2010 and 2012 Implications

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 01:34:59 PM EDT

Harwood has an post up saying "Democrats Must Attack to Win in 2010" and looks at the NJ and VA races as a template for 2012. I pretty much concur with this opinion. In NJ, Corzine is turning things around, perhaps thanks to a 3rd candidate in the race. In a two-person race, it doesn't usually hurt having a third candidate, unless it turns into a situation where the third candidate has a serious chance at winning. Then, as the VA primary earlier this year showed, things can turnover quickly.

In Virginia, things are not hopeless, but its pretty close to it. Deeds comes across as someone not to take too serious with his attacks on McDonnell. He plays "nice guy" well but comes off as insincere with his attacks. Ben Tribbett has all but pronounced Deeds dead in his look at the statewide ticket:

His campaign will go down in history as the turning point for Republicans in Virginia- after a brutal decade of losses- and he has turned Bob McDonnell from a random state Delegate into an Attorney General, and now into a Governor- who in a few weeks will immediately shoot into the top ten potential Republican Presidential candidates in 2012 or 2016.

It is still baffling that Deeds wound up with the nomination. Moran was the only candidate who showed he understood that we would be in a battle for the GE, and the only candidate that was able to tear apart McAuliffe. For that preview of what he would have done to McDonnell, he was labeled as "too negative" and NoVA progressives opted for the "nice guy" conservative Democrat instead. The Deeds apologists will tell you that anyone would have been down like this, but that's just nonsense.

Unless things change dramatically in the next three weeks in Virginia, Republicans will sweep the statewide contests, pick up Delegate seats, ~~and be in total control of the '10 VA redistricting effort~~ (Dems hold the Senate so will have a share of power). More, Deeds Is Way Off the Mark.

Tags: NJ, VA (all tags)

Comments

26 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: 2010 and 2012 Implications

The VA Senate will still be under Dems-how is it then that the GOP will be in total control of the 2010 redistricting?

by RAULC 2009-10-12 01:41PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 2010 and 2012 Implications

Jerome,

What planet are you living on? Moran had major negatives everywhere in the state except NoVa. He would have been destroyed in the general. Deeds is actually not out of it yet, and the AG race may yet swing to the Democrats.

Even if things are as bad as you say, the Dems still control the State Senate, and will have to be given a seat at the table for redistricting. If the Republican wins the AG race, his seat likely goes Democrat in the State Senate, giving them an even stronger margin there.

by bannana873 2009-10-12 01:41PM | 0 recs

4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal

permalink

Planet Virginia?

Recent governor's race polls:

¥ Washington Post: McDonnell 53, Deeds 44

¥ SurveyUSA: McDonnell 54, Deeds 43

¥ Rasmussen: McDonnell 51, Deeds 42

Right, I'll update on the redistricting.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-10-12 01:43PM | 0 recs

permalink

Do we have much Congressional seats

in Virginia to worry about redistricting in Virginia?

I don't think so.

by puma 2009-10-12 01:45PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Do we have much Congressional seats

How about we have 6 Dems compared to 5 Republicans. We're going to have a tough time holding onto two of them. So yes, it matters.

by applejackking 2009-10-12 02:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

For the past 30 years in Virgnia

the winner of the governor's race was the opposite party that one the year before.

I am not sure if Moran would have won.

by puma 2009-10-12 01:48PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: For the past 30 years in Virgnia

I'm not sure either, but that stat sounds a lot like "No democrat was lost West Virginia and won the White House since 1918".

by Jess81 2009-10-12 03:36PM | 0 recs

permalink

Moran

Moran, if I recall ran a very poor primary campaign. He didn't establish why he was running, and was never really in contention to win the primary.

McAuliffe would have been marginally better, but outside of Thesisgate, McDonnell has run a near-perfect campaign.

Agreed that Deeds was the weakest GE candidate, but how good was the Democratic bench in the state?

by esconded 2009-10-12 01:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

attacking to win

Assuming Terry Branstad is the GOP nominee for IA-Gov, Chet Culver will absolutely attack and make the election as much about Branstad's record as possible.

I still can't believe Corzine could pull this out, even with the help he's getting from Daggett.

by desmoinesdem 2009-10-12 02:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Agreed

Moran or McAuliffe would have been formidable, if not favored to win, in a general. (Not sure if you agree about McAuliffe.) Deeds is remarkably uninspiring.

by Jonmac 2009-10-12 02:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Agreed

McAuliffe would be doing better than Deeds is now-- which I wouldn't have thought last spring.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-10-12 03:41PM | 0 recs

permalink

Moran and McAullife knocked each other out

that's how Deeds ended up with the nomination.

There is no way in hell we'd be any closer to winning this race with Moran or McAullife.

by DTOzone 2009-10-12 02:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 2010 and 2012 Implications

Deeds won the primary by a whopping 23 percentage points... in a three way race!!! Speculating about how a different candidate might have done is about as interesting a thought experiment as wondering whether Dennis Kucinich would have beaten Bush in 2004.

If Moran and McAuliffe butchered the primary campaign this badly, why the heck would anyone give them credit for running a better general election campaign than Deeds has? Doesn't seem logical to me.

by Steve M 2009-10-12 03:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 2010 and 2012 Implications

Because in three way races, sometimes front runners take each other out by training their guns too hard on each other? It's sort of a version of what a lot of Democrats were worried about with the extended primary in 2008 possibly allowing McCain to slip in. Incredibly wrongly worrying about it, as it turned out, but it's been known to happen.

I mean I don't know I'm just saying.

by Jess81 2009-10-12 03:39PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 2010 and 2012 Implications

Deeds won the primary on the strength of the Washington Post editorial page endorsement. There was no way in hell the Post would endorse McAuliffe or Moran so they ended up endorsing Deeds.

At this point I am really wishing Moran were the nominee. Deeds is such a disappointment.

by KimPossible 2009-10-12 04:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 2010 and 2012 Implications

The last newspaper powerful enough to singlehandedly engineer a 23-point election victory was called Pravda.

by Steve M 2009-10-12 05:10PM | 0 recs

permalink

Well, we have to win New Jersey now

We cant afford to drop both of these races.

by Kent 2009-10-12 04:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Well, we have to win New Jersey now

Judging by the polls and the ads, I think there is a strong chance of winning Jersey. I think Corzine's ads have been extremely good at painting the extremism of his opponent as well as framing the opponent's lack of character. I saw Corzine on this New Jersey Politics show on PBS. I think he gets an unfair knock against him for running what sounds like is a nightmare of a state to run. Not that any of them are easy, but he seems to really trying to come up with plans and ideas to move forward. Whether he will get that chance, I do n't know, but overall I think he's coming along strong right now.

by bruh3 2009-10-12 05:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Well, we have to win New Jersey now

Aside from the obvious, why can't we afford to lose both races?

by lojasmo 2009-10-12 06:43PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Well, we have to win New Jersey now

Depends on waht happens between now and the spring/summer of 2011. Losing both races in 1993 ultimately didn't hurt Clinton in 1996. In some ways, it may have helped him.

by spirowasright 2009-10-12 11:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 2010 and 2012 Implications

Moran was the only candidate who showed he understood that we would be in a battle for the GE, and the only candidate that was able to tear apart McAuliffe.

How did that work out for him?

by lojasmo 2009-10-12 06:42PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 2010 and 2012 Implications

Did McAuliffe get the nomination?

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-10-13 05:23AM | 0 recs

permalink

He got closer than Moran, didn't he?

When you come in third out of three, it's sorta laughable that you would argue you were the best general election candidate.

by DTOzone 2009-10-13 05:30AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 2010 and 2012 Implications

Isn't this like arguing that John Edwards was the best general election candidate because he was able to prevent Hillary from winning Iowa?

by Steve M 2009-10-13 06:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Ben Trippett

writes that Bob McDonnell has been elevated into a "top ten potential Republican Presidential candidates in 2012 or 2016." I suppose the key word is potential because I fail to see how anyone can take Bob McDonnell seriously on the national level.

by Charles Lemos 2009-10-12 07:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 2010 and 2012 Implications

Deeds' major problem is that in race between republicans and democrats, he is running as republican-lite. I am yet to hear one meaningful argument come out of his mouth. Moreover he blames his personal misgivings on the "liberals in Washington" or something like that. He deserves to lose.

by tarheel74 2009-10-13 06:40AM | 0 recs