if he hits 3%+, 200+ month to month, its a repeat of Reagan 1984 and Obama will win easily.

[ Parent ]
That's where you and I disagree.
Considering the sort of hole we are in, if we have a year's worth of 100,000 jobs added per month, I'd say it's similar to what we saw right before Bush was being reelected, relatively speaking. It's not nearly good enough, but it's something the administration can spin because we'd be heading in the right direction.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Well
The economy generated 2.2 million jobs in 2004. Here's a small chart.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/0...

Even Paul Krugman had to take his shot in a roundabout number.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04...

The other issue, of course, is that according to what I've read, 50% of the jobs created in this last year are in Texas. So you're only looking at 50k in the rest of the states, and there are obviously going to be the Ohios and Michigans stuck in the rut.

[ Parent ]
I'm not sure
what your point is. The situations are in fact similar. Obama might have had fewer jobs created at that point, but he's working from a worse situation. I wouldn't be surprised if the expectations of the public are a little different--as in, more willing to be happy about gains that would otherwise be unacceptable.

As far as the distribution of the job growth, that's pretty fascinating. And if it's true, it pretty much explains the results from the midterms.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
I wonder
what kinds of jobs are appearing here. I haven't seen any except a few that are part-time minimum-wage. Looks like the employers around here missed the memo.

And I wonder if there are really so many revenue-generating jobs being made here, why is Texas $25 billion in the hole, proportionally worse than "free lunch" California, and with very little room to cut.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)

[ Parent ]
Rick Perry?

[ Parent ]
Funny you mention that
When the state of Washington was trying to implement an income tax, Rick Perry was calling up Washington companies and telling them to move to Texas.

It's a shame that the initiative didn't pass. It would have been a solid test case for how companies behave.

[ Parent ]
Well, partially
Because

1. The texas legislature didn't meet in 2010.
2. The texas budget cycle is over 2 years, not 1. So it really isn't proportionally worse, in relation to the size of the economy over twice the duration.

Texas also has a large cash balance in a rainy day fund.

I don't want to turn this into too much of a policy discussion, but:

http://www.star-telegram.com/2...

In the monthly review of the Texas economy for October, Ali Anari and Mark Dotzour of the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University reported that the state added 166,000 jobs during the year ending in September for an annual growth rate of 1.6 percent.

During the same period, the U.S. economy gained 321,000 jobs, an annual growth rate of 0.2 percent.

Mining and logging, which includes oil and gas drilling, led in job creation with a 14.1 percent gain (27,900 jobs). The average number of active rigs increased from 379 in October 2009 to 688 this month, according to Hughes Tool Co.

While the rest of the nation fell behind, Texas continued to make strides in private sector job growth during the past 10 years.

Figures released by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics showed Texas leading the nation with 724,300 more net private sector jobs in December 2009 compared with one decade ago.

Of the top 10 largest states ranked by civilian labor force, only Texas and Florida had positive job growth over the 10 year period.


[ Parent ]
I know the TX budget is over a 2-year cycle.
And the rainy day fund is only about $9 billion, only enough to make a small dent in the deficit. And Texas already ranks rock-bottom in spending, and services such as for the disadvantaged, including myself because I have a form of autism, are already bare-bones, so there isn't much room to cut.

I remember going through DARS (Dept. of Assistive and Rehab Services) to help in getting a job two years ago, and it took a year before I finally landed one part-time minimum-wage job last year that has since disappeared. My BF who also has a form of autism is going through DARS help in finding a job. 2 years, and still nothing. Not just the lack of jobs, but also a high caseload because of services like DARS (that help people help themselves) already being bare-bones.

So ironically, jobs may be a reason why we will leave Texas! (Biotech opportunities are better outside this state anyway. Cutting taxes and lightening business regulations will only get you so far when the continuous gutting of schools results in a less skilled workforce unprepared for a 21st-century economy.)

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)

[ Parent ]
my only point is
That George W. fell into the 'middle' range (125-200k) during his 4th year, not the 'bottom' range, and certainly not Reagan's 'top' range in 1984.

In 2004, you're looking at 183k jobs per month, almost double that 100k number.

I think, though, that these are relatively minor differences. I agree with your general point, though, the situations aren't all that different. There's obviously some leeway here, maybe 20% of so in either direction.

[ Parent ]
Exactly
As someone else pointed out above that if you take Kerry's states and you add in NM, NV, CO and IA that gets you to 271. Obviously lots can happen so if you toss in VA that adds a cushion that he could lose something like NH or WI and he would still be okay. Way too early to really speculate but Obama should be able to win without having a strategy that goes all in or bust of taking OH or FL in order to win. Those states will be competitive but it is nice to see that we can and should be expanding the map to places like Virginia (obviously I am biased here).  

28, Male, Democrat VA-08  
[ Parent ]
I'm trying not
to get my hopes up that the Democrats try to expand the map as significantly as I'd like into states like Arizona and Georgia, but if they go hard in the other direction and simply give up on Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and others, trying to place all of their eggs in the Ohio and Florida basket, I might just snap. I get that, if things look rough, they'd pull out of Indiana in September, but if they don't even try, they are just idiots. It'd be like the lessons of 2006 and 2008 never took hold.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
You forget that the Kerry states...
...will lose at least 7 electoral votes after the census is done.

We need at least one more state.

[ Parent ]
I'm not sure
how accurate the map at www.270towin.com is. For one thing, I thought California was supposed to gain at least one seat and Texas was supposed to gain four instead of three.

But generally speaking, if the Democrats can carry Kerry's states, plus Iowa, Nevada, and at least out of three of Virginia, Colorado, and New Mexico, they win.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
No
Cali was on the verge of losing a seat. seems like it'll stay the same though.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
I'm pretty sure that's already factored into the calculation
Because I'm pretty sure that it would have been 278 before (if memory serves).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
My math works as follows:
Kerry - 251 EVs and an expected loss of 6 EVs mostly due to Texas takes Obama's baseline to 245. Add in NM (5), CO (9), NV (6) and IA (6) and you get 271. Toss in VA and you get 284. It is a rough calculation as we don't know what will happen but the point is to show that if you look at 2004 and look at the southwestern states that have trended our way/Obama would likely be favored in (NM, CO, NV) you get 20 EVs and carrying Iowa would put him over 270. Add in VA for cushion and even if shit happened in WI or NH he'd still be okay.  

28, Male, Democrat VA-08  
[ Parent ]
Perriello lost 47-51 in VA-05
Extrapolate that over the whole state, which is 5 points more Democratic than the 5th district, and Perriello wins statewide, even in 2010.

26, male, Dem, NJ-12
that doesn't really work
first he has to have the advantage of incumbency over the state, which he doesn't, second he has to run against an opponent with similar favorables, money and name recognition as hurt, which he won't.  in nebraska in 2006 scott kleeb (D) came within 10 points in an R+24 district.  extrapolate that over the R+14 (give or take) and he should have had a chance when he ran in 2008.  he lost 58-40 because there was an entirely different set of circumstances in that election.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
Well...he
was also running against the extremely popular Johanns, who was initially expected to take out Nelson in 2006, (and probably could have even with the wave).  
[ Parent ]
that's the point
the circumstances between the two elections were vastly different.  you can't say A did well here, he'll do equally well statewide 2 years from now, there are just too many variables.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
Webb the enigma.
Jim Webb probably has my vote as the hardest Senator to classify on a simple "left/right" or "liberal/conservative" scale.  I wish I knew whether a press release like this http://webb.senate.gov/newsroo...
means he's more likely to be "Born Fighting" and run again, or if he's just getting fed up and is at risk of bursting a vein in his forehead and calling it quits.  I wouldn't put money on either side right now.
GOP primary #s - Allen up big, Cucinnelli, Bolling non-starters
In fact, more primary voters would rather see Eric Cantor nominated over Cucinnelli, and Bolling isn't even breaking 5%.

http://publicpolicypolling.blo...

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

Reason why is that....
I think they like Allen feel that he was "cheated" and "wronged" by 2006 and Jim Webb was purely "lucky".  While the small lead is nothing to be confident about Allen has just about universal name ID and he has a ton of negative baggage. Why the VA GOP wants to go with a re-tread damaged goods in Allen I have no idea but I will let them go for it. Depending on how things look I may even have a small hand in it as we have an open primary system.  

28, Male, Democrat VA-08  
[ Parent ]
VA-Sen: First Poll Shows Dems in Decent Shape | 107 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox