Wednesday, December 07, 2005
CA-48: Campbell Wins
Posted by DavidNYCAlas, it didn't happen. Whereas I had hoped that Gilchrist would pull votes only from Campbell, he appears to have pulled them from Young, too. The final tally, with 268 of 268 precincts reporting, looks to be:
Campbell: 45
Young: 28
Gilchrist: 25
I'll let the spinmeisters take it from here.
Posted at 01:38 AM in 2005 Elections, California | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
CA-48: Poll Closing Times
Posted by DavidNYCPolls close at 8pm Pacific time tonight (11pm Eastern). That means, as of this posting, that there's still over 3-and-a-half hours left for people to vote, including the post-work rush.
You can follow the live results here later. I won't be able to post updates tonight as I'm busy studying for finals, but just keep clicking that link and you'll be able to see what's going on.
Feel free to discuss the results in this thread.
Posted at 10:00 PM in 2005 Elections, California | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
CA-48: The One Number That Matters: 40
Posted by DavidNYCForty. That's the percentage of the vote that John Kerry won in CA-48 last year. And that's the one number that matters for Democrats in today's special election. Read on and I'll explain.
New Mexico's third CD was (and still is) heavily Democratic: In 1996, it went 52-38-6 (Clinton-Dole-Perot). In January of 1997, Bill Richardson resigned to become UN Ambassador. A special election was held in May with the following results:
Bill Redmond (R): 43
Eric Serna (D): 40
Carol Miller (Green): 17
Thanks to a strong third-party challenge from the left, the Republican Redmond pulled off an extremely unlikely upset in a Democratic bastion. Could the same thing happen in CA-48? I think so.
In CA-48, there's a strong third-party challenge, too, but with a crucial difference: Anti-immigrant Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist is taking votes almost entirely from the Republican candidate, John Campbell. This is good news for our man Steve Young. But will Gilchrist do well enough to let Young pull off an unlikely victory? Let's get back to that 40%.
In the unusual primary in this race, Gilchrist took in 15% of the vote. Because the top finisher from each of the five parties running would automatically advance regardless of his or her percentage of the vote, there was little incentive to work hard. The only thing anyone needed to worry about was keeping Campbell below 50% (otherwise he would have won immediately), which is exactly what happened.
Gilchrist has been working a lot harder this time arond, and in fact, he's been Campbell's main, if not only, target. It's a sad commentary on America, but Gilchrist's hateful message has been resonating with a sizable chunk of voters in CA-48 - enough so that the NRCC felt the need to dump a quarter-million dollars on a race they shouldn't have had to spend a penny on. On the other hand, it's great news for Steve Young. So the question is, can Gilchrist pull in just a bit over 20%?
I don't see any reason why he couldn't. Apart from seriously ramping up his campaign, there are now only five candidates in the race, as opposed to 19. And media coverage has mostly focused on the Campbell-Gilchrist matchup, raising Gilchrist's profile and name recognition. If Gilchrist can do just six points better than he did in the primary, and Young's support level holds at Kerry's 40% mark, then Young wins by sneaking in under the radar. The math is just that simple: Young at 40 and Gilchrist at 21 means Campbell can do no better than 39. If Gilchrist does even better, then that gives Steve even more of a cushion. It could definitely happen.
As it happens, the Republican who won in NM-03 in 1997 lost the very next year. But that's definitely a bridge we can worry about later. Right now, today is election day, and we've got to focus on helping Steve Young win. I know the weather is nice out there today, so call the campaign at (949) 640-4400 to help out.
And good luck, Steve!
P.S. Get live results here.
Posted at 01:35 PM in 2005 Elections, California | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Monday, December 05, 2005
CA-48: NRCC Drops Half a Mil on the Race
Posted by DavidNYCA reader writes in:
I just came across a little over two dozen independent expenditures that the NRCC has thrown into CA-48 over the last month. It's obvious they're scared shitless if you read the timeline on the report.First off these guys are always thorough. They drop mail and then follow it up with phone calls and then poll. They drop an initial bit of mail and phone calls, and take a poll at the same time. The poll must have sucked since for the next two weeks they drop mail, and then follow it up with phone calls, do it again, and then again. They drop another poll and then follow up with more phone calls into the district, another poll and more phone calls and mail. I know that's obvious from the report, but I pulled together all the 2004 NRCC Independent Expenditure reports and this is what they did for races where they were in trouble (with a little TV thrown in, but the LA market is probably too rich for their blood).
[I]t's going to be an expensive 2006 if the NRCC has to drop a quarter of a million dollar in ever seat that Bush won with 58%. The expenditures show that the seat was, or is at least somewhat in play if they're so desperate to build up their candidate. All of the expenditures are in support of Campbell.
Those two dozen independent expenditures have totaled an astonishing quarter-million dollars in just the last month! (You can see the raw list here.) Bush won CA-48 by an 18-point margin. That's pretty nuts for the NRCC to be so scared. They may pull this one out thanks to favorable demographics & superior firepower - John Campbell's raised about 10 times what Steve Young has. But they simply can't afford to be this generous with every Bush +20 candidate next year.
P.S. To help Steve Young, go here.
Posted at 04:55 PM in 2005 Elections, California | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Sunday, December 04, 2005
CA-48: Why We Can Win
Posted by DavidNYCSuperribbie, House-race guru extraordinaire, offers this explanation of why we can win in CA-48:
This is one of 16 districts in California where Kerry did better than Gore (along with 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 23, 29, 36, and 53), losing 59-41 rather than 60-40. It is a step in the right direction and may be a sign of increasing Dem strength.The net partisan balance is 58.5-41.5 GOP. This makes it more Dem-friendly than the seats held by the following:
TX-17 (Edwards--31.8% Dem)
UT-02 (Matheson--32.8%)
MS-04 (Taylor--33.5%)
ND-AL (Pomeroy--37%)
MO-04 (Skelton--38.5%)
SD-AL (Herseth--39.8%)Not a long list, but a win is certainly not out of the question.
Most of all, the presence of Minutemen head and American Independent Party candidate Jim Gilchrist makes this very doable. Gilchrist took about 15% in the open primary and is well-financed and running a real campaign. There is a likelihood that he builds on that and ends up with about 20%. As a right-wing hardline anti-immigration candidate, that 20% is coming straight from GOPer John Campbell's hide.
In fact, if the same breakdown of voters shows up on Tuesday as voted in 2004 and Gilchrist takes 20%, the likely result is Young 41, Campbell 39, Gilchrist 20. Remember the special election in the heavily Dem Nem Mexico 3d in 1997 (replacing then-newly appointed Energy Secretary Bill Richardson)? The Greens did what they always do in New Mexico and the final result was 43 R, 40 D, 17 G.
Finally, the California GOP is laboring with the twin albatrosses of Bush and Schwarzenegger around their necks. The dismal performance of the ballot initiatives last month speaks to the apathy and disenchantment of the GOP. Turnout stands to work in our favor.
I personally think it's all gonna come down to Gilchrist's showing. Young can sneak by if the two right-wingers cannibalize each other. And again, click here for a complete list of ways you can help out.
Posted at 04:28 PM in 2005 Elections, California | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
Friday, December 02, 2005
CA-48: Call to Action - Final Weekend Push
Posted by DavidNYCOn Tuesday, California will hold another special election - this time, to fill the vacant House seat in CA's 48th CD. Our candidate is Steve Young. Here's how you can help him for the final weekend push:
• Virtual phone banking. This can be done by anyone, anywhere. The campaign sends you a list of names and numbers of district residents, and you call them to help get out the vote. Fun and easy, and if you have a cell phone with free nights and weekends, it only costs you your time. To join in this effort, send an e-mail to ca48@easyco.com.• Volunteer. If you leave in or near the district, contact the campaign and help pound the pavement. You can sign up on this page, but your best bet at this point is to call the campaign directly at (949) 640-4400. You can also send an e-mail to marion@steveyoungforcongress.com with your availability. The district is in Orange County - the HQ is in Irvine. In other words, not too far for those of you in LA or San Diego to come up for a day. The weekend weather looks quite pleasant.
• E-mail your California friends. Tell them about this race. Even if you aren't sure if they live in CA-48, they probably know someone who does. Word of mouth is key.
• Keep an eye on BigDog04's diaries. He's our source for info straight from the campaign.
Let's do this thing!
Posted at 03:33 PM in 2005 Elections, Activism, California | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
CA-48: How You Can Help
Posted by DavidNYCThe special election in CA's 48th CD has flow a bit below the radar, but election day is just a week away - next Tuesday, December 6th. Our guy in the race is Steve Young. As Paul Hackett (and, I'd say, Stephanie Herseth and Ben Chandler) proved, anything can happen in a special election.
But as this diary points out, hope is not a strategy. If you want to help out, the campaign needs people to do "virtual" phonebanking - ie, phonebanking from home. This is an easy way to get involved, and making calls can actually even be fun. And if you have a cell phone with free evenings/weekends, it'll only cost you your time. So if you want to become a virtual phonebanker, e-mail the campaign and they'll set you up.
Of course, if you're in the area and want to help out, foot soldiers are always crucial for final get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts. The HQ is in Irvine and can be reached at (949) 640-4400.
Posted at 11:59 PM in 2005 Elections, California | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
RON Revisited: I Want Answers
Posted by DavidNYCJust came across this piece in Editor & Publisher about the Columbus Dispatch mail poll which I mentioned in the post just below. A syndicated columnist for the Dispatch, Robert Koehler, took the paper to task a few days ago for, allegedly, not critically investigating the mind-boggling failure of its poll regarding the RON ballot measures. Koehler seems to believe that there was nothing wrong with the poll itself but rather everything wrong with the election. Though he doesn't use the word, he's pointing a finger at fraud.
Let me say quite clearly: Without further evidence, I disagree strongly with any such conclusion. But I'm also deeply, deeply unsatisfied with the paper's lazy explanations about why their poll was so awful. The paper's Public Affairs Editor, Darrell Rowland (who was also interviewed by Koehler), only offered this to E&P:
Koehler said the Ohio paper -- which he described as "a member in good standing of the mainstream media" -- instead blamed its inaccurate poll on "the notorious volatility of statewide referendum issues."Rowland said that may have been one reason for the inaccuracies in the Dispatch poll, which was mailed to about 12,600 Ohioans - of which about 1,900 responded. He added that the ballot issues were "incredibly confusing," and that "a lot of last-minute money" was spent to defeat four of them. "It's easier to cause people to vote no than to vote yes," Rowland said.
Two (possible) problems: First, the Dispatch poll was largely accurate on the one non-RON ballot measure (a bond issue). The poll said 53% yes; the actual results were 54% yes. The only other "yes" vote it came close on was Issue 4 (redistricting). The nays were off by enormous margins on every single issue. (Poll | Results)
Second, according to a "voting-rights activist" cited by Koehler, the pre-election ad blitz mostly came from the RON forces, not the anti-RON side. I assume Ohioans in the audience here can either confirm or dispute this.
The Dispatch wants its poll to be taken seriously. The powers that be there are probably keeping their fingers crossed that the next one will be more accurate. If it's not, then perhaps we can conclude that the entire polling methodology is flawed and needs to be re-worked. However, if the next Dispatch mail-in poll is on target, that will raise many more questions about why this one was so skewed. And if the Dispatch wants its reporting to be taken seriously, then it better start looking for answers.
Posted at 09:01 PM in 2005 Elections, Ohio | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Monday, November 28, 2005
VA-AG: Republican is Declared Winner, but Recount is Coming
Posted by DavidNYCTurns out the 2005 Virginia elections aren't quite over. From the Washington Post:
Virginia election officials Monday certified Republican Del. Robert F. McDonnell as the winner of the election for state attorney general with 323 more votes than Democratic Sen. R. Creigh Deeds out of 1.94 million cast.McDonnell immediately claimed the mantle of attorney general-elect, but aides to Deeds said the senator will ask the courts on Tuesday to conduct a recount in what attorneys and advocates on both sides say is the closest statewide race in Virginia history.
According to the results certified by the state board of elections, McDonnell received 970,886 votes and Deeds received 970,563 in the Nov. 8 election.
The court has to grant a recount because Virginia law permits the (apparently) defeated candidate to seek one when the margin is less than 1%. Eliot Spitzer has demonstrated how important it is to have aggressive, creative attorneys general in office nationwide - AGs who aren't afraid to take on powerful entrenched interests. Republicans are at their wimpiest when it comes to that sort of thing, of course, so it would be a tremendous victory if Deeds can pull this one out.
I am reminded of Christine Gregoire's long recount in Washington state. She started off 261 votes down, but emerged with a 133-vote margin of victory. I actually think that's a pretty sizable hurdle to overcome, even though it sounds small. But with any luck, Deeds does have a chance.
Posted at 05:30 PM in 2005 Elections, Virginia | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Sunday, November 13, 2005
NJ-Gov: Forrester Blames Bush
Posted by DavidNYCIt's all George W. Bush's fault.Doug Forrester, in his first postelection interview, laid the blame for his loss in the governor's race last week directly at the feet of President Bush. He said the public's growing disaffection with Bush, especially after Hurricane Katrina, made it impossible for his campaign to overcome the built-in advantage Democrats have in a blue state like New Jersey.
"If Bush's numbers were where they were a year ago, or even six months ago, I think we would have won on Tuesday," Forrester said. "Katrina was the tipping point."
Though Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) did in fact say something similar a few days ago, it's nice to see an aggrieved top-tier Republican confirm what all the circumstancial evidence has pointed to: Local GOPers are running away from Bush. (Though, for what it's worth, I think Forrester would still have lost "a year, or even six months" ago anyhow. Bush wasn't gonna earn him 10 points.) Gonna be a fun mid-term election if this keeps up.
(Via Josh Marshall.)
Posted at 08:31 PM in 2005 Elections | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Friday, November 11, 2005
More on State Legislatures
Posted by DavidNYCSome interesting facts from the DLCC (not to be confused with the DLC). These guys are the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, the folks who help Democrats get elected to state legislatures throughout the country. Take a look:
• Dems gained 46 legislative seats nationwide in 2004, moving 10 legislatures into Democratic control, while only four became GOP-held.• Dems gained one seat (or possibly two) in NJ and one seat in VA this year.
• As a result, Dems now have eight more legislative seats nationwide than the Republicans (3,661 vs. 3,653). Not an especially meaningful measure of legislative strength, but at least it's an indicator that Dems haven't fallen behind on the state level, even if they have on Capitol Hill.
• Don't dismiss the importance of state legislatures - they are our political farm system: 57% of congressmen and 44% of governors once served as state legislators.
• This is the big one: Twenty of the 36 states in which state legislatures control redistricting are within just four seats of switching party control. These 20 states represent 195 congressional districts.
I'd love to see a list of the states mentioned in that last point, but unfortunately, the DLCC doesn't seem to name them. I did identify 37 state legislative bodies with eight-seat margins or narrower (ie, a four-seat change would shift control, or at least create a tie). The list is in the extended. Hopefully the DLCC will elaborate soon.
| Alaska | Upper |
| Arizona | Upper |
| Colorado | Lower |
| Colorado | Upper |
| Delaware | Upper |
| Illinois | Upper |
| Indiana | Lower |
| Iowa | Lower |
| Iowa | Upper |
| Kentucky | Upper |
| Maine | Lower |
| Maine | Upper |
| Michigan | Lower |
| Michigan | Upper |
| Minnesota | Lower |
| Minnesota | Upper |
| Mississippi | Upper |
| Montana | Lower |
| Montana | Upper |
| Nevada | Upper |
| New Hampshire | Upper |
| New Jersey | Upper |
| New Mexico | Upper |
| New York | Upper |
| North Carolina | Lower |
| North Carolina | Upper |
| Oklahoma | Upper |
| Oregon | Lower |
| Oregon | Upper |
| South Carolina | Upper |
| Tennessee | Lower |
| Tennessee | Upper |
| Texas | Upper |
| Virginia | Upper |
| Washington | Upper |
| West Virginia | Upper |
| Wisconsin | Upper |
Posted at 04:47 PM in 2005 Elections, 2006 Elections - State | Comments (3) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
VA-Gov: Where Kaine Won
Posted by DavidNYCI always love stuff like this. In case you aren't familiar with the concept, a cartogram is a map which tries to show both geographic location and numeric distribution. Maps of presidential elections, for example, always make the sea of red look enormous, but unfairly so, because so many Republican-voting states are so sparsely populated. Cartograms try to rectify that problem. Take a look here for some examples.
Anyhow, a Democratic consulting outfit called Strategic Telemetry has released a cartogram of the Virginia gubernatorial results, adjusted by county population. This gives you a good sense of where Tim Kaine drew his strength from, especially for folks knowledgeable about VA geography.
You can click on the image to bring you to a clearer full-size version (compressing it to fit on this page distorts the image a bit). Very interesting.
(Via Hotline On Call.)
Posted at 02:48 PM in 2005 Elections, Virginia | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Even the Right Can Read the Writing
Posted by DavidNYCFor at least a brief moment, at least some members of the wingnutosphere seem to have rejoined the reality-based community. But not so the RNC. From From the Roots:
The RNC blog has a post today proclaiming that last night's election results "are not the sign of a national trend." Maybe the RNC should take a minute to read what some of the other Republican blogs are writing about the election results today.Captain's Quarters: “What does this mean for the midterms next year? It shows that the GOP can expect a tough time trying to hold their margins... Best of all, it should wake the Republicans to the fact that the successes of the last three cycles will not last forever."
Instapundit writes: "[I]t seems as if the GOP voters didn't turn out for Republicans the way they did in 2004, and I think that can be laid at the feet of the White House and the Republican leadership."
Michelle Malkin: "[T]he Virginia loss should trouble the GOP greatly. Turnout didn't happen, and party leaders have some 'splainin' to do.”
RedState.org: "When Republicans don't give their *own* supporters a reason to vote for them (other than "the Democrats are worse!!"), how in the world can they expect to reach swing voters? Welcome to the consequences of failing to inspire anyone.”
A tip to the RNC: When your fellow Republican bloggers aren't even buying your spin, it might be time to give up.
If you really need links to the wingers' quotes, you can grab `em via the original FTR post. The last comment from RedState is interesting, though - Dems are constantly accused of "not having a message," but at least one person on the right thinks that this problem has instead befallen the GOP.
Posted at 11:25 PM in 2005 Elections | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Signs of the Times?
Posted by DavidNYCThe CW is emerging, and so far, it's a pretty picture for Team Blue. It's one thing for Dems to crow. But when the traditional media start repeating Democratic talking points as conventional wisdom, that means we've won the battle for Wednesday as well as Tuesday. Read `em and smile:
Democrat Wins Race for Governor in VirginiaLt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat, won the race for governor on Tuesday night, scoring a major political victory for his mentor, Gov. Mark Warner, and sending a powerful message that President Bush's political standing has fallen in this reliably Republican state.
Stinging Defeats for G.O.P. Come at a Sensitive TimeAfter months of sagging poll ratings, scandal and general political unrest, the Republicans badly needed some good news in Tuesday's elections for governor. What they got instead was a clear-cut loss in a red state, and an expected but still painful defeat in a blue one.
In the Suburbs, Backlash Against Republicans Hits HardAn anti-Republican sentiment spread across Northern Virginia yesterday as voters overwhelmingly cast their ballots for Democrats, sweeping aside the traditional Virginia formula in which Republicans carry the outer suburbs and Democrats win the inner ones.
In winning the election for governor, Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) took Loudoun and Prince William counties, something Mark R. Warner (D) couldn't accomplish when he was elected governor four years ago. Kaine also received nearly three in four votes in Arlington and seven in 10 in Alexandria.
A Triumph For Warner, And a Guide For His PartyVirginia's quadrennial search for a governor featured neither charismatic personalities nor dominant policy initiatives. But Democrat Timothy M. Kaine's resounding victory over Republican Jerry W. Kilgore nonetheless provided important political lessons for the commonwealth, and maybe the country.
The outcome marked what feels like a dramatic strengthening of Democratic appeal in Northern Virginia, the state's richest and most populous region. It showed that Republicans can no longer depend simply on the power of their party to win statewide and demonstrated the dangers of a negative campaign. It presented an intriguing campaign model for Democrats, in which religious faith plays an important role. And most of all it demonstrated the appeal of Gov. Mark R. Warner (D), for whom this could become the first stop of a presidential campaign.
Democrat Tim Kaine elected governorDemocrat Timothy M. Kaine easily defeated Republican Jerry W. Kilgore for governor last night, dealing the GOP a blow in a second consecutive gubernatorial election.
The contest for governor was also a defeat for President Bush, who put his prestige on the line Monday night by making an eleventh-hour campaign stop for Kilgore.
Democrats' Wins Pressure RepublicansDemocrats easily held the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey, while California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was heading for defeat on all four of his reform initiatives, deepening Republican anxieties about the political cost of President Bush's second-term troubles.
In New Jersey, Democratic Sen. Jon Corzine defeated Republican business executive Douglas Forrester after a bitter campaign in a state that Mr. Bush lost in both his presidential campaigns. More disappointing to the White House was Democratic Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine's win over Republican Jerry Kilgore in conservative-leaning Virginia despite a last-minute campaign appearance by the president.
Democrats win New Jersey, Virginia governor racesDemocrats won hotly contested governor's races Tuesday in Virginia and New Jersey on an Election Day closely watched for hints of how the 2006 races might shape up.
The victory in Virginia by Democratic Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine over Republican Jerry Kilgore came despite an appearance by President Bush at a last-minute rally for Kilgore on Monday. The president had rolled up a 9-point victory in the Republican-leaning state in his re-election race last year, but his job-approval ratings there have since fallen into the low 40s.
CORZINE ROMPSWith stunning ease, Democrat Jon Corzine was elected governor of New Jersey yesterday, defeating Republican Doug Forrester in a campaign that turned out to be the most expensive and negative the state has ever seen.
No, No, No, No, No, No, No, NoIn a sharp repudiation of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Californians rejected all four of his ballot proposals Tuesday in an election that shattered his image as an agent of the popular will.
2 Wins Lift Hopes of DemocratsDemocrats swept gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia on Tuesday, sending new tremors through Republicans worried that President Bush's sagging popularity may drag down the party in next year's midterm elections.
Got more to add? Post `em in comments!
Posted at 11:19 AM in 2005 Elections | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
VA-Delegates: Dems Gain a Seat
Posted by DavidNYCOne of Virginia's state legislative bodies, the House of Delegates, was up for re-election this year. (The state Senate is not up until 2007.) The Dems wound up with a net pickup of one seat, changing the makeup from 60 Republicans, 38 Democrats and 2 independents to 58-39-3. One Republican incumbent lost to a Dem, while another (probably has) lost to an independent who was backed by Mark Warner, among others. Meanwhile, the Dems beat one GOP incumbent. The Dems made their pickup because they snagged two GOP open seats, while the Republicans only won one Democratic open seat.
Not exactly a scintillating shift of power. I suppose it allows the GOP to claim that Kilgore's loss was a one-off thing, while the Dems can say they more than held their own in a red (Bush +8) state. DH says that the House of Delegates outcome is the "real" news for those looking to glean meaning from Tuesday's elections, but with such minimal movement, it's hard to draw too many conclusions.
UPDATE: Maybe I spoke too soon. A lot of Delegates races were uncontested, so the broader playing field was quite constricted. Only 49 seats actually had a race. Moreover, this continues a trend over the past two years whereby the Dems have picked up 4 seats (3 in 2003 and one in a special election in 2004). And as Kagro points out, the GOP spent a ton of money to defend their one incumbent who lost, their prime wingnut anti-abortion standard-bearer, Dick Black.
Plus, it looks like the VA results are fast becoming part of the CW. From the first paragraph of today's NYT's story on the VA races:
Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat, won the race for governor on Tuesday night, scoring a major political victory for his mentor, Gov. Mark Warner, and sending a powerful message that President Bush's political standing has fallen in this reliably Republican state.
Posted at 01:42 AM in 2005 Elections, Virginia | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
California Proposition Election Results
Posted by Bob BrighamResults are slowly coming in. Here are the latest results.
For blow by blow, check out the California bloggers:
California: BlogPAC wire -- Lefty Blogs
For those keeping score, the first six initiatives are the Schwarzenegger slate, the final two are good initiatives that ended up on the ballot because of idiots who decided a "no on everything" would be too easy for the voters to remember.
UPDATE (David): So much for that. "No" carries the day on all seven initiatives. Nice waste of time & money, Ahnuld.
Posted at 11:33 PM in 2005 Elections, California | Comments (3) | TrackBack (2) | Technorati
Democrats Win Big in 2005 Elections
Posted by Bob BrighamOfficial statements:
Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Howard Dean:
Washington, DC -– Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement on the resounding Democratic victories in elections in New Jersey, Virginia, and across the country:“The resounding victories tonight by Jon Corzine and Tim Kaine have sent a powerful message that when Democrats stand up for what we believe in, we win. They showed that the values and priorities of the Democratic Party are the values and priorities of the American people.
“Jon Corzine and Tim Kaine were strong candidates who offered vision and leadership based on the shared values and priorities of the voters of New Jersey and Virginia. They worked hard to earn the trust and the votes of the people in their states by not taking a single vote or voter for granted.
“Also tonight, voters all across the country delivered a resounding message: Americans are tired of the politics of hate and divisiveness, and voted for strong Democratic candidates who offered true leadership for their states and communities. These candidates showed exactly what our party is going to do to stand up and win in 2006.”
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) Chair Senator Chuck Schumer:
"Tonight's unexpectedly strong performance in New Jersey and Virginia not only showed that Americans are tired of the GOP's policies but that there is a real desire to give Democrats the chance to show Americans that we can do better.The trend for the Democrats going into 2006 is strong and continuing. It's going to be a real shot in the arm for Democratic efforts to take back the House and Senate in 2006."
Tomorrow Schedule:
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Democratic Governors Association Chairman Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, will hold a press conference Wednesday to discuss Democratic victories in Virginia, New Jersey, and others.
Posted at 11:05 PM in 2005 Elections | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
NJ-Gov: AP Calls it for Corzine
Posted by DavidNYCSo now we're 2 for 2 on the big 2:
The Associated Press has declared Jon Corzine the winner.With 48 percent of precincts reporting, Corzine had 54 percent to Doug Forrester’s 43 percent.
However, Forrester was not conceding, a campaign spokeswoman said.
Come on, dude, you're down by more than 10%. Say goodnight.
Posted at 10:10 PM in 2005 Elections, New Jersey | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
VA-Gov: WaPo Calls it for Kaine
Posted by DavidNYCDemocrat Timothy M. Kaine defeated Republican Jerry W. Kilgore in today's election for governor of Virginia, riding the popularity of outgoing Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) and dissatisfaction with the Bush administration in a state that typically votes Republican in national elections.With 90 percent of precincts reporting, Kaine, Virginia's lieutenant governor, held a lead of 51 percent to 46 percent over Kilgore, the former state attorney general, according to unofficial returns from the State Board of Elections. Independent candidate H. Russell Potts Jr. was running a distant third, with 2 percent.
While the results kept the governor's office in Democratic hands, Republicans were narrowly leading races for lieutenant governor and attorney general.
This is a big win. I hope we can also pull out the Lt. Gov. and AG races.
Posted at 10:02 PM in 2005 Elections, Virginia | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
St. Paul-Mayor: Democratic Traitor Stomped in Re-Election Bid
Posted by Bob BrighamSt. Paul voters punished Mayor Randy Kelly on Tuesday for standing with President Bush a year ago, denying the Democrat a second term in Minnesota's capital city.Former City Council member Chris Coleman, also a Democrat, routed Kelly by a more than 2-to-1 margin in unofficial returns with most precincts reporting. Ahead of the election, independent polls showed voters were primed to fire Kelly, and most cited his 2004 endorsement of the Republican president as the reason.
No sitting St. Paul mayor had lost a campaign since 1974. Kelly had a personal election streak that spanned just as long, covering his quarter-century in the Legislature and first term as mayor.
"It may sound silly, but Kelly was for Bush and I'm not,'' said retiree Audrey Guith after casting her vote for Coleman.
Not silly, but exactly what Democrats should expect for standing with Bush.
Hat tip to Atrios.
Posted at 09:50 PM in 2005 Elections, Democrats, Minnesota | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
NJ-Gov: Election Results
Posted by DavidNYCCorzine (D):47, 52.1952.48
Forrester (R):51, 44.8044.53
6%, 19.8%30.3% Reporting
Results also available here, but the WNBC link seems to have them quicker.
Posted at 08:47 PM in 2005 Elections, New Jersey | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
2005 Election Night Coverage
Posted by Bob BrighamThis is the last hurrah for the 2005 Swing State Project team, so we will do everything we can to provide top-notch election night coverage. DavidNYC is in Washington, DC (ready for legal deployment to Virginia if the Tim Kaine vs. Jerry Kilgore race goes into extra innings). Tim Tagaris is on the ground in Ohio, ready to follow through on all he has done to help Reform Ohio Now. And I'm in California with front row seats for Arnold Schwarzenegger's initiatives. In addition to the election results, check out what the local bloggers are writing in the major states. There are now two major wires services for liberal bloggers -- state by state. Keep refreshing Swing State Project, but also visit all of the bloggers on the ground by visiting the wires:
Virginia: BlogPAC wire -- Lefty Blogs
New Jersey: BlogPAC wire -- Lefty Blogs
Ohio: BlogPAC wire -- Lefty Blogs
California: BlogPAC wire -- Lefty Blogs
DISCLAIMER: I've ended up on BlogPAC's reports before, but all I'm trying to do here is direct you to the bloggers with the on the ground knowledge.
Posted at 07:24 PM in 2005 Elections, California, New Jersey, Ohio, Site News, Virginia | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
2005 Campaign for America's Future Claims Victory
Posted by Bob BrighamFrom a press release:
WASHINGTON -- Campaign for America's Future communications director Toby Chaudhuri released the following statement regarding today's elections.“Progressive candidates are winning across the country. Reactionary initiatives are losing in Colo., Ohio and Calif. Progressive candidates are winning at the local level in Colo., Wash. and Ariz. The right-wing says this success for progressives is due to local circumstances. Republicans might just want to listen to the message voters are sending them. Americans have suffered a stunning reversal of fortune. The corrupt politics that got us into this fix are not likely to get us out. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution. For American families, right-wing policies simply makes things worse. It is hard to recall a party that is more corrupt or more out of tune with the needs of the time.”
Posted at 07:23 PM in 2005 Elections | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Poll Closing Times & Election Results
Posted by DavidNYCPoll closing times:
• Virginia: 7pm Eastern | Results• Ohio: 7:30pm Eastern | Results
• New Jersey: 8pm Eastern | Results
• New York: 9pm Eastern | Results
• California: 11pm Eastern | Results
P.S. There is no exit polling in NJ. In fact, Hotline says there are no exit polls anywhere.
Posted at 05:42 PM in 2005 Elections | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
More Voting Machine Problems
Posted by Bob BrighamFirst Ohio, then Virginia and now California:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger showed up to his Brentwood neighborhood polling station today to cast his ballot in the special election — and was told he had already voted. [...]The poll worker told the governor's staff he would have to use a "provisional" ballot that allows elections workers to verify if two votes were made by the same person. McCormack said the poll worker did the correct thing.
The governor, however, was allowed to use a regular ballot.
Hmm....
And some more from Ohio:
They are engineered to be fast, accurate and secure, but there was a glitch Tuesday morning with some voting machines.Paul White, a Diebold consultant, says, "We just had to rework them a little bit and they worked just fine."
Posted at 05:19 PM in 2005 Elections, Ohio | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
VA-Gov: Machine Problems?
Posted by DavidNYCMan, you gotta hate hearing stuff like this:
News 7 has received calls from several voters in at least four different precincts who say their votes for Tim Kaine were not recorded or took several attempts to go through.They contend the electronic touch screens repeatedly indicated they were voting for Republican candidate Jerry Kilgore instead of registering their intended vote for his Democratic opponent Tim Kaine.
Roanoke Co. Registrar Judy Stokes says she doesn't want to say the problem is operator error on the part of the voters, but she points out the touch screens are sensitive. She says anyone who is having difficulty voting should ask one of the poll workers for assistance.
I really hope it is voter error - and only a handful of voters at that. If you fuck up your vote on one of those clunking dinosaur NYC voting machines, you are totally out of luck unless you go get an order from a judge. (Yeah, right.) I can't imagine you get much sympathy if you mess up your vote elsewhere. But if the machines are fouling up, then it's a lot easier to blame voters, no?
(Via Taegan Goddard.)
Posted at 04:35 PM in 2005 Elections, Virginia | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
VA-Gov: Recount Watch
Posted by DavidNYCHotline tells us to be on the alert for a possible recount in Virginia. This is what VA law - which is mercifully clear - says about recounts:
When there is between any candidate apparently nominated or elected and any candidate apparently defeated a difference of not more than one percent of the total vote cast for the two such candidates as determined by the State Board or the electoral board, the defeated candidate may appeal from the determination of the State Board or the electoral board for a recount of the vote as set forth in this article. (Emphasis added.)
Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-800.B (2005). The wording here is interesting, though. It talks about the total vote cast between two candidates - the putative winner and the aggrieved challenger. It does NOT look at the entire vote cast in the election. This adds a wrinkle because of Russell Potts.
Let's say the final tally is 48.5 Kaine, 47.5 Kilgore, 4 to Potts and other candidates. The final margin is 1%, so that means Kilgore can ask for a recount, right? Not so fast. As between Kaine and Kilgore, the margin is actually 50.52 to 49.48. Ouch! Kilgore misses a chance at a recount by four-hundredths of a percent. Granted, this is a pretty unlikely scenario, and this twist is only likely to come into play if you have a serious third-party challenger pulling in double digits.
I don't think it'll come to a recount anyhow - at least, I sure as hell hope it doesn't. But if it does, I'm sure I'll wind up heading over the river into VA with a whole passel of other law students and lawyers.
Posted at 04:13 PM in 2005 Elections, Virginia | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Election Day Predictions Thread
Posted by DavidNYCOkay, time for predictions. Here are the races we'll do:
VA-Gov - winner and final tally
NJ-Gov - winner and final tally
Reform Ohio Now (ballot issues 2-5) - win/lose only
California ballot issues (73-80) - win/lose only
My predictions:
Kaine, 52-48
Corzine, 54-46
RON: Yes on 2, 3, 5; No on 4
CA: No on 74-78; Yes on 73, 79 & 80
Predictions are free. Go for it!
Posted at 02:04 PM in 2005 Elections | Comments (14) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Following the Elections
Posted by DavidNYCIn addition to the ususal suspects (Kos, MyDD), here are a few sites worth checking out today to keep track of all the races taking place nationwide:
• Governing Magazine's blog, which is following ten top races• PoliticsNJ, whose blogger is travelling the state today
There's also Blogdigger's VA Dem blogs aggregator. If you know of any other good sites following today's events, please post `em in comments.
Posted at 01:47 PM in 2005 Elections | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Monday, November 07, 2005
VA-Gov: SUSA Late Day Update Knocks Kaine Back to +5
Posted by DavidNYCThis is a new one by me. Earlier today, SUSA released a new poll showing Tim Kaine up 9. Seemed like quite an outlier, but there it was. (Roanoke did show him +8 a few days ago, so it wasn't completely nuts.) Anyhow, check this out (reformatted for clarity):
UNUSUAL VOLATILITY IN VA AS VOTERS GO TO BED ON ELECTION EVE: Interviews in the Virginia governor's race conducted by SurveyUSA tonight Monday 11/7 (but before President Bush appeared in Richmond) show a swing back towards Republican candidate Jerry Kilgore, causing SurveyUSA to now update its final projection in the Virginia Governor's Contest.This morning, based on interviews conducted Friday, Saturday and Sunday (11/4/05 through 11/6/05), SurveyUSA released data that showed Democrat Tim Kaine 9 points ahead of Kilgore. However, because of intra-day volatility in that data, SurveyUSA continued to poll throughout the afternoon and evening today Monday 11/7.
• When interviews from the most recent 3 days -- Saturday, Sunday and today Monday -- are averaged, Kaine's lead shrinks now to 5 points.
• When interviews from just the past two days -- Sunday and today Monday -- are averaged, the contest is closer yet.
• When interviews from Monday only are considered, the contest is tied, but the Margin of Sampling error from just the one day of interviewing is high enough, and the results aberrant enough, that SurveyUSA is uncomfortable reporting just Monday-only data.
For the record, SurveyUSA goes into the clubhouse with its final projection (based on Saturday, Sunday and Monday polling): Kaine 50%, Kilgore 45%. A closer outcome still is possible.
So, a little extra polling after you're done with your polling? I dunno - polling during the afternoon seems inherently suspect. Aren't many, if not most, adults at work at that point?Anyhow, I'm guessing that the whole "aberrant Monday data" stuff means that Kilgore had a rockin' day. So yeah, maybe it was aberrant, or maybe this race is just gonna be super-tight - like we've been expecting all along.
Posted at 09:48 PM in 2005 Elections, Virginia | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
VA-Gov: Republican Governor's Association Misleads for Jerry Kilgore
Posted by Bob BrighamUPDATE (David): An MP3 of the call is available here. (Thanks for hosting it, Markos.) The sound quality isn't exactly great, so make sure you check out the transcript while you listen.
UPDATE (David): Folks, do NOT contact VPAP (the site we link to which has the Honest Leadership/RGA information). VPAP is just a campaign info database, like Tray.com or OpenSecrets.org. They have nothing to do with this.
In the final days of the Virginia gubernatorial campaign, the Republican Governor's Association is resorting to disgusting tactics in their support of Jerry Kilgore, even going so far as use robo-calls pretending to come from Tim Kaine.
These Republican Governors' Association prerecorded telephone calls are misleading and violate Federal law intended to prevent such political dirty tricks. Consider that "The Honest Leadership for Virginia PAC" is not just a front group, it is the Republican Governors Association's Virginia political committee. The "Honest" Leadership for Virginia PAC received just three contributions totaling $1,860,000 in 2005 – all from one donor, the Republican Governors Association.
RGA's Pre-Recorded Telephone call misleads recipients by implying that it is sponsored by Tim Kaine and fails to disclose the actual entity paying for the call – the Republican Governors Association. Using Tim Kaine's voice implies that he sponsored the call. Using a misleading name, like Honest Leadership for Virginia PAC, for their Virginia political committee, the RGA further misleads recipients that this entity is something other than what it is – an arm of the RGA. In fact, just check the contact info, the Treasurer's email ends in @rga.org.
Here is a transcript of the ad:
[Voice of Tim Kaine] I am running for Governor and I am not afraid to tell you where I stand.I am conservative on issues of personal responsibility. As a former Christian missionary, faith is central to my life. I oppose gay marriage. I support restrictions on abortion: No public funding and parental consent. And I've worked to pass a state law banning partial birth abortion.
Paid for and authorized by Honest Leadership for Virginia PAC.
Registration number 05-034.
Now I'm no big city lawyer, but a former Hill staffer sent me an email that lays out a convincing case against the RGA:
Federal law requires disclosure of the entity that is responsible for initiating a pre-recorded telephone call to disclose its true identify at the beginning of the message. 47 CFR Sec. 64.1200(b)(1).• The Federal regulation states: "All artificial or prerecorded telephone messages shall:
(1) At the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the business, individual, or other entity that is responsible for the call. 47 CFR Sec. 64.1200(b)(1).
• Neither the RGA, nor its shadow organization, Honest Leadership for Virginia PAC, is identified at the beginning of the prerecorded message.
• RGA violated Federal Communication Commission regulations by failing to identify the entity responsible for initiating the prerecorded message.
4. Federal law requires the entity making prerecorded telephone calls to provide a telephone number in the message. 47 CFR Sec. 64.1200(b)(2).
• The FCC regulation states: "All artificial or prerecorded telephone messages shall:
(2) During or after the message, state clearly the telephone number (other than that of the autodialer or prerecorded message player that placed the call) of such business, other entity, or individual. The telephone number provided may not be a 900 number or any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. For telemarketing messages to residential telephone subscribers, such telephone number must permit any individual to make a don-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. 47 CFR Sec. 64.1200(b)(2).
• No telephone number is provided in the RGA's prerecorded message for the RGA or its shadow organization, Honest Leadership for Virginia PAC.
• RGA violated Federal Communication Commission regulations by failing to clearly state telephone number during or after the prerecorded message.
Lies and distortion, the Kilgore campaign is clearly desperate.
Posted at 04:45 PM in 2005 Elections, Culture of Corruption, Republicans, Scandals, Virginia | Comments (13) | TrackBack (2) | Technorati
VA-Gov: SUSA Poll Due Out Today
Posted by DavidNYCSurvey USA, in conjunction with News Channel 10 out of Roanoke, will be releasing a new poll on the VA gubernatorial race today. From the article, it looks like it won't get released until the evening (late afternoon?) news at 5pm today. This will probably be the last poll on the race, so it will get some scrutiny. (Nothing like having the last word, is there?)
SUSA's last poll a few weeks ago showed Kaine up two. As I noted below, seven of ten recent polls show Kaine up. So keep your eye on the SUSA trendlines.
UPDATE: Poll came out earlier than expected. And damn, that's some freakin' mo! 52-43 for Kaine - +9, or +7 ahead of the last SUSA poll. I doubt Kaine will win by that much, but I think I could hear the sounds of multiple jaws dropping at Camp Kilgore all the way here in DC.
(Thanks to reader Raf for alerting me that the poll was available.)
Posted at 02:15 PM in 2005 Elections, Virginia | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
NJ-Gov: Thoughts on Polling
Posted by DavidNYCChris observed just a few days ago that Doug Forrester had apparently hit a ceiling of 42% support in public opinion polls. However, three of the four most recent polls show him pushing north of that mark. Two (Marist and SUSA) put him at 44, and Quinnipiac puts him at 45 - Forrester's best showings to date.
The good news is that the Q-Poll also gives Corzine his highest mark so far, 52%, and SUSA's got him at 50 (though he's seen 51 before). Marist, which puts Corzine at +5, has also been pretty scattered. It gave him that notorious +2 a month ago, only to give him his first double-digit lead (+10) since early September two weeks later. Now they're splitting the difference. So I don't know what to make of their polling.
I still think Chris's original take is correct - that Forrester needs to do incredibly well with undecideds tomorrow to pull off an upset. A week ago, I'd have said that was almost impossible. But today, I think there's something of an outside chance.
Posted at 11:31 AM in 2005 Elections, New Jersey | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Sunday, November 06, 2005
VA-Gov: Dirty Tricks Are a Sign of Desperation
Posted by DavidNYCSeven of ten polls taken since October have put Tim Kaine up in the VA gov race. One of them put Kaine up 8 points - surely wrong - but must have given the Kilgore people fits anyhow. So with defeat looming, the Kilgore camp has put forth this shit:
Yep, you heard me right - this is from the Kilgore camp. To me, the biggest give-away is the fact that even when pretending to be Dems, Republicans still use the intentionally harsher-sounding word "Democrat" as an adjective instead of the proper form "Democratic."
(Inside is some crap about how "true progressives" should really be voting for independent candidate Russell Potts. Weak.)
Anyhow, this wasn't even some hack job by some anonymous dirty-tricks group from whom the campaign could distance itself. This came straight from the campaign itself:
Now Kilgore can waste the last days of the campaign answering questions about this flyer. Already the story is surfacing in the traditional media. Just like the despicable Hitler ads, this will backfire on Jerry Kilgore. Desperation moves have a way of doing that.
(Via mlk's diary.)
Posted at 02:18 PM in 2005 Elections, Virginia | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Volunteering on Election Day
Posted by DavidNYCTuesday is election day. If you are interested in volunteering, here are links to help you get involved with some of the top races:
• Virginia
• New Jersey
• Ohio
• California
• New York
If you have volunteer links for other races throughout the country, please post `em in comments.
Posted at 02:53 PM in 2005 Elections, Activism | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Sunday, October 30, 2005
VA-Gov: Big Mo' for Kaine in WaPo Poll
Posted by DavidNYCI always like to wake up to news like this on a Sunday morning (or afternoon, as the case may be). The Washington Post has a new poll out on the VA Gov race, and it's good news for Tim Kaine (likely voters, early Sept. in parens):
Kaine: 47 (44)
Kilgore: 44 (51)
Potts: 4 (4)
Undecided: 5 (2)
(MoE: ±3%)
Now, on one hand, it's been a long time since the WaPo has polled this race (why so lazy, guys?). But on the other hand, this poll has a big sample size and in fact has an MoE a full point lower than the last poll. And I don't think it's an outlier, either, because the race has undoubtedly tightened a lot and a bunch of recent polls have been giving Kaine small leads of late.
The bottom line is that the WaPo shows Kilgore nose-diving a full 10 points in some six weeks. The Kilgore campaign surely must be suffering from some agita right now. A couple points, though. First is that the WaPo claims that Kilgore's obscene death penalty ads backfired on him - 65% of those surveyed said they thought the ads were unfair. However, it's impossible to know how much of an effect those ads had, because the WaPo didn't ask a simple question: "Did these ads makes you more or less likely to vote for Jerry Kilgore." I'd like to believe the ad campaign backfired, but then again, there are people who, when polled, say that litterbugs should get the death penalty. How you feel about something isn't as important as how important that thing is to you.
The other observation (not mine) is more unsettling. Unnamed Dems in VA (grr, could you really not go on record about this?) are saying that Kaine has to be up at least 5 in the polls by election day in order to win. They point out that Mark Warner was up by 10 points in many polls right before he was elected in 2001, but only won by 5. I decided to check this claim out, and it's only sorta true. Here are all the independent polls I could find in the last month of the race:
| 11/1 | Times-Dispatch | +13 |
| 10/30 | Mason-Dixon | +6 |
| 10/30 | Roanoke | +9 |
| 10/25 | WaPo | +10 |
| 10/17 | Mason-Dixon | +3 |
I pulled this data together from the subscriber's section of Polling Report and the National Journal, so it should be pretty comprehensive. Anyhow, there are two conclusions you can draw from this. One is that Mark Warner was hitting above his weight and somehow crashed down from 5 to 8 points by election day. The other is that Mason-Dixon was a lot more accurate than the other pollsters.
Hard to know which view is right. In 1997, Republican Jim Gilmore beat Democrat Don Beyer by a hefty 13 points. Mason-Dixon's last poll that year showed Gilmore with a nine-point lead, so they were about 50% off the final tally. However, they did seem to sense a huge late Gilmore surge - their prior poll had him at +7, and the poll before that (taken at the beginning of October) showed the race tied. All of M-D's earlier polls also showed a one-or-two point gap. (This info is all taken from the National Journal.)
On the flip-side, two of the pollsters who got the 2001 race so wrong were much more accurate in 1997. Roanoke had Gilmore at +12, as did the Times-Dispatch. The WaPo only had Gilmore at +7, which makes you wonder: If they were so off for two VA Gov races in a row, maybe we shouldn't be paying them too much attention this time around, either. (The key difference this year is that there are no outliers at all.)
So where does this leave us? We can say that Mason-Dixon was pretty much spot-on in 2001 and got things sorta-right in 1997. We can say that the Times-Dispatch and Roanoke College were good in 1997 but had an off-year in 2001. And the Wapo - well, we've already complained about them. So whom to believe?
If you were paying attention to M-D last time around, then this CW that Kaine needs a five-point buffer is bunk. M-D showed Warner up 6, he won by 5 - pretty good. But if you think M-D just got lucky, and you think Warner truly did collapse from his Roanoke/Times-Dispatch/WaPo highs, then here's one very, very salient factor for you:
Bush currently has a 41-56 approval rating in Virginia. I don't have state approval ratings for George Bush in 2001, but his nationwide approval had hit 90% right after 9/11. If any voters were going into their polling places undecided that year, Bush's utterly untarnished halo would probably have been the deciding factor.
This year, of course, no dice. Bush may have dragged Warner down 5 points last time, but there's no way he's doing the same to Kaine this time. If anything, he'll drag Kilgore down a bit. So I'm cautiously optimistic.
(Thanks to reader UVA08.)
Posted at 02:37 PM in 2005 Elections, Virginia | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
NJ-Gov: Can You Say "Outlier"?
Posted by DavidNYCYep, I thought you could. A few weeks ago, a bunch of people started getting worried that Doug Forrester was surging - that the race for the NJ governor's mansion was really getting tight. This belief was based on exactly two polls out of many. Quinnipiac showed a four-point spread - but came back down to earth with a seven-pointer recently. The most "alarming," though, was Marist, which showed (depending upon which group of voters you looked at) things as close as one point. Another week, another poll, and boy have things changed (likely voters, early Oct. in parens):
Corzine: 50 (44)
Forrester: 40 (43)
Other: 1 (<1)
Undecided: 9 (13)
(MoE: ±5%)
There. Feel better now? Marist now joins every other independent pollster in showing a 7+ point lead for Corzine. (And four recent surveysm including this one, show 9 or 10 point leads.) Now we can all sleep better.
(Thanks to Taegan Goddard.)
Posted at 02:25 AM in 2005 Elections, New Jersey | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Thursday, October 27, 2005
VA-Gov: Tim Kaine Ad Controversy
Posted by Bob BrighamVirginia gubernatorial candidate Tim Kaine has found himself at the center of a scandal for bowing to right-wing racists and cancelling ads on an African American blog:
So now the Kaine campaign is in the silly position of responding to a racist while withdrawing support from an African-American. Which could have been avoided if they had talked before running scared. [...]But what really and truly bothers me is not the ad pull. You play football, you wake up sore. But the responsiveness to the opposition.
The Kaine campaign has never been responsible for the content on this site. They just buy space. They have probably disagreed with my stands. But they respond to people who will not vote for them, want them to lose and uses anything to pressure them.
And in the end, hurts them more than if they blew it off. The campaign didn't need me to go after them, but I am, because they are cowards. [...]
Cowardice should not be rewarded.
Tim Kaine is running a cowardly campaign, from the get-go he has been running scared, trying to offend as few people as possible.
But this scandal highlights a larger misconception about blogs, blogads, and netroots support.
It is important for people to realize that advertising on a blog doesn't mean the advertiser endorses the content of the site, all it means is that a decision has been made that the advertiser is interested in individuals who may read a particular blog.
Likewise, a blog running an ad doesn't mean that the blogger(s) endorse the product being advertised.
This shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp.
For example, Tim Kaine is advertising on the Swing State Project right now, yet here I am calling him a coward. Earlier in the year, Tim Tagaris didn't hold back his thoughts on Bob Casey, Jr. when Casey advertised here. In fact, if memory serves me right, both Tim and I wrote some hard hitting posts while the ad was running.
Look at the other two ads running. One is for Steve Westly, who is running against Phil Angelides in California's Democratic gubernatorial primary. As the lone SSP writer who votes in California, I'll still be voting for Angelides and plan on devoting a good deal of posts next year to why Angelides inspires me with his campaign. As for the final ad, you all know it is a long story but we still approved the ad and it hasn't changed any of our thoughts on the issue.
When you see an ad in a newspaper, you don't assume that the editorial board supports the advertiser so don't make the same mistake with blogs. Likewise, you don't assume that advertisers support the view of the editorial page.
Politicians who think they can buy support by running ads are just as misguided as politicians who pull ads for what the blog posts.
UPDATE: (Bob) Now this is on the front page of Daily Kos. Kaine is going to lose a great deal of support and volunteers because of this fuckup. Even more, now he won't have blogosphere support for rapid response during the home stretch of the campaign. Tim Kaine's cowardice may have just cost him the election.
Posted at 01:56 PM in 2005 Elections, Netroots, Scandals, Virginia | Comments (10) | Technorati
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
NJ-Gov: Doug Forrester Loses Election Over Stem Cells
Posted by Bob BrighamIn two weeks, the armchair quarterbacks are going to look back on the New Jersey Governor's race and I predict a good deal of the talk on why Doug Forrester lost will be focused on Jon Corzine's new Stem Cell ad. The ad features Karl Riccio bodyslamming Doug Forrester.
Scott Shields has a lot more on the ad and Forrester's chickenshit attack on the young man in the ad.
Posted at 04:32 PM in 2005 Elections, New Jersey, Scandals | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
VA-Gov: Kilgore Runs Away From Bush
Posted by DavidNYCAh, this is fun:
Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry W. Kilgore has decided not to attend President Bush's appearance in Norfolk on Friday, saying it is not a campaign-related event and that he has other plans 11 days before the election....
The decision highlights some concerns among Virginia Republicans, who have watched nervously in recent weeks as Bush's popularity has waned and as scandals involving presidential aides and congressional leaders have dominated news coverage. Although it is unclear how the national political environment affects voters choosing who should lead their state, even small shifts are important in races that are as close as the Virginia contest.
That Diageo/Hotline poll (PDF) from ten days ago gave Bush just a 49-49 job approval rating in the state. And SUSA's poll from the same time was loads worse: 41-56. No matter whom you believe, Bush ain't popular in VA. Keep on runnin', Jerry.
Posted at 12:23 PM in 2005 Elections, Virginia | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
NJ-Gov: Republicans Eating Republicans (A Continuing Series)
Posted by DavidNYCI have a feeling that stories of Republican civil war are going to become more and more common throughout the next year, especially with many GOPers already feeling the need to run away from Bush. My favorite example so far has been the