Still Bullish on VA
Tyler makes some good cautionary points, but I have to contest his overall bearishness on VA.
First, it's worth acknowledging Tyler's broader point that Democratic success in VA is in part due to Democratic success nationally. This is undoubtedly true. It is also true that Democratic success in Ohio in 2006 was reflective of Democratic success nationally. My point, however, is that VA is trending Democratic faster than the country is as a whole.
The easiest way to analyze this is to examine the relationship between the national presidential vote and the VA presidential vote. In 1988, VA was 13 pts more Republican than the nation as a whole; in 1992 and 1996 VA was 10 pts more Republican; in 2000, it was 9 pts; and finally, in 2004, it was 6 pts. My guess is that VA is probably about 2 to 3 pts more Republican than the nation as a whole today. When a state starts edging into the 2 to 3 pt zone, I think it can safely be called a swing state. Thus, while Tyler is right that Democrats probably wouldn't win VA if it lost nationally by 3 pts, it's probably also true that they won't win OH or FL in such circumstances.
Second, Tyler's analogy to southern states like North Carolina and Alabama is not particularly helpful. He is right that many southern states have remained Democratic at a state level (Mississippi is another example). But Virginia did not remain Democratic at a state level; it became a strong Republican bastion and is now returning to Democratic control. These other states never turned red on a state level. It would be wrong, therefore, to attribute the success of Virginia Democrats to ancestral ties.
Third, I'd be more willing to buy Tyler's "it's not the party, it's the candidate" theory if he used it to explain one election. But he is using it to explain every recent VA election. When Tim Kaine was trailing throughout much of 2005, I didn't hear Democrats, or the press, calling him a particularly strong candidate. It was only when he won did we hear about his deftness in using his religion to blunt GOP attacks on "values" issues. In fact, Kaine ran behind Warner's '01 performance in the socially conservative areas of the state; he made up for that gap by crushing Kilgore in the DC suburbs. And that campaign was classic Dem v. GOP fare: Kaine running on education and transportation, Kilgore running on immigration and cultural issues. It was the Democratic brand, not Kaine himself, that allowed him to prevail.
Copyright 2004-2007 Harvard Law School Democrats.
Comments (2)
I agree with Jon that it is not just about the candidates and national trends. At some point when several Democrats win several statewide races, whereas a decade-plus ago Dems were losing nearly every statewide race, that has to say that something seriously has changed. And the strong pro-Democrat (or more properly, anti-Republican) national sentiment really didn't come about until after the 2004 election (as we all so well recall), so it can't adequately explain at least those successes prior to the Allen-Webb race.
As former Nashville Mayor Bill Purcell pointed out at the Dems' brownbag event last week, another state that's seen a similar transformation in the last decade or so is New Hampshire--a state that was not that long ago written off as hopeless and is now at worst a swing state and maybe even a presumptively "blue" state. An optimist might think that Virginia is headed in the same direction...
Posted by Rich | November 14, 2007 10:56 PM
Posted on November 14, 2007 22:56
Look, I think we all agree that Virginia is trending blue and that the last 3 elections (2005, 2006 and 2007) have been very good nationally. The issue is the matter of degree. I just don't think the transition in Virginia is moving quite as fast as Jon suggests. Virginia may be a new battleground, but I'd be very surprised if Democrats win it without winning Florida or Ohio.
Posted by Tyler | November 15, 2007 10:23 AM
Posted on November 15, 2007 10:23