DVD Talk
Tim Kaine elected Governor of Virginia [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Tim Kaine elected Governor of Virginia


Red Dog
11-08-05, 08:37 PM
Wasn't able to vote today since I am out of town, but I would have voted for Kaine. Nothing really special about the guy but I like the way the VA has operated with split party control of the legislature and governor (and I like Mark Warner, the outgoing Gov). Jerry Kilgore, the Republican, seemingly had nothing to offer except a promise that he can't deliver on to widen I-66 inside the Beltway and a negative campaign about how Kaine is too liberal for VA.

This is probably an even bigger win for Mark Warner in his quest to go on to bigger and better things and a loss for President Bush and George Allen who saw their 'boy' lose in a red state. I'm think there is a very good chance that we will see Mark Warner on the 2008 Prez/VP ticket. If Dems were smart, they'd put him up top.

dick_grayson
11-08-05, 08:47 PM
:up:

yeah, the campaign was pretty ugly. I am glad to see Kaine win.....although his eyebrows are creepy....

JasonF
11-08-05, 09:00 PM
I haven't been following this race, but from what I heard, Kaine won pretty easily. Was this expected?

In other gubenatorial news, Corzine won in New Jersey.

Were any other governor's mansions up for grabs? Are these Democratic victories a harbinger of 2006?

Red Dog
11-08-05, 09:06 PM
I haven't been following this race, but from what I heard, Kaine won pretty easily. Was this expected?

In other gubenatorial news, Corzine won in New Jersey.

Were any other governor's mansions up for grabs? Are these Democratic victories a harbinger of 2006?


Kilgore was ahead but Kaine had been steadily closing and passed him in the polls in the last few weeks. Honestly, it was a snorefest of a campaign. Kilgore made himself look like an ass with the negative campaign ads IMO.

Just 2 Gov races.

dolphinboy
11-08-05, 09:06 PM
Were any other governor's mansions up for grabs? Are these Democratic victories a harbinger of 2006?

Let's hope so.

classicman2
11-08-05, 09:11 PM
Both wins were expected.

No surprises.

X
11-08-05, 09:12 PM
Both wins were expected.

No surprises.Exactly. Like someone would make a big deal of Bloomberg winning NYC.

I'm waiting for the California propositions to decide how brain-dead the typical voter currently is.

nemein
11-08-05, 09:14 PM
Were any other governor's mansions up for grabs? Are these Democratic victories a harbinger of 2006?

Possibly, it's always hard to tell w/ state/local races though because you never know if local issues trump the national party bickering.

CRM114
11-08-05, 09:54 PM
In other gubenatorial news, Corzine won in New Jersey.


Corzine didn't just win. He pummelled Forrester. As the recipient of endless nasty commercials, I'm surprised. I thought it would be closer.

tcoursen
11-08-05, 10:07 PM
Corzine didn't just win. He pummelled Forrester. As the recipient of endless nasty commercials, I'm surprised. I thought it would be closer.

You underestimated the power of the (D) after Corzine's name. That is all that it really came down to.

They are both BAD candidates for governor. I didn't vote for either one.

Corzine will be a one term governor. The people are already pissed about property taxes. Corzine will not lower property taxes. He is going to raise spending. He is going to raise the gas tax. He has talked about providing health care for all NJ residents and that won't happen without raising taxes. One term governor. Only question for me is whether or not he will be a worse governor than McGreevey. We haven't had a good governor in a LONG time.

orangerory
11-08-05, 10:18 PM
Yeah - looks like the relubs took the lt. governor and AG. Weird electorate. Alot of people voting candidates and not party. Kaine won pretty handily (and no - it wasn't expected - I think most pre-election polls were split with some showing Kilgore winning).

I really think a big part of it was the reaction to Kilgore's death penalty ads - they were so disgusting. And the stupid "liberal" baiting.

Anyway - Kaine is pretty much a moderate republican anyway. But I'm glad he won - and yeah, it is a big win for Warner (who is also very creepy looking by the way). But I'd rather see Warner defeat Allen for the senate than run for president.

dolphinboy
11-08-05, 11:03 PM
Locally, 2 incumbent republicans got trounced in Tucson's city council too.

Tucson leans Democrat, but R's win a lot here too because this is a solidly red state. This is more significant because incumbents don't lose a lot and they were both big names locally.

People are voting against Repubs right now and against Bush.

Sign of things to come? Hopefully, but '06 is still a long way away.

If people think Bush can stay this low or even just gain a little ground in popularity, trust, and approval and the Dems won't win big next year, I think they're kidding themselves.

X
11-08-05, 11:17 PM
As goes Tucson, so goes the nation?

dolphinboy
11-09-05, 12:22 AM
As goes Tucson, so goes the nation?

Yes, clearly that was what I was suggesting.

Red Dog
11-09-05, 06:54 AM
Exactly. Like someone would make a big deal of Bloomberg winning NYC.



I think it is a big deal that Kaine basically won on Mark Warner's popularity, which considering that VA is pretty red, says something about Warner.

Weird thing is that the Republican won the Lt Gov race.

Pharoh
11-09-05, 06:57 AM
Locally, 2 incumbent republicans got trounced in Tucson's city council too.

Tucson leans Democrat, but R's win a lot here too because this is a solidly red state. This is more significant because incumbents don't lose a lot and they were both big names locally.

People are voting against Repubs right now and against Bush.

Sign of things to come? Hopefully, but '06 is still a long way away.

If people think Bush can stay this low or even just gain a little ground in popularity, trust, and approval and the Dems won't win big next year, I think they're kidding themselves.


Yet the Ohio ballot 'reform' initiatives strongly backed and funded by the Democratic party, both state and national, along with being supported by a great many liberal special interest groups, failed miserably. The Ohio Republican party won convincingly. Portend?

wendersfan
11-09-05, 07:09 AM
Yet the Ohio ballot 'reform' initiatives strongly backed and funded by the Democratic party, both state and national, along with being supported by a great many liberal special interest groups, failed miserably. The Ohio Republican party won convincingly. Portend?Pharoh, how much effect do you think all the major newspapers coming out against those ballot initiatives had in their defeat? I think it may have been a deciding factor for a lot of people.

joshd2012
11-09-05, 07:18 AM
The only reason I am happy about this, is because Warner was so pro-Hokie. He basically forced the president of UVA to hold out for a Hokie bid into the ACC. Any man who will use his power to help VT is a friend of mine. If Warner says Kaine is a good man, I will support him as well.

classicman2
11-09-05, 07:24 AM
Pharoh, how much effect do you think all the major newspapers coming out against those ballot initiatives had in their defeat? I think it may have been a deciding factor for a lot of people.

I think newspaper endorsements or oppositions to ballot measures probably are more influential with the voter than do endorsements of candidates.

classicman2
11-09-05, 07:41 AM
I believe that people who are comparing Warner with Bill Clinton at this stage in their 'careers', and hoping (in vain) that he will follow the trail of Bill are making a big mistake. Warner ain't no Bill Clinton. Besides the Democratic Primary voter is going to have a Clinton to vote for in 2008. Sorry Mark, you might want to consider switching parties.

Lord Rick
11-09-05, 08:25 AM
Both wins were expected.

No surprises.

Ok, then. Serious question. Why do you think Bush campaigned for Kilgore on the last day before the election?

Pharoh
11-09-05, 08:27 AM
Pharoh, how much effect do you think all the major newspapers coming out against those ballot initiatives had in their defeat? I think it may have been a deciding factor for a lot of people.



I think they played a large role in the defeats, along with two other factors. The word length of the initiatives and the subsequent confusion caused to some voters had a large impact. Lastly, a very good organised late push by the Ohio GOP proved beneficial, particularly in their strongholds.

Duran
11-09-05, 08:29 AM
Weird thing is that the Republican won the Lt Gov race.

Not that weird - she was from Northern Virginia. NoVA isn't terribly liked by the rest of the state. I figured that out when I was in Norfolk and was asked "Are you from the nooooooorthern part of Virginia, son?" :)

CRM114
11-09-05, 08:36 AM
What a great Republican name - KILGORE. :lol:

classicman2
11-09-05, 09:12 AM
Ok, then. Serious question. Why do you think Bush campaigned for Kilgore on the last day before the election?

Why did Bush campaign in California in 2004?

Every political analyst I heard predicted a Kaine & Corzine victory.

Red Dog
11-09-05, 09:14 AM
Not that weird - she was from Northern Virginia. NoVA isn't terribly liked by the rest of the state. I figured that out when I was in Norfolk and was asked "Are you from the nooooooorthern part of Virginia, son?" :)


Yeah, although Mark Warner seemed to overcome it.

Lord Rick
11-09-05, 09:23 AM
Why did Bush campaign in California in 2004?

Every political analyst I heard predicted a Kaine & Corzine victory.

Because he was running for President. He wanted to force the Dems to spend money in California. He didn't want them to take it for granted.

That still doesn't explain why he would make a last minute appearance to "help" a candidate he knew (according to you) was going to lose.

So, either he didn't know Kilgore was going to lose, or there was some other reason.

I know the Bush machine is incredibly politically savvy, so I can see them doing it for political reasons. I just don't know what they are.

nemein
11-09-05, 09:29 AM
That still doesn't explain why he would make a last minute appearance to "help" a candidate he knew (according to you) was going to lose.

So, either he didn't know Kilgore was going to lose, or there was some other reason.

I think you're reading way to much into it. First it's local so it's not like Bush really had to go out of his way to put in a last minute appearance. Second while the pundits may have been saying it was for Kaine I think the polls were still close enough that it "couldn't hurt" in their opinion to say a word or two. It's not like this admin has spent much time listening to polls/"talking heads' in the first place though ;)

classicman2
11-09-05, 09:33 AM
Because he was running for President. He wanted to force the Dems to spend money in California. He didn't want them to take it for granted.

That still doesn't explain why he would make a last minute appearance to "help" a candidate he knew (according to you) was going to lose.

So, either he didn't know Kilgore was going to lose, or there was some other reason.

I know the Bush machine is incredibly politically savvy, so I can see them doing it for political reasons. I just don't know what they are.

Part of his job is to campaign for Republican candidates in important political races. He is the leader of the Republican Party. I don't know, but I would imagine other prominent Republicans campaigned for him.

That's why he did it.

Lord Rick
11-09-05, 09:37 AM
I think you're reading way to much into it.

Probably so. But I think you're playing it down too much. ;)

nemein
11-09-05, 09:39 AM
I think you're playing it down too much. ;)

:confused: What am I playing down?

Lord Rick
11-09-05, 10:14 AM
:confused: What am I playing down?
Every one of your statements.

"didn't have to go out of his way" - He's a busy man. I'm sure there are other things competing for his time.
"couldn't hurt" - Sure it could. It makes Bush look weak. He campaigns for a guy who then loses. Plenty of other candidates already are trying to or thinking about distancing themselves from Bush due to his low approval ratings nationally.
"admin doesn't listen to polls/talking heads" - maybe not zogby, but you can bet they listen to their internal polls. So did their internal polls say it was a close race (which turned out to be wrong) and they thought Kilgore could win? Or did they know Kilgore was going to lose but they went anyway for a different reason.

classicman2
11-09-05, 10:20 AM
It was political reasons. The Repubs may not be the brightest nickles on the block, but they can read polls.

Bush's primary reason for campaigning in California in 2004 was to aid Republicans in congressional races.

What are you trying to imply? Come right out with it? ;)

nemein
11-09-05, 10:29 AM
He's a busy man. I'm sure there are other things competing for his time.
As c-man pointed out though part of his role as leader of the party is to help in campaigning. The rally was held at the airport Bush landed at coming back from South America. Granted it wasn't the usual airport and it did take some time but it's not completely unexpected/unusual/out of the way.


Sure it could. It makes Bush look weak. He campaigns for a guy who then loses.
As I mentioned above though one isn't necessarily indicative of the other. State/local races turn as much (if not more) on state/local issues than national politics.

EDIT: "Most voters said President Bush was not a factor in their choices Tuesday, according to the survey conducted Tuesday by the AP and its polling partner, Ipsos."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/elections_rdp;_ylt=Au1VysO3azw0lURwa5Rwgf.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--


So did their internal polls say it was a close race (which turned out to be wrong) and they thought Kilgore could win?
That would be my guess, it's my understanding some of the other polls showed a close race as well (I haven't gone back to verify them).

It was probably also a calculated risk based on the fact if Bush hadn't shown up in such a close race we'd be reading stories now about how Bush ignored Kilgore and was that the issue.

Frankly I just don't think it matters much either way. If you want to dig around for the "truth" or flaunt conspiracy theories ("so I can see them doing it for political reasons. I just don't know what they are") more power to you.

JasonF
11-09-05, 11:15 AM
I believe that people who are comparing Warner with Bill Clinton at this stage in their 'careers', and hoping (in vain) that he will follow the trail of Bill are making a big mistake. Warner ain't no Bill Clinton. Besides the Democratic Primary voter is going to have a Clinton to vote for in 2008. Sorry Mark, you might want to consider switching parties.

You're the one who's always going on about how the Democrats need to have a Southern governor on the top of the ticket. Well, here's a Southern Governor.

Sure, Warner ain't no Bill Clinton. But Hillary Clinton ain't no Bill Clinton either.

mosquitobite
11-09-05, 11:20 AM
Warner also has another moderate eyeing the office. Bayh is definitely planning on being in the primary. The question will be I suppose, who could shore up the "moderates" better?

Both being from red states make them better candidates than Hillary, imho... They at least have a chance of swinging a solid red state - Hillary doesn't have a shot in hell of taking Indiana for instance. Bayh does (unfortunately) :shrug:

classicman2
11-09-05, 11:29 AM
You're the one who's always going on about how the Democrats need to have a Southern governor on the top of the ticket. Well, here's a Southern Governor.

Sure, Warner ain't no Bill Clinton. But Hillary Clinton ain't no Bill Clinton either.

I obviously prefer someone who I believe has more appeal in the general election to someone who appeals to the Democratic primary voter. Yes, someone who speaks a little slower. ;) However, that doesn't change the obvious - Hillary Clinton, unless something catastrophic happens, is going to be the Democratic nominee in 2008, because she is the darling of the majority of the Democratic primary voters. Mark Warner may very be more appealing to the general electorate. He does not, however, appeal to the folks who decide who the Democratic nominee is going to be as much as Hillary does.

It will be rather interesting to see what course the DLC takes in 2008. They may find themselves between a rock & a hard place.

JasonF
11-09-05, 11:33 AM
I obviously prefer someone who I believe has more appeal in the general election to someone who appeals to the Democratic primary voter. Yes, someone who speaks a little slower. ;) However, that doesn't change the obvious - Hillary Clinton, unless something catastrophic happens, is going to be the Democratic nominee in 2008, because she is the darling of the majority of the Democratic primary voters. Mark Warner may very be more appealing to the general electorate. He does not, however, appeal to the folks who decide who the Democratic nominee is going to be as much as Hillary does.

It will be rather interesting to see what course the DLC takes in 2008. They may find themselves between a rock & a hard place.

Hillary Clinton is the presumptive nominee now because she's got the name recognition. Let's see what happens in a year once Warner or Bayh or whomever starts kissing hands and shaking babies.

As for the DLC -- well, I don't envy Bill Clinton's position. But I have a feeling he's slept on the couch before. ;)

al_bundy
11-09-05, 11:49 AM
Locally, 2 incumbent republicans got trounced in Tucson's city council too.

Tucson leans Democrat, but R's win a lot here too because this is a solidly red state. This is more significant because incumbents don't lose a lot and they were both big names locally.

People are voting against Repubs right now and against Bush.

Sign of things to come? Hopefully, but '06 is still a long way away.

If people think Bush can stay this low or even just gain a little ground in popularity, trust, and approval and the Dems won't win big next year, I think they're kidding themselves.

NYC, the bluest city in the US has had a republican mayor for 12 years and will have one for another 4 years. What does this mean for the republicans?

Lord Rick
11-09-05, 11:51 AM
EDIT: "Most voters said President Bush was not a factor in their choices Tuesday, according to the survey conducted Tuesday by the AP and its polling partner, Ipsos."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/elections_rdp;_ylt=Au1VysO3azw0lURwa5Rwgf.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--




Um, wasn't that poll for the Jersey race? I'm talking about Va here.

Yeah, I remembered it right:
"Most voters said President Bush was not a factor in their choices Tuesday, according to the survey conducted Tuesday by the AP and its polling partner, Ipsos. The survey was based on interviews with 1,280 adults throughout New Jersey who said they voted in the governor's election."

nemein
11-09-05, 12:00 PM
Um, wasn't that poll for the Jersey race? I'm talking about Va here.


I don't know if someone did a similar poll for the Va race but I was using it to re-enforce my overall point that state/local elections usually are more about state/local issues. Maybe a Va poll would turn out differently, I don't know but I would be kind of surprised if it did.

Again though "What are you trying to imply? Come right out with it?"


http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=80970
But the results may have nothing to do with Bush. Kaine campaigned hard in exurban areas, promising to curb urban sprawl.

There were other local issues, including the death penalty. A Kilgore ad alleged that Kaine's opposition to the death penalty meant he would not have executed Adolf Hilter. Kaine, a Roman Catholic, pledged to enforce the death penalty but said he would not apologize for his religious beliefs.

classicman2
11-09-05, 12:03 PM
NYC, the bluest city in the US has had a republican mayor for 12 years and will have one for another 4 years. What does this mean for the republicans?

Nothing!

It's like some our more conservative Repubs say - he's a RINO. ;)

Lord Rick
11-09-05, 12:05 PM
I don't know if someone did a similar poll for the Va race but I was using it to re-enforce my overall point that state/local elections usually are more about state/local issues.

Then why would a President campaign for a local candidate if the election is really about local issues?

nemein
11-09-05, 12:13 PM
Then why would a President campaign for a local candidate if the election is really about local issues?

Because that's what the leader of the party does sometimes. It was a tight race Bush thought he could help and it didn't work... end of story. Is it indicative of things to come next year, quite possibly but not garunteed IMHO. The bottom line right now is two Dems were replaced by 2 Dems.

So do you have a point to make yet or should we continue playing games?

Lord Rick
11-09-05, 12:21 PM
So do you have a point to make yet or should we continue playing games?

No, I don't have a point. I've been away from the forum for a while and had forgotten how your hazy logic works.

classicman2
11-09-05, 12:30 PM
No, I don't have a point. I've been away from the forum for a while and had forgotten how your hazy logic works.


:lol:

nemein
11-09-05, 12:38 PM
No, I don't have a point. I've been away from the forum for a while and had forgotten how your hazy logic works.

Excuse me? How is my logic hazy? The admin thought the race was close and therefore it made sense to make the extra stop and help in the campaign. It didn't work and Kilgore lost; maybe in part due to the negative aspects of the campaign he ran, maybe because of some the issues he ran on, maybe because of some backlash against Reps/Bush in general. Most likely a combination of all three as different people have different reasons they vote and who they vote for. There's no reason to believe this is necessarily indicative one way or the other wrt the '06 elections. Sure it can be seen as plus for the Dems but whether or not that will actually translate into anything remains to be seen. Many things are going to happen between now and then so any predictions now are just guesses/wishful thinking.

As I've already stated in other threads, personally I think the Dems will make some gains in '06. Whether or not it is enough to flip either body I don't know at this point.

So what's hazy about the logic? Do you even know how politics/campaigns/elections work? You're acting like this is the first time a President showed up to campaign for someone... What's so surprising about it is my question for you?

Lord Rick
11-09-05, 12:53 PM
Excuse me? How is my logic hazy?

Classicman understands...

Ok, I'll play. Here ya go:

1. First you say the Bush stop wasn't out of his way. But then you admit it was at a different airport and it did take some time.

2. First you say it couldn't hurt for Bush to be there, but then you say it's really about local issues. And you quote a poll from a different state (but I don't think you realized it) and actually believe that bolsters your case! But then you go back to it being Bush's job to campaign for local candidates. But if the candidate loses that's not really Bush's fault. Even though it's his job. Mkay...

Funny stuff

:lol:

mosquitobite
11-09-05, 12:56 PM
Oh okay! Now I get it! :lol:
rotfl

Duh nemein!


BUSH'S FAULT!!!

classicman2
11-09-05, 01:01 PM
Why does the president take time to go and visit the troops?

Being the Commander-in-Chief, it's expected of him to do so.

The same applies to his party duties.

That's the way things have been done for quite awhile now.

nemein
11-09-05, 01:07 PM
Obviously what we have here is a failure to comminucate ;)

I meant "out of his way" as in Virginia is not California or even New Jersey. It's essentially in Bush's backyard.

Regarding the rest of it I don't see Bush's campaigning and "local issues" being necessary indicative of each other, I guess you see things differently. Bush can campaign for someone (because in part that's what he's expected to do) and they may still lose because of local issues. Conversely had Kilgore won I probably wouldn't credit Bush for the win either. From what you've written above I can see why you believe the logic is hazy but I think it may be more related to your interpretation ;)

BTW I did know the poll was from NJ and I still think it illustrates the overall point I was trying to make in that national politics don't always play out at the local level.

Lord Rick
11-09-05, 01:08 PM
Why does the president take time to go and visit the troops?

Being the Commander-in-Chief, it's expected of him to do so.

The same applies to his party duties.

That's the way things have been done for quite awhile now.

So, would you expect him to visit the troops more in 2006? Or is his phone ringing off the hook from all those campaign managers who want to book him to appear with their candidate next year? Or maybe they'd prefer Cheney. :lol:

nemein
11-09-05, 01:09 PM
Ah I see now, your overall point is Bush is now a liability for the Rep party and that's why Kilgore lost, right?

Lord Rick
11-09-05, 01:13 PM
Ah I see now, your overall point is Bush is now a liability for the Rep party and that's why Kilgore lost, right?

Liability? No, not at all.

:lol:

classicman2
11-09-05, 01:14 PM
I don't believe Bush is a liability.

In 2006, the war may be a liability for the Repubs.

Red Dog
11-09-05, 01:14 PM
Ah I see now, your overall point is Bush is now a liability for the Rep party and that's why Kilgore lost, right?

Point 1 - I agree

Point 2 - no, Jerry can look in a mirror and assign blame. ;)

Lord Rick
11-09-05, 01:19 PM
In 2006, the war may be a liability for the Repubs.

Ya think?

The question is will the Dems be able to capitalize?

My answer would be yes, but not much. They'll gain some seats, but won't get the majority they want. And the Presidency comes down to the candidate they pick.

I never thought Hilary would run in 2008. But I didn't think Bush's number would fall so low, either. Hilary may think she can win based on the theory that the voters are ready for a change. If she does think that, I believe she will find out she's wrong.

nemein
11-09-05, 01:30 PM
I don't believe Bush is a liability.

In 2006, the war may be a liability for the Repubs.

Obviously it depends upon what happens between now and then, if nothing significant is done/has changed then it will be. The "culture of corruption" charge is the next big thing but that might be resolved by then depending upon how the various court cases play out. I think this is the one where the Dems are most vulnerable because one can never be too sure which way the chips will fall. They seem to be investing a lot in it but if the cases go in favor of the admin it could all blow up in their face (of course if they go against the admin I think that might be the thing that tips the scales in favor of the Dems maybe to the point of flipping either/both of the bodies). The Dems might get some play out of energy prices and the economy but it's way too early to tell anything wrt that.

Of course all of this is w/o knowing what unforseen events are going to happen in the next year.

nemein
11-09-05, 01:42 PM
Point 2 - no, Jerry can look in a mirror and assign blame. ;)

I agree, I don't think Bush had much to do w/ it either way. It probably was a reason for some people but as I said I would be surprised if it was a majority (or anywhere near it).

Red Dog
11-09-05, 01:43 PM
If there is a Republican heavyweight who got hurt (no blame though) by Kilgore's poor performance, it was Senator Allen since he campaigned heavily for Kilgore. The election demonstrates that Warner has more clout in the state than Allen right now.

I agree with a previous poster - I'd prefer to see Warner challenge Allen for the Senate next year since I think the Dems are too stupid to vote for him over Hillary.

CRM114
11-09-05, 01:45 PM
Why does the president take time to go and visit the troops?

Being the Commander-in-Chief, it's expected of him to do so.

The same applies to his party duties.

That's the way things have been done for quite awhile now.

If I can jump in here... :lol:

It seems classicman said that Kaine's win was "expected." Lord Rick claimed that the GOP thought they could win VA. classicman and nemein gave Lord Rick a "hogwash!" Lord Rick says then why did Bush bother visiting VA if Kaine's win was "expected?"

I guess because the GOP thought they had a shot. And apparently they did since Kaine only won by 2 points. So....Lord Rick was right!

CRM114
11-09-05, 01:46 PM
Bush is DEFINITELY a liability right now. Are you kidding me? :lol:

classicman2
11-09-05, 01:47 PM
How much does Allen weigh in at? ;)

How do you conclude that Allen has more clout in the state than does Allen?

Simply because Allen's candidate lost doesn't necessarily mean that.

Red Dog
11-09-05, 01:49 PM
If I can jump in here... :lol:

It seems classicman said that Kaine's win was "expected." Lord Rick claimed that the GOP thought they could win VA. classicman and nemein gave Lord Rick a "hogwash!" Lord Rick says then why did Bush bother visiting VA if Kaine's win was "expected?"

I guess because the GOP thought they had a shot. And apparently they did since Kaine only won by 2 points. So....Lord Rick was right!



The problem is at what point are we talking. Are we talking a day-before prediction or a month-before prediction? If the former, then it was expected. If the latter, it was unexpected.

It is exactly like c-man calling the Alito nomination - after everyone and their mother had already predicted it. However, for the not-so-obvious and far-in-advance, he struggles (see: prediciton of 0% chance of Miers w/drawl). ;)

classicman2
11-09-05, 01:52 PM
I'm simply repeating what every political analyst I heard say. The Democrats would win in NJ and VA.

Therefore, I concluded the results of the election were predictable since every analyst predicted it.

nemein
11-09-05, 01:57 PM
I'm simply repeating what every political analyst I heard say. The Democrats would win in NJ and VA.

Therefore, I concluded the results of the election were predictable since every analyst predicted it.

So now that we've come full circle the question is why did Bush make the stop and did it really matter either way? ;) Maybe Lord Rick will give us his theory this time...

CRM114
11-09-05, 02:00 PM
So now that we've come full circle the question is why did Bush make the stop and did it really matter either way? ;)

Because the GOP thought they could pull it off. They gave it a go.

classicman2
11-09-05, 02:04 PM
I don't know what the Republican internal polling in VA showed and neither does anyone else on the forum.

Red Dog
11-09-05, 02:13 PM
I don't know what internal GOP polling showed either but I suspect that they did not expect Kaine to do so well in the outer DC suburbs (that Bush did well in last year).

RoyalTea
11-09-05, 02:17 PM
I agree with a previous poster - I'd prefer to see Warner challenge Allen for the Senate next year since I think the Dems are too stupid to vote for him over Hillary.Isn't there a rule against there being two senators from the same state with the same last name?

classicman2
11-09-05, 02:19 PM
I don't know what internal GOP polling showed either but I suspect that they did not expect Kaine to do so well in the outer DC suburbs (that Bush did well in last year).

Folks (especially in the south) often vote very differently in statewide & local elections than they do in national elections - even folks that live in the suburbs.

tcoursen
11-09-05, 02:20 PM
I don't think Bush was a factor in NJ.

Here is what where factors :

1.) The republican candidate Forrester was not very likeable.
2.) Registered voters in the state favor Democrats 2-1.
3.) 3 Urban counties that favored Corrzine by 150,000 votes.
4.) 2/3rds of the Latino vote going to Corzine. State has a growing latino population I believe.
5.) Nearly all of the black vote went to Corzine. This also I think is a growing population
6.) At least 38.5 million of Corzines OWN PERSONAL money going into the campaign.
7.) An article I read this morning said that Corzine's best issue was STEM CELL RESEARCH. WTF? Why would that be the #1 issue for voters? Especially in a state that has very very serious budget issues coming up. A transportation fund that is nearly bankrupt and has to be funded. A school construction fund that is just a disaster with 100+ projects at various stages of completion with no more money to finish them. Out of control property taxes. Etc. Etc. And Stem Cell Research is #1?

Those are all state factors that Bush didn't effect. Sure, some voters probably did vote anti-bush, but probably not enough to really be considered a factor

classicman2
11-09-05, 02:24 PM
BTW: How much of Forrester's own money went into the race?

Red Dog
11-09-05, 02:28 PM
Folks (especially in the south) often vote very differently in statewide & local elections than they do in national elections - even folks that live in the suburbs.


It isn't that. I don't believe that Gov. Warner did nearly as well in those areas in '01. The outer DC suburbs have traditionally been a GOP stronghold in previous elections - whether for Gov, Senate, or Prez.

tcoursen
11-09-05, 02:30 PM
BTW: How much of Forrester's own money went into the race?
I haven't seen a total given. Every article that mentions the money issue says that Corzine outspent Forrester and that Forrester could not keep up. He certainly spent many of his own millions, but I would guess that he probably spent probably in the 1/2 to 2/3 range of what Corzine did. He is rich, but I don't think he is nearly as rich as Corzine is.

Neither one of them should be anywhere near the governor's office. Glad I didn't vote for either one of them.

Oh, and for some reason people think that Corzine is some business guiness. A few people I work with one day were talking about how he started it and made it what it was and then retired. So if that is what people think how do you get past that kind of false logic?

nemein
11-09-05, 02:43 PM
It isn't that. I don't believe that Gov. Warner did nearly as well in those areas in '01. The outer DC suburbs have traditionally been a GOP stronghold in previous elections - whether for Gov, Senate, or Prez.


Has anyone seen the vote totals (by county) and how those compared to previous elections?

Red Dog
11-09-05, 02:57 PM
Has anyone seen the vote totals (by county) and how those compared to previous elections?


Take Loudoun for example:

2000 Prez - Bush-R = 56.1%
2000 Senate - Allen-R = 57.3%
2001 Gov - Early-R = 53.4%
2004 Prez - Bush-R = 55.7%
2005 Gov - Kilgore-R = 45.6%


And Prince William:

2000 Prez - Bush-R = 52.5%
2000 Senate - Allen-R = 54.0%
2001 Gov - Early-R = 52.3%
2004 Prez - Bush-R = 52.9%
2005 Gov - Kilgore-R = 48.1%


That's a huge drop in Loudoun and a significant drop in PW, even off the recent Senate and Governor's contests.

classicman2
01-18-06, 10:41 AM
Kaine joins an elite few to be sworn in at Williamsburg - Patrick Henry & Thomas Jefferson were the other two. Not bad company. ;)

JasonF
01-18-06, 11:39 AM
Kaine joins an elite few to be sworn in at Williamsburg - Patrick Henry & Thomas Jefferson were the other two. Not bad company. ;)

I'm more interested in whether Mark Warner will join the elite few who have transitioned from the Virginia Governor's Mansion to the White House.

classicman2
01-18-06, 11:47 AM
I'm more interested in whether Mark Warner will join the elite few who have transitioned from the Virginia Governor's Mansion to the White House.

The correct answer - when hell freezes over. ;)

classicman2
01-18-06, 11:58 AM
Abortion: Protect responsible Choice

Death Penalty: Supports a fair death penalty
_____________

I can see it now - the Democratic primary voter: "What the hell does that mean? ;)

Sorry, Mark.
.

wendersfan
01-18-06, 12:09 PM
Abortion: Protect responsible Choice

Death Penalty: Supports a fair death penalty
_____________

I can see it now - the Democratic primary voter: "What the hell does that mean? ;)

Sorry, Mark.
.So he's racist and anti-woman. They'll hate him. ;)

I can see the covers of <i>The Nation</i> and <i>Ms.</i> now.

Red Dog
01-18-06, 12:56 PM
The correct answer - when hell freezes over. ;)



I like Warner's odds a lot more now after reading this. :)

wendersfan
01-18-06, 01:06 PM
I like Warner's odds a lot more now after reading this. :)Don't kid yourself. He's got no chance.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0