VA Follow-Up
If you ever needed proof that national polling firms get their cues from our Blog, Survey USA today released a presidential poll in VA. Basically, the race is very close if Giuliani is the nominee, while McCain leads and Romney trails.
Crimson Blues BlogStill Bullish on VATyler 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. Virginia is a symptom of GOP woes, not a Dem solutionJon is absolutely right to draw attention to Virginia and to suggest that the GOP should be concerned by the election results there, but I think he's drawing the wrong conclusion. Although there has unquestionably been a partial shift in the demographical and political balance of power from Richmond and the Tidewater up to Northern Virginia, and the latter region has turned increasingly blue, the transformation has not yet reached the point where Virginia can supplant Ohio and Florida as the swing state. Virginia may be in play in 2008, but only in the event that the Democrat wins a substantial victory. Tim Kaine won the 2005 Gubernatorial election because he ran a better campaign and was a better candidate than Republican Jerry Kilgore. While Kaine won, Republicans won narrow victories in the lower-interest, lower-information Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General races. These contests had the characteristics of a generic party ID, and the Republican victories (in the face of a Tim Kaine headwind) show that as of 2005, the state was clearly more red than blue. Jim Webb's win in 2006 had more to do with George Allen's implosion than it had to do with Virginia. It's tempting to say that the Democrats' conquest of the Virginia Senate (the House of Delegates remains securely in Republican hands) is conclusive evidence of the state's new purpleness. But this ignores the fact that red states such as North Carolina and Alabama have Democratic majorities in both houses of the state legislature and Democrats hold one house in many other red states . Furthermore, the 2007 gains had less to do with a general blue-ing of the state and more to do with the (a) the awful national climate for Republicans and (b) the extremism of the Virginia GOP. Wacko Republicans who said mental illness is linked to demonic possession and called for the end of government involvement in education lost races in red districts. If the Republicans had run rational human beings in those races, they would still control the Senate. Sen. John Warner ripped his own party after the election for its far-rightward tilt and abandonment of moderates. Barring scandal or his withdrawal from the race, Mark Warner will be elected to the Senate in 2008. But this has more to do with his popularity than it does with any broader trends in Virginia. Certainly his place on the ballot will help other Democrats running in 2008 (perhaps most notably in the 11th CD, which will be very competitive if Tom Davis retires from Congress), but it's not clear how much of a boost that would give to the top of the ticket. As the Clinton poll numbers show, Virginia might be in play in 2008, which is great news for Democrats. But Survey USA polls also show Clinton with bigger leads in Florida and leading in states like Missouri. If we see that shifting demographics is only a relatively small piece of Virginia's story, we see that the trends that are at work in Virginia are at work in many other states. Thus, Virginia is a symptom of what could be a Republican cataclysm, not a new battleground. Hey GOP: Virginia Should Worry YouFollowing up on Alexander's great post about LA and MA elections and armed with new data from VA, I think it's safe to say that the '07 elections are good news for Democrats in 2008. Democrats took control of the Virginia State Senate last Tuesday, continuing the Donkey dominance in the Old Dominion State. Ever since HLS Alum Mark Warner took the Governor's seat in 2001, Democrats have won consistently in VA, gaining seats in the 2003 state midterms, holding the Governor's mansion in 2005 (with another HLS Alum, Tim Kaine), and knocking off George "Macaca" Allen in the 2006 Senate Race. Warner is expected to cruise to victory in the 2008 Senate race, completing the sweep. OK, it hasn't quite been a sweep. After all, George W. Bush won VA's 13 electoral votes in 2004, beating John Kerry by a 54 percent to 45 percent margin. But there was even some good news in that defeat. Kerry won populous Fairfax County in Northern VA, the first Democrat to do so since Lyndon Johnson. And with Northern VA growing significantly faster than the rest of the state, it seemed plausible in 2004 that VA could become a reddish-purple state in the 2008 election. Well, that prediction may have been too pessimistic. A recent Survey USA poll shows Hillary Clinton leading all of her potential Republican opponents in VA. With the uber-popular Warner on the ballot and the possibility of Senator Jim Webb being in the second slot, it's safe to say that VA will be a pure swing state in 2008. What does that mean for the Democratic nominee? Well, it means that we could lose Ohio and Florida, and still win the presidency. If the Dem nominee won all the states that Kerry won + New Mexico or Iowa (both of which Gore won) + Virginia, then we'd have a Democratic president. And for those of us who harbor lifelong bitterness at Florida and Ohio based on the last two elections, it'd be nice to win the White House without rewarding those two with more time in the spotlight. Hey GOP: Don't Start CelebratingBy Alexander Chester A Republican governor sweeps to power in Louisiana and a Democrat with name recognition struggles to win a Congressional election in Massachusetts. What happened to that Democratic shift from 2006? Is this a trend that should have the party worrying as we approach 2008? Let's start with Louisiana, where Republicans try to blame Katrina on local officials, which included a Democratic mayor and governor, while Democrats try to nationalize the blame game, pinning it on the Bush administration. I don't think the fundamental consequence of Katrina is which party is to be blamed, but a more basic one: Thousands of Louisianans have yet to return to their homes. Most of these people are African-Americans and Democrats. The most significant political consequence of Katrina in Louisiana is that it will further shift the party to the GOP because it has flushed out many Democratic voters. A state that went for Clinton in 1996 (52-40) and then for Bush in successive elections by increasing margins (2000: 53-45, 2004: 57-42) is not going to be in play in 2008 regardless of who the parties nominate. I think Katrina makes this more assured, but I don't think it has a large effect. The reality is that racial dividing lines have made the Deep South more monolithic over the last two decades, and that won't abate. This is also an argument against John Edwards in the primary campaign, because I don't think he'll have any better luck flipping the Deep South than Obama or Hillary (neither of whom have any shot at doing so whatsoever). Where Democrats have a real shot in 2008 is on the border states, such as Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and (maybe even) Oklahoma. Obviously this depends on who the candidates are. (And who the veep choices are; I think Mark Warner will bring Virginia, while Jim Webb -- a long shot VP nod for Obama -- could also help swing that state.) I don't see any significance in the recent Louisiana vote that should have any effect on any of this. In Massachusetts, on the other hand, a lot of people are pointing towards the issue of illegal immigration as one that still holds sway among voters who might lean GOP. But I think there is at least an equal if not greater counterbalance of Hispanic voters who would vote for Democrats because of the issue, especially in swing states like Florida, Michigan, and New Mexico. My hunch -- and I haven't really done any research to bear this out -- is that in special elections the challenger is going to be more highly motivated, and so even though Tsongas outspent Ogonowski four to one, Ogonowski's campaign was probably more fired up. Also, this isn't exactly the bluest of Massachusetts' districts. Mitt Romney carried it outright and Deval Patrick eked by with just 51% of the fightin' fifth. The GOP tried to make illegal immigration a huge issue nationwide in 2006, and they still lost in a landslide. I'm not too worried by the results of the Massachusetts election. If the GOP is going to win in 2008 -- and I don't think this is nearly as unlikely as many others do -- it's not because they can take solace in some kind of trends emerging from the recent elections in Louisiana and Massachusetts. Question 1: What is the significance of the two recent elections?Welcome back to Crimson Blues, the official blog of the HLS Democrats. We've taken a bit of a hiatus since last spring, but we're back with a whole new team of bloggers. Please feel free to stop by, comment, or if you want, join the blogging team. E-mail jberkon@law.harvard.edu if you're interested. Our first question will be: what is the long term significance of the two recent elections--the special House election next door in MA-5, won narrowly by Democrat Niki Tsongas, and the Governor's race in LA, won handily by Republican Bobby Jindal? 2008 Student Groups: HLS for ObamaBy Cari Almo HLS for Obama is a vibrant organization with a growing membership and an ambitious agenda for the summer and fall. We support Barack because he is a progressive who understands that we can only solve America's problems by changing our politics and reducing the partisanship that paralyzes Washington. More than any candidate in our lifetime, Barack inspires people to get involved in the political process and demand change from their leaders. More than 300 students (nearly 20 percent of the student body!) belong to HLS for Obama. This spring, we raised nearly $6,000 for a Boston area fundraiser in April; we hosted a launch event with Professors Tribe and Ogletree that packed Pound Hall; we sent volunteers to campaign events in New Hampshire and Massachusetts; and we performed a number of research tasks for the campaign. We want to work with HLS alumni in our efforts to make Barack our next President. Alumni can help us raise money, conduct research, and talk to voters in early primary states. And we're always interested in hearing ideas from alumni on how HLS for Obama can be most effective. If you are interested in joining the HLS for Obama Alumni mailing list, please e-mail Cari Almo (calmo@law.harvard.edu). 2008 Student Groups: HLS for EdwardsBy Tyler Rosen HLS for Edwards officially launched on April 19th with a happy hour at Tommy Doyle's, a bar in Cambridge. We were joined by Cate Edwards, HLS '09, and the campaign's National Volunteer Director. The group already has an active Facebook page of students who believe Americans deserve the equal opportunity to succeed and be heard. In the fall, we will travel to New Hampshire to share Sen. Edwards's commitment to building One America with voters and do phonebanking, fundraising and social events on campus. To get involved, e-mail trosen@law.harvard.edu. 2008 Student Groups: HLS for ClintonBy Pamela Foohey HLS for Hillary is an organization of Harvard Law students committed to providing opportunities for HLS students and alumni interested to get involved in Senator Hillary Clinton's 2008 Presidential campaign. We have two primary aims: 1) to organize and encourage volunteers interested in providing support on the campaign trail across the country, and 2) to provide a forum for HLS students to learn about Senator Clinton and the 2008 Presidential primaries and election. Senator Clinton is a dynamic national leader with sense and foresight who has proven her devotion to public service. After eight years of incompetence, it is crucial that we bring competence back to the White House. We support Hillary Clinton because she has the breadth and depth of experience, and the vision for and confidence in our country that we need. HLS for Hillary is proud to be able to organize HLS students and alumni on her behalf. For more information, please email Pamela Foohey at pfoohey@law.harvard.edu. New Executive BoardAnnouncing: 2007-2008 HLS Democrats Executive Board |
|
Copyright 2004-2007 Harvard Law School Democrats.
