As analysts in both parties debate the possibility of a 1994-style pro-GOP landslide in 2010, an interesting thing is happening in the two gubernatorial races that will conclude this very November. As you may know, it's supposed to be an iron law of history that the party controlling the White House always loses gubernatorial elections in these two states, and early general election polls this year showed Republican candidates Bob McDonnell in Virginia and Chris Christie in New Jersey with big leads.
But now, as voters begin to really focus on these campaigns, recent polls show both contests tightening up considerably. The latest two major polls in Virginia (from the Washington Post and Insider Advantage) show Democrat Creigh Deeds cutting McDonnell's lead to four points, and a new Democracy Corps survey in New Jersey shows incumbent Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine pulling within one point of Christie.
Deeds has been running ads in vote-heavy northern Virginia tying McDonnell's public record to his abrasively right-wing master's thesis, and greater scrutiny of Christie seems to have tarnished his goo-goo reformer image. Both GOPers may still win, but the current trends provide a reminder that "history" doesn't vote, and that voters choose between actual candidates, not just symbols of the national parties.
Print
COMMENTS (5)
It's important to remember that the Obama and Jim Webb wins in Virginia were quite narrow. (Mark Warner-- not so much.) The relative economic health of Northern Virginia because of massive growth in the federal sector should push Deeds over the finish line. If I were buying into a pool, I'd give him a 50.2 to 49.8 edge come November.
It's important to remember that the Obama and Jim Webb wins in Virginia were quite narrow. (Mark Warner-- not so much.) The relative economic health of Northern Virginia because of massive growth in the federal sector should push Deeds over the finish line. If I were buying into a pool, I'd give him a 50.2 to 49.8 edge come November.
Also, a lot of the GOP's credibility and reputation are "history". The GOP is in for a big surprise if they think they can win elections by just lazily jib-jabbering about taxes, deficits, personal responsibility, freedom, insert-your-right-wing-catch-phrase-here. Which is what the strategy seems to be.
The intellectual vacuum on the right is an increasingly recognized fact. This has been exacerbated by the inability of anyone in Republican politics to refute the idiots and the crazies while staying Republican. So the polls may bend against the Democrats, because the spotlight is on them while they are actually taking action. But when push comes to shove and the Republicans find themsel ... view full comment
Also, a lot of the GOP's credibility and reputation are "history". The GOP is in for a big surprise if they think they can win elections by just lazily jib-jabbering about taxes, deficits, personal responsibility, freedom, insert-your-right-wing-catch-phrase-here. Which is what the strategy seems to be.
The intellectual vacuum on the right is an increasingly recognized fact. This has been exacerbated by the inability of anyone in Republican politics to refute the idiots and the crazies while staying Republican. So the polls may bend against the Democrats, because the spotlight is on them while they are actually taking action. But when push comes to shove and the Republicans find themselves in the spotlights, their shallowness and staleness will again be seen by the masses, and the Democrats will prevail once more.
I predict a landslide victory for Wall Street in 2010. In fact I'll go out on a limb and predict a landslide victory for Wall Street in every eletion until, well, the Sun burns out.
Call me an optimist, though. At least I'm not predicting a victory for the fascists.
Not in 2010, anyway.
gw
I predict a landslide victory for Wall Street in 2010. In fact I'll go out on a limb and predict a landslide victory for Wall Street in every eletion until, well, the Sun burns out.
Call me an optimist, though. At least I'm not predicting a victory for the fascists.
Not in 2010, anyway.
gw
Ed -
There isn't really much evidence that there's going to be a GOP landslide in 2010. The dems had one bad month (August) and all political predictions seem to be taking that month as the one true measure of political opinion. It isn't. The economy will likely improve and healthcare will likely pass. Obama will be at about 55-60% by 2010 and the election will be a traditional seesaw battle where local candidates determine the outcome.
In the Senate, where the GOP is defending way more seats, we'll probably see a 1-2 seat Democratic pickup.
In the House, where Democrats are defending some seats that will be tough to hold in a non wave election, the Democrats will lose 10-15 seats.
None of this ... view full comment
Ed -
There isn't really much evidence that there's going to be a GOP landslide in 2010. The dems had one bad month (August) and all political predictions seem to be taking that month as the one true measure of political opinion. It isn't. The economy will likely improve and healthcare will likely pass. Obama will be at about 55-60% by 2010 and the election will be a traditional seesaw battle where local candidates determine the outcome.
In the Senate, where the GOP is defending way more seats, we'll probably see a 1-2 seat Democratic pickup.
In the House, where Democrats are defending some seats that will be tough to hold in a non wave election, the Democrats will lose 10-15 seats.
None of this will have anything to do with Creigh Deeds vs. Bob McDonnell...or the record of the Washington Redskins, for that matter.
-
I'd not use Deeds or Corzine as indicators for Autumn 2010. Win or lose, the domestic and international issues over the next year will make these two elections insignificant (beyond their impact in VA and NJ). As long as we're speaking of '94, is anyone pointing to one or two state races in '93 that should have served as some sort of omen for the following year? Did a poor effort by two Democrats in the Fall of '93 seal their fate a year later?
I'm no expert but this reminds me of the local weather guy who ponders if a cold May means we'll have a chilly Summer or if a warm October and November guarantees less snow in the following Winter.
No, micro climates don't behave like nati ... view full comment
-
I'd not use Deeds or Corzine as indicators for Autumn 2010. Win or lose, the domestic and international issues over the next year will make these two elections insignificant (beyond their impact in VA and NJ). As long as we're speaking of '94, is anyone pointing to one or two state races in '93 that should have served as some sort of omen for the following year? Did a poor effort by two Democrats in the Fall of '93 seal their fate a year later?
I'm no expert but this reminds me of the local weather guy who ponders if a cold May means we'll have a chilly Summer or if a warm October and November guarantees less snow in the following Winter.
No, micro climates don't behave like national political trends but the mid-term elections in '94 turned on the significant events in the prior year, the individuals in both houses don't match up with the current crowd and Obama is president (Hillary isn't his wife). It would be easier to draw a contrast between these two dates than compare them.
If the GOP intends to replicate and implement some sort of playbook based on '93-'94 they'll do it at their peril. They can't invent the issues, personalities and they don't have the same demographics in most states. Democrats will have a burden of holding sixty seats in the Senate because of the viability of a few individuals, not because the GOP has a brilliant strategy to increase their appeal to those who have been drifting for years.
It isn't easy to hold a majority but Republicans will need the aid of events beyond their control if they intend to be celebrating in the next few years. They have a sorry, mostly Southern bench in DC, the most influential mouths on the circuit are Beck and Rush and becoming whiter and more manly isn't what I'd call a plan for success.
-