Virginia Polling Update

by Chris Bowers, Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 08:13:29 AM EST

Virginia, which is closer than the New Jersey race, is finally getting as much polling as the New Jersey race. Here are the latest polls from the five organizations surveying the race (Mason-Dixon, Rasmussen, Roanoke, Washington Post, Survey USA:
	      Kaine    Kilgore	Potts	 Date
Mason-Dixon	45	 44	  4	 11/03
Rasmussen		49	 46	  2	 11/02
Roanoke 		44	 36	  5	 10/30
WaPo		47	 44	  4	 10/26
Suervey USA	47	 45	  4	 10/16
Mean		46.8	 43.0	  3.8
Clearly, this is a very close race. However, the trends are unmistakeable. Here was the polling situation in mid-September: 
	      Kaine    Kilgore	Potts	 Date
Suervey USA	43	 46	  4	 09/18
Mason-Dixon	40	 41	  6	 09/15
Rasmussen		40	 43	  5	 09/14
WaPo		44	 51	  4	 09/09
Mean		41.8	 45.3	  4.8
The Roakoke poll may be an outlier, but every single polling outfit shows favorable trends for Kaine along with a slight Kaine lead. Another interesting factor is the expected drop in support for Potts, who almost certainyl will receive les than his current 3.8% average. Along with the ground game, this race could be decided by how the Potts vote splits when his soft supporters enter the polling booth.

And the by the way, since I noticed a discussion of electoral math concerning Evan Bayh taking place in the diaries, according to Rasmussen Mark Warner's approval rating in 72% right now. 252 + 13 = 265, with only one of Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Florida or Ohio needed to flip the election.

Tags: Governor 2005-6 (all tags)

  • 31 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

31 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Warner Pres ratings in VA
does anyone know what Virginians think of Warner running for president?  One of the main practical arguments against Bayh is that IN voters aren't keen on him running for president.
by DaveB 2005-11-04 08:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Warner Gov. Poll in 2001
Remember in 2001 President Bush was at a JA of 80-90% during this time period in 2001. I am not sure that the ratings of 10pt lead that then resulted in a 5pt victory is valid today vs 2001.
by BobM 2005-11-04 08:32AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
How good is ground game?
Those of us in CA approaching our own ground game would be curious to hear from Virginians about what they are doing, especially to trump right wing church turnout.
by janinsanfran 2005-11-04 08:40AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Clark or even better....
...a Clark Warner ticket is possibly the storngest ticket the party can offer.

Clark pulls Arkansas and likely brings Louisiana (Really strong base of support here -- the state party has Clark08 bumperstickers for christsakes!).  But with just Arkansas that 261.  Clark then just has to flip one from the following list :

Ohio (20)
Lousiana (9)
Colorado (9)

I'd argue that a Clark-Warner ticket would bring the following states as well :

New Mexico (5)
Florida (27)
Iowa (7)
Virginia (13)
West Virginia (5)

Adding LA and OH that's a pretty powerful ticket -- 362 electorals?

by alexm 2005-11-04 09:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clark or even better....
Just the same way Edwards brought North Carolina, MO, West Virginia, etc.  It is a flawed arguement and I LIKE both of those guys.  If you cna provide some polls of those states, that is another story.  But there is nothing out there that proves this will happen.  Stop arguing that we should pick a candidate based on what state they are from.  It is not a valid arguement in picking a candidate and there is no way to make a rational arguement that Clark and Warner brings NM, FL, IA, WV and even VA, OH, or LA over to our side without knowing who the GOP candidate is.  This is why we need to fight for every state possible... location should have nothing to do with choice.  Background and political ideas are what we should focus on.  
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-04 10:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clark or even better....
Look at past presidential elections

NC voted Republican since 1988
AR voted Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Gore narrowly lost AR in 2000. AR,FL,and VA are the only three Southern States Kerry(D) a Northeastern Liberal did well in.

IA and NM voted Democratic during the last 3 or 4 out of 5 Presidential elections.

by CMBurns 2005-11-04 04:32PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clark or even better....
Yes and the president's party always loses seats in mid term election... oh wait, we got our asses handed to us in 2002.

Clinton winning Arkansas means nothing.  It was his home state.  Edwards and Bayh are the only candidates I question whether can win their home state.  It is definately the only way they are in play.  Warner wins Virginia, and at this point would beat Allen in Virginia.  Clark probably wins Arkansas, although if he faces Huckabee, then he may very well lose.  

But that STILL doesn't mean that a centrist pulls the state.  Kerry did better in AR, FL and VA, but I don't exactly call his performance good in those states.  If you feel that Allen is going to be the GOP nominee, why don't you think he would do well in the south when in the last two elections a conservative Republican has won all the southern states and most of them in 1996.  Your argument works both ways.  

But you brought up that NC hadn't voted Democrat since 1988.  Lets look at the southern states since 1968 (The last 10 Elections)...

Florida - 1976, 1996
Georgia - 1976, 1980, 1992
Alabama - 1976
Louisiana - 1976, 1992, 1996
Mississippi - 1976
Texas - 1968, 1976
North Carolina - 1976
South Carolina - 1976
Tennessee - 1976, 1992, 1996
Arkansas - 1976, 1992, 1996
Virginia -

So in the last two elections, no southern state has gone Democrat, although some have been very close.  The most any state has voted Democratic in the last 10 elections is 3.  Virginia didn't vote for a democrat in that entire time.  In fact the times when a majority went Democratic, yes the candidate was southern, but he also faced an EXTREMELY unpopular incumbent president.  In the last 10 cycles, no southern state has officially gone for a Dem (Florida being the disputed exception) except if the Dem was both southern and either an incumbent or facing an extremely unpopular incumbent president, with the exception of Texas and Nixon.  In fact, my bet is that Clinton would have been the only incumbent to win a southern state had Carter not been from Georgia.  

So do I think the south is a lost cause?  Hell no.  I agree with Dean that the Dems need to go after the red neck vote as well as the liberal elite vote and the moderate vote.  All I am showing is that winning any southern state will take work and is not a given based on geography... with the exception of the home state although even then that isn't guarenteed... although Gore had been out of Tennessee for 8 years.  In other words pick a guy based on his policies, not on what state he is from.

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-04 05:41PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clark or even better....
Prior to 1984, The Democratic Party was popular in the South. Jimmy Carter's - social moderate views are popular in Southern States during the 1976 Presidential elections.
Nowaday's Southern States have a tough time voting Democratic. Unless Democrats nominate a Southerner.
by CMBurns 2005-11-05 04:45AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clark or even better....
You guys can overanalyze this all you want but if Dems want to see any parts of the White House, then you better nominate a Southern GOvernor.

CLinton and Carter.
And understand why Carter really won.

Richard Nixon.

If the Dems want to win in 08, then they better run the 1976 election again.

  1. Make sure that everyone remembers the faults and dishonesty of the guy in office.
  2. People trust Southerners. Period.
  3. Run a strong Southern Governor who is strong on moral principles who people can feel warm and comfy in.

Hey, come to think about it, that's how we won in 1992. Oh wait, we can thank Perot for that.
Somebody pay McCain to run as a independent..
by Bruticus 2005-11-07 08:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clark or even better....
Warner/Clark is an even better ticket.  If you analyze geography as an important indicator of electoral success, Warner would be more successful than Clark.  Clark has not held state-wide office and it is by no means a given he can even win Arkansas, let alone some of the other states you mentioned.  

Warner, on the other hand, has a great chance in a number of states, obviously Virginia is the most notable.  

As for the opinion by other posters that location has no relevance, I respectfully disagree.  Although ideology and leadership are more important qualities in a candidate than where you're from, location certainty does matter.  

Bill Clinton was successful for a number of reasons.  Living in Arkansas, and thus appealling to a wide range of moderate conservatices, put him at a distinct advantage.  He forced Bush to protect his own supposed turf rather than the other way around.  

Location does matter.  From an electoral point of view, Warner would be one tough candidate to beat.  

by Eric11 2005-11-04 01:24PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clark or even better....
If Bush had been from California, he would still have won the south.  Geography is a factor, but not an extremely important one.  TO pick a candidate and have that be one of the top factors is ridiculous... especially since being from a certain area does not mean you will score a victory.  Gore lost Tennessee and didn't get a southern state.  Edwards was on the ticket and didn't manage to bring a single southern state.  Even Clinton only pulled a few of them.  If you respect Warner's policies, then support him.  If you respect Clark's policies, then support him.  But if the main reaon you like either of them is one is from Virginia and the other is from Arkansas, you are following the same archaic thinking of most electable that FAILED miserably against a vulnerable president in 2004.  You are operating under the assumption all the blue states turn blue.  Again, the only way you can do that is by looking at another candidate.  Illinois probably isn't going to support a brownback or Allen, but I will bet money that a Guiliani or McCain can win here against a Clark or Warner.  DOn't take location for granted... it is foolish and doesn't guarentee a victory.  
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-04 03:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
What is Warner's position on Iraq?
I tried to google Mark Warner & Iraq and also did a search here at MyDD.

Does anyone know if Warner has a position on Bush's Iraq war?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-04 09:40AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What is Warner's position on Iraq?
Not sure.  I just emailed him though, so lets see what they say.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-04 10:20AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What is Warner's position on Iraq?
This is off topic but I war reading Warner's wiki and this gave me a smile...

"According to the Washington Post, "one of the Democratic Party's most experienced Internet specialists formally signed on" with Warner's Forward Together PAC. Jerome Armstrong, who "served as a key member of Howard Dean's Internet team in 2004, will be Warner's Internet Director."

I miss his posting so this brought a smile to my face.

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-04 10:27AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
My first thought....
upon seeing those Kaine-Kilgore numbers:

What kind of voting machines do they use in Virginia?  Let's make sure right now that this won't be an issue.

by Village Jenius 2005-11-04 09:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: My first thought....
Voting machines in Virginia are push-lever machines.  They are all mechanically operated so far as I can tell.  Nothing horrifically mysterious about them.
by Matusleo 2005-11-04 12:16PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: My first thought....
Actually VA voting machines are county-by-county.  My county, Fairfax, the increasingly Democratic one, uses electronic touch-screen voting as do many large Democratic ones, my old county, Loudoun, uses optical scan machines which are very accurate.
by Doug in Virginia 2005-11-04 12:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Warner on C-Span Sunday @ 8 PM
Mark Warner is on Q&A with Brian Lamb at 8PM Sunday for those who have not seen him speak at length.

http://www.q-and-a.org/

by joejoejoe 2005-11-04 12:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Clark-???? Ticket.
Wesley Clark(D)will win all of the states Kerry carried- 252ev.
Add Iowa and New Mexico(States Gore narrowly won in 2000 but Bush43 narrowly won  in 2004= 264ev.
Add states that the Kerry/Nader narrowly lost by a less than 5% margin.
1)Colorado- 273
2)Florida- 300
3)Nevada  305
4)Ohio  325

plus Add AR(Clark's home State)WV(state Dukakis carried in 1988,Clinton Carried in 1992 and 1996). and MO- State that Clinton carried in 1992 and 1996 and Bush43 carried in 2000 and 2004.

Clark-347ev.

Clark-Richardson(D)-Add Arizona- 357ev.
Clark-Bayh(D)Add Indiana- 358ev
Clark-Warner(D)Add Virginia-356

by CMBurns 2005-11-04 01:36PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clark-???? Ticket.
Prove it.

If you are going to make a stupid statement like that than provide proof.  Show me polls.  You can't make a statement like that 3 years out and without knowing who the GOP nominee is.  I am sure Clark himself is not this stupid or arrogant to assume he will win that many states.  We thought Kerry would win all of Gore's states too.  Didn't happen.

If you honestly think that Clark is going to get that many state against any GOP candidate, you're insane.  Against McCain or Guiliani, he isn't pulling all those states.  If the Argument is that Bayh or Warner or Clark pulls their Red State, then the same arguement could be made Guiliani takes New York.  

Annatopia is right, it is way to early for such STUPID assertions to be made.  We need to focus on destroying the GOP in 2006.  I like Feingold, but god knows I wouldn't guarentee he wins 300 plus EVs without knowing who the GOP opponent.  Supporting a guy is one thing, but these types of assertions are just pointless.

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-04 04:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clark-???? Ticket.
yitbos96bb
You are the most mean spirited negative bastard I have ever known.
Kerry is more Liberal than Gore. It was imposible for Kerry to win all of the Gore States.

All of the Kerry voters will vote for a Centrist Moderate Democratic Nominee in 2008 ie Hillary Clinton,Wesley Clark,John Edwards,and Evan Bayh.

Secondly if you look at the State Kerry's narrowly lost. or narrowly won.
Lost.
Arkansas-Kerry/Nader vote 46%
Colorado-Kerry/Nader vote 48%
Florida-Kerry/Nader vote 48%
Iowa- Kerry Nader vote 50% DEM win in 2008
Missouri-Kerry/Nader vote 47%
Nevada- Kerry/Nader vote 49%
New Mexico- Kerry/Nader vote 50% DEM win in 2008
Ohio- Kerry/Nader vote 49%
Virginia-Kerry/Nader vote 46%.

A percieved Centrist Moderate Democratic nominee- Wesley Clark,John Edwards,or Evan Bayh will get the Kerry/Nader vote plus another 2.5%

Regarding the 2008 Republican Opponent- We know it is not going to be Guiliani- too liberal on social issues.

It is going to be VA US Senator George Allen(R).

by CMBurns 2005-11-04 04:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clark-???? Ticket.
How am I mean spirited and negative?  I never said Clark Couldn't win.  All I bring up is the point that it is STUPID to pick a candidate based on geography and STUPID to assume you know how the EVs will pan out 3 years before the election without a shred of proof.  It is called being practical.  I like Clark, I like Warner, I like Feingold.  I think all three have a show of winning.  I think all three could get over 300 EVs.  But to assume they are an automatic lock and try to pass off your opinions on how they might do as pure fact is irresponsible.  

Allen is the favorite of the insiders.  He has not done well in polls so far.  Of course we are 3 years out and at this point, we had no idea Dean was going to explode into the front runner or that Kerry would win the nomination.  Bush was assumed in 2000, but only because the GOP had solidly fallen into line behind him.  Even Dole wasn't the assumed guy back in 1993.  

If you want to make a claim, back it up with facts... even polls lend some validity.  Otherwise preface it as I THINK THIS WILL HAPPEN.

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-04 04:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clark-???? Ticket.
I can't believe you don't see how illogical this argument is.  THink logically here.  

You say all the Kerry voters will vote for a centrist Dem.  I disagree.  You might get some apathy in the far left wing of the Dems who stay home or vote Green.  You lump in Nader voters, but how do you know they will show up to the polls.  In other words, there is no way to know how they vote or if they even do.  Besides, you also don't know if Nader or another third party is going to come in an take some votes.

Yet you try to make an argument that a centrist pulls all the Kerry votes plus 2.5%.  How do you get that number?  Did you pull it out of nowhere or is there actually some factual data to back it up?  

And we DON'T KNOW that the Guiliani or McCain will lose the nomination.  They are doing great in prelim polls (although 3 years out these are useless).  You assume they aren't going to win in the southern primaries.  Just like most people assumed Dean was gonna be the nominee or wasn't going to get 2% of the vote in Iowa back in 2002.  You can't assume things like this.

I will put money that if HRC does run, Guiliani and McCain are going to sell themselves as the only people who can beat her and that will win a lot of votes from the Theocons.  Will they win the nom?  I don't know, but they have a good shot.  It will be interesting to watch.  

Assumptions that a candidate will win 300 plus EVs lead people to rest on their laurels.  I don't care if the the GOP runs Hitler and we run FDR... it takes a lot of GOTV effort in 50 states to win the election.  Even if you can't win the state, forcing your opponent to defend is just as important.  Provide some proof for your post and you will convince me.  But to say Warner, Clark etc pulls all of Kerry's voters plus 2.5% means nothing without the proof to back it up.  I can just as easily say third party Candidate Jesse Ventura is going to pull 1/4 of Bush's votes and a 1/3 of Kerry's votes plus 3.5%.  It means nothing unless I provide proof.

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-04 04:57PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clark-???? Ticket.
According to the 2000 Presidential Election exit polls.
45% were Clinton Voters.
30% were Dole Voters.
5% were Perot Voters.
15% Did Not Vote in 1996.

Gore(D)got 80% of the Clinton 1996 Voters. Bush(R)got 15% of the Clinton 1996 Voters.
Bush(R)got 90% of the Dole voters. Gore(D)got 5% of the Dole Voters.
Gore(D)got 25% of the Perot 1996 Voters. Bush(R) got 65% of the Perot 1996 Voters.
Among First Time Voters. Gore(D)got 45%. Bush(R)got 50%.

In 2004 Presidential Exit Polls.
45% were Bush Voters.
35% were Gore Voters.
5% were Nader Voters
15% Did Not Vote in 2000

90% of the Bush(2000)voters Voted for Bush in 2004.
90% of the Gore Voters voted for Kerry.
Gore got 70% of the Nader Voters. and 55% of the First Time Voters.

Looking at the last two Presidential election. The Presidential Nominee of the Party that is out of Power(Challenger)usually gets 90% Support among Voters who voted for their Party's Presidential Nominee(Kerry-Democratic)during the last Presidential election- 2004. Secondly. The Presidential Nominee of the Party out of Power does slightly well with First Time Voters which consist of 15% of the VAP.

In 2008.
45% of the electorate will be Bush-2004 voters
40% of the electorate will be Kerry voters
15% of the electorate will be First Time voters.

The Democratic Nominee will get 90% of the Kerry voters. and 60% of the voters who did not vote in 2004. 10% of the Bush-2004 voters.

 

by CMBurns 2005-11-05 05:16AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clark-???? Ticket.
In 2000- George W. Bush(R) carried all of the states Bob Dole(R) carried in 1996.

During every Open Seat Presidential elections. The Presidential Nominee of the of the Party out of Power carried all of the State the Party's Presidential Nominee of the last Presidential Election carried.
In 1984- Walter Mondale(D)carried only MN and DC.
In 1988- MN and DC went for Michael Dukakis(D).
In 1996- Bob Dole(R) carried AL,AK,CO,GA,ID,IN,KS,MS,MT,NE,NC,ND,OK,SC,SD,TX,
UT,VA,and WY.
In 2000- All of the States Dole carried in 1996 went for Bush.
2004- John Kerry(D) carried CA,CT,DE,HI,IL,ME,MD,MA,MI,MN,NH,NJ,NY,OR,PA,RI,
VT,WA,WI,and DC.
The 2008 Democratic Presidential Nominee will carry all of the States Kerry won in 2004.
Secondly In 1992- Bill Clinton won Colorado,Georgia,and Montana. But lost Arizona and Florida. In 1996- Bill Clinton won Arizona and Florida, but lost Colorado,Georgia,and Montana.
In 2000 Al Gore lost Arizona,Colorado,Florida,Georgia,and Montana.
George Bush won NH in 2000 but lost IA and NM.
In 2004- Bush lost NH but won IA and NM.
The 2008 Republican Nominee is likely to lose Iowa,New Hampshire and New Mexico.

The 2008 Democratic Presidential Nominee's electoral vote Base is at 264.

States that Clinton carried in 1992 and 1996 but went for Bush in 2000.
Arkansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Missouri
Nevada
New Hampshire
Ohio
Tennessee
West Virginia
All of those states except West Virginia voted for Bush Sr. in 1988.
excluding Iowa and New Mexico. The 9 Red States likely to turn blue in 2008 are
1)Ohio
2)Nevada
3)Colorado
4)Florida
5)Missouri
6)Arkansas
7)Arizona
8)West Virginia
9)Virginia

Who ever can win one or two of those states can win the 2008 Presidential Election.

by CMBurns 2005-11-05 06:40AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It doesn't matter who the nominees are!
The Democrat is going to win! Let's nominate Ralph Nader!
by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-05 12:20PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clark-???? Ticket.
Guiliani and McCain are doing well in prelim polls because of name recognition. Dean lost the Iowa Democratic Caucus- so your argument is pointless.

Secondly in Open Seat Presidential Elections- Elections are about change. In Open Seat Presidential Elections,
Presidential Candidates of the Party out of power does at least 5% better than their Party's Presidential nominee of the last Presidential election.
In 1984- Walter Mondale(D)got 41% of the popular vote against the Republican Incumbent-Ronald Reagan.
In 1988- OPEN Seat. Michael Dukakis(D)got 46% of the popular vote. while George Bush(R)got 54%.
1996- Bob Dole(R)got 41% of the popular vote .
2000- OPEN Seat. George Bush(R)got 48% of the popular vote.

by CMBurns 2005-11-05 07:01AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I hope Chris' electoral math was fully grasped
I've tried to emphasize that on countless posts, here and mostly on DU (user name Awsi Dooger, there).

I was a huge Edwards supporter for years prior to 2004. He was by far our best hope to oust an incumbent last year. You need charisma and likeability to do that, not a resume. Our handicapping was remarkably incompetent.

But you can't fail to properly adjust to situation. As much as I'm still an Edwards fan, Mark Warner is clearly the best hope in 2008. That potential swipe of 13 electoral votes cannot be understated. As Chris points out, it dramatically reverses the margin of error to our side, not the GOP's. Annexing Virginia means we wouldn't necessarily need Florida or Ohio. Just capture one of the more likely smaller states, along with holding the states Kerry managed, admittedly not a cinch.

I'm not looking at any Evan Bayh link. That's lunacy. He would get belted in his home state by double digits. Indiana is essentially an uprooted Southern state.

But Virginia is clearly moving slowly our way. Maybe 2 points per presidential cycle. I seriously doubt we can carry Virginia with Warner in the VP slot. That's generally worth 3-4 points. Stop knocking Edwards in regard to 2004 in North Carolina. He sliced the GOP partisan index from 13.34 in '00 to 9.98 in 2004. That's exactly what he should be worth and what I predicted ahead of time. Edwards can't win North Carolina atop our ticket. It's too far slanted.

Plus he wouldn't get the full favorite son boost in '08 since he was already on the ticket once. A blase attitude kicks in. That's what doomed Gore in 2000 in Tennessee. If it had been his first appearance on the ticket, Gore would have carried Tennessee. Warner benefits greatly in '08 from no one from Virginia appearing on a national ticket in quite a while. His favorite son bump would be substantial, likely enough to turn the state even in a 50/50 popular vote race nationwide.

Sorry, I guess this was mostly a Kaine/Kilgore thread. Like I posted yesterday, no chance we win by 8 points or even close. Still, I'm increasingly optimistic. This race completely defines 2005. If we win, along with New Jersey, I count that as three straight including the Gregoire recount in Washington. If we blow it, the pundits will rightfully pounce on the aspect that Democrats can't win a key race even in the midst of GOP implosion.  

by jagakid 2005-11-04 04:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I hope Chris' electoral math was fully grasped
I wasn't knocking Edwards... I was knocking the assumption he was going to bring NC into the Dems column.  It was a silly assumption.  But you are right, he did do some good.  

Warner can get Virginia, I agree with that.  I was worried about Allen, but I saw some polls saying that if it was Warner vs Allen, VA goes with Warner.  Good to hear.  

All I was pointing out is that Picking Clark or Warner is not a guarentee of any other states BUT the home states and even then those aren't guarentees... although they are strong possibilities.  And yes, I agree VA is trending Dem.  I just think it is foolish to think that some think we are guarenteed to take all of Kerry's states.  Even a solid Blue state could shift to the red or purple depending on who the GOP nominee is.  It will take work to keep every one of those states and to flip enough to win the presidency.  Besides our goal should be over 50% of PV and 320 EV so that we have a clear mandate.  The moment people start thinking it is a lock, the moment we lose.  I am just being practical.

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-04 05:51PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I hope Chris' electoral math was fully grasped
The mere fact that Warner has a good chance of winning Virginia probably makes him a better bet, this far out, than any of our other likely candidates.  There's also the fact that he's the only likely candidate whose top resumé entry is "governor," not "senator" or "general," which is generally an advantage in presidential politics.  Remember, we haven't elected a democrat who wasn't a southern governor to the White House since 1964 (although a former southern senator did win the popular vote and would have won the electoral college if not for a mixture of fraud and incompetence in Florida in 2000, his top resumé item was "Vice President").

I don't think Warner has a lock, but I do think he has better odds than HRC, Clark, Edwards, Gore, Kerry, Bayh, Feingold, or anybody else whose name I've heard bandied about.  To improve those odds, I'd add Senator Bill Nelson of Florida to the ticket -- a 3-4% "vice-presidential favorite son" boost should be sufficient to put the Sunshine State in our column, and I think the rethugs would have a very hard time finding the electoral votes among the states Kerry won to compensate for losing both VA and FL.  Not impossible, especially if they go stark raving sane and nominate someone like McCain or Giuliani, but unlikely.

by Alex 2005-11-04 06:45PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I hope Chris' electoral math was fully grasped
There are 3 things we can't nominate and hope to win
  1. Senator
  2. Congressman
  3. anyone from any state Kerry won (esp no one from the northeast)

beyond that the bottom half of the ticket doesn't garentee a state but in most cases other than Gore the top half usually does.

I would also Suggest either a
Clark/Easley or Easley/Clark Ticket

by orin76 2005-11-06 09:29AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------