Conservatives have been in denial about Virginia for years

[barfbag]

Non-swing voter,

We see you're a non-swing voter and we see why. The last time I checked Obama won Virginia last year. Whether or not it was because he was the Democratic nominee will never be known but isn't likely. You say it voted Democrat not Obama. The last time I checked Obama was the 2012 Democratic nominee. If I didn't know better I'd say you're in denial about Virginia being a battleground state. It's almost as if you only read liberal leaning articles. You definitely aren't a swing voter.

[DesertGator23]

Obama won Virginia by roughly the same amount he won the national vote. I think the turnout of african-americans would have been around 3-4 percent lower if he wasnt the nominee, which would swing the election.

The weird thing is that while more african-americans voted in Virginia in 2008 and 2012 than they did in 2004, they made up a slightly smaller percentage of the electorate.  In both 2008 and 2012 they accounted for 20% of the vote, but in 2004 it was 21%.  But putting that to the side.  Even if in 2012 the african-american vote in Virginia was only 18% instead of 20% and Obama got 87% of the vote instead of 93% ... he still would have won.  It would have been like Florida in 2000, but unless something would have changed during the recount, he would have still won.

The one factor I never hear in the whole "Obama won Virginia because the black community came out and voted in large numbers" theory is the reverse side.  That a part of the white community came out and voted in large numbers against Obama.  Therefore reducing the effects of a large african-american turnout.

Even if they were more of the vote in 2004, some of them went to Bush because of his social conservative stances. Thats how he was able to secure Ohio and Florida in his reelection bid by targeting the minority communites with ads purpoting his social conservatives views. A large number of whites did come out and vote against Obama, but they dont make up the percentage of the electorate back in the day.

[DesertGator23]

Non-swing voter,

We see you're a non-swing voter and we see why. The last time I checked Obama won Virginia last year. Whether or not it was because he was the Democratic nominee will never be known but isn't likely. You say it voted Democrat not Obama. The last time I checked Obama was the 2012 Democratic nominee. If I didn't know better I'd say you're in denial about Virginia being a battleground state. It's almost as if you only read liberal leaning articles. You definitely aren't a swing voter.

I agree, most of the voters who voted democratic were obama voters not democratic voters. I think the Democratic Party is in for a rude awakening in 2016, and probably 2014.

[illegaloperation]

Non-swing voter,

We see you're a non-swing voter and we see why. The last time I checked Obama won Virginia last year. Whether or not it was because he was the Democratic nominee will never be known but isn't likely. You say it voted Democrat not Obama. The last time I checked Obama was the 2012 Democratic nominee. If I didn't know better I'd say you're in denial about Virginia being a battleground state. It's almost as if you only read liberal leaning articles. You definitely aren't a swing voter.

I agree, most of the voters who voted democratic were obama voters not democratic voters. I think the Democratic Party is in for a rude awakening in 2016, and probably 2014.

Actually, you are in for a rude awakening.

[ElectionsGuy]

Who is in for a rude awakening? History favors republicans, current trends favor democrats.

[illegaloperation]

Who is in for a rude awakening? History favors republicans, current trends favor democrats.

That's what I am saying.

[DesertGator23]

Non-swing voter,

We see you're a non-swing voter and we see why. The last time I checked Obama won Virginia last year. Whether or not it was because he was the Democratic nominee will never be known but isn't likely. You say it voted Democrat not Obama. The last time I checked Obama was the 2012 Democratic nominee. If I didn't know better I'd say you're in denial about Virginia being a battleground state. It's almost as if you only read liberal leaning articles. You definitely aren't a swing voter.

I agree, most of the voters who voted democratic were obama voters not democratic voters. I think the Democratic Party is in for a rude awakening in 2016, and probably 2014.

Actually, you are in for a rude awakening.

Im just saying, those who voted for Obama in the last 2 presidential elections didn't vote for the Democratic Party ideals, but for the candidate himself. When the dems are looking for a nominee in 2016. they better find a candidate that can turn out young people and minorities like Obama did, because Biden sure as heck wont. Hillary will be able to definitely swing Women voters towards her, but she does have alot of baggage.

I really dont see how the current trend is toward the dems. We all know Republicans turnout more during midterms then dems, and with the current political winds shifting away from the President, and the economy is still staggering along. The stock market is looking to atleast a 10 to 20 percent dip after the Fed tapers their Bond buying program (QE2), which will leave a sour taste in some voters mouths. Unless the Republicans lose the narrative on the upcoming budget battle (which is very likely),  I think the reps are going to make minor gains in the house, and a seat away from a majority in the senate. The only problem i can see for Republicans is with 3 governors races (PA,FL,MI) and potentially OH, but I think the republicans will only lose 2 of those races at the most.

[roadkill]

Who is in for a rude awakening? History favors republicans, current trends favor democrats.

Historical trends do not favor Republicans.  Matter of fact, historical trends don't favor anyone.  If you're familiar with the Time for Change election forecasting model, historical trends indicate that if a party has held the White House for one term it is has an advantage in the next election, if it has held the White House for two terms it's a draw, and if it has held the White House for three or more terms it is at an increasing disadvantage ... everything else being equal of course.  Obviously this trend can be overridden by other factors.

I really dont see how the current trend is toward the dems. We all know Republicans turnout more during midterms then dems, and with the current political winds shifting away from the President, and the economy is still staggering along.

Usually when you hear someone say that current trends favor Democrats, 9 out of 10 times they're talking about voter demographics. 

First would probably be sex and race demos.  In both 2008 and 2012 the Republican Presidential candidate took in less than 30% of the minority vote and 45% of the female vote.  No Republican can win the Presidency with those kind of numbers.  Plus it's getting worse for Republicans because the minority vote share is growing every election.  More minorities will vote in 2016 than ever before, regardless of who's running. 

Second is the geographical demos.  Large population centers tend to vote Democratic, and our population keeps continually becoming more urban.  As state's urban populations overtake their rural counterparts, they become less and less likely to swing towards a Republican candidate.  This is what's driving Virginia's slow political change (on the national level).

2016 is going to be a hard race for Republicans.  For a Republican candidate to be successful they're going to have to be able to steal voters away that have been voting Democrat in the past few elections.  It can be done, but it's not easy or common.

[barfbag]

Democrats are the only types who are in for a rude awakening when our nation follows it's general rule of eight years between parties. They're obsessed with demographics and numbers while the rest of us focus on serving our country and knowing our history.

[illegaloperation]

Democrats are the only types who are in for a rude awakening when our nation follows it's general rule of eight years between parties. They're obsessed with demographics and numbers while the rest of us focus on serving our country and knowing our history.

You keep telling yourself that.

It is absolutely true that we Democrats are obsessed with demographics and numbers.

[barfbag]

Democrats are the only types who are in for a rude awakening when our nation follows it's general rule of eight years between parties. They're obsessed with demographics and numbers while the rest of us focus on serving our country and knowing our history.

You keep telling yourself that.

It is absolutely true that we Democrats are obsessed with demographics and numbers.

Well thank you for proving my point.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Democrats are the only types who are in for a rude awakening when our nation follows it's general rule of eight years between parties. They're obsessed with demographics and numbers while the rest of us focus on serving our country and knowing our history.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/the-white-house-is-not-a-metronome/?_r=0

[barfbag]

Democrats are the only types who are in for a rude awakening when our nation follows it's general rule of eight years between parties. They're obsessed with demographics and numbers while the rest of us focus on serving our country and knowing our history.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/the-white-house-is-not-a-metronome/?_r=0

No wonder Democrats love the New York Times.

[illegaloperation]

This is for barfbag

http://i1.wp.com/imgs.xkcd.com/comics/electoral_precedent.png

[barfbag]

This is for barfbag

http://i1.wp.com/imgs.xkcd.com/comics/electoral_precedent.png

That's pretty funny!

[Non Swing Voter]

Non-swing voter,

We see you're a non-swing voter and we see why. The last time I checked Obama won Virginia last year. Whether or not it was because he was the Democratic nominee will never be known but isn't likely. You say it voted Democrat not Obama. The last time I checked Obama was the 2012 Democratic nominee. If I didn't know better I'd say you're in denial about Virginia being a battleground state. It's almost as if you only read liberal leaning articles. You definitely aren't a swing voter.

Thanks.  I am not a swing voter.  You are probably not a Virginia voter.  A few months ago you were a Florida voter.  Now you're an expert on Virginia politics. 

Last time I checked, Kaine and Warner were not named "Obama" either.  In fact, they seemed to historically do even better than he did.  So was that a result of unprecedented black voting margins too?  You're almost as fringe as that Waukesha nut.

[Non Swing Voter]

Obama isn't the most important factor. He certainly did better than other Democrats would've done in 2008 or 2012 though.

What makes you think that "[Obama] certainly did better than other Democrats would've done in 2008 or 2012" ?

As I've said he brought out the black vote in higher numbers and his ideology of government being the answer to every toothache fits well with government employees and politicians in northern Virginia.

You've just disregarded everything I've just said.

How could you think Obama didn't benefit in Virginia from being black?

It's safe to see that his ground game and probably race as well helped boost black turnout in some of the downstate precincts.  I also think the reverse was true in southwestern Virginia... white voters probably turned out against him in greater numbers than if Hillary was the nominee.

But that wasn't the tipping point, there simply was not that much greater turnout of black voters to be the only factor...

The bigger issue is Northern Virginia's population gains and Southwestern Virginia's population losses.  Obama racked up huge margins in NOVA counties that aren't even that black.  It is the growth of the DC suburbs that is absolutely killing the GOP in Virginia and it's happening faster than you think.

Not only are the suburbs growing, they are leaning more and more heavily towards the democratic party.  I don't think Republicans have a single senate seat in NOVA anymore and I think the house members are pretty vulnerable. 

Additionally, when the silver line (finally) gets completed, I expect even bigger and more rapid growth in the further out parts of Fairfax.  It will make Fairfax more appealing to city-dwellers who lean far to the left.

So while I won't deny that black turnout was probably pretty good in Virginia last year, you're missing the bigger picture here.  NOVA is growing rapidly, 2016 will be a totally different electorate than 2012.

I never said Virginia isn't trending Democratic. It's been noticeable for a quarter of a century.

The GOP isn't doing very well on the federal level in Virginia lately now is it?  Care to explain why?  HINT: The last 3 elected senators there were not named Obama nor were they black...

[ElectionsGuy]

Non-swing voter,

We see you're a non-swing voter and we see why. The last time I checked Obama won Virginia last year. Whether or not it was because he was the Democratic nominee will never be known but isn't likely. You say it voted Democrat not Obama. The last time I checked Obama was the 2012 Democratic nominee. If I didn't know better I'd say you're in denial about Virginia being a battleground state. It's almost as if you only read liberal leaning articles. You definitely aren't a swing voter.

Thanks.  I am not a swing voter.  You are probably not a Virginia voter.  A few months ago you were a Florida voter.  Now you're an expert on Virginia politics. 

Last time I checked, Kaine and Warner were not named "Obama" either.  In fact, they seemed to historically do even better than he did.  So was that a result of unprecedented black voting margins too?  You're almost as fringe as that Waukesha nut.

You must have gotten a wrong impression of me, sorry about that.

The only reason I decided to intervene in your posts (generally) was because I sensed some hopefulness and unrealistic aspirations about the future democratic party. There's nothing wrong with thinking that the temporary future trends favor one party, but I get bothered sometimes when one thinks that one party will dominate for a generation or more (which is the aspiration of many D's around here too). Its pretty unprecedented and hasn't happened since post Lincoln. The democrats may win a third term to the white house, or even a fourth term, but after that.. watch out because history tells that party that its in for a rude awakening. Of course history doesn't tell the future, but history always repeats itself (especially political history). Make no mistake, someday when republicans are doing better when democrats I will intervene on hopeful republicans if I need too. That's all, don't get bothered or take this hardly.

[barfbag]

Obama isn't the most important factor. He certainly did better than other Democrats would've done in 2008 or 2012 though.

What makes you think that "[Obama] certainly did better than other Democrats would've done in 2008 or 2012" ?

As I've said he brought out the black vote in higher numbers and his ideology of government being the answer to every toothache fits well with government employees and politicians in northern Virginia.

You've just disregarded everything I've just said.

How could you think Obama didn't benefit in Virginia from being black?

It's safe to see that his ground game and probably race as well helped boost black turnout in some of the downstate precincts.  I also think the reverse was true in southwestern Virginia... white voters probably turned out against him in greater numbers than if Hillary was the nominee.

But that wasn't the tipping point, there simply was not that much greater turnout of black voters to be the only factor...

The bigger issue is Northern Virginia's population gains and Southwestern Virginia's population losses.  Obama racked up huge margins in NOVA counties that aren't even that black.  It is the growth of the DC suburbs that is absolutely killing the GOP in Virginia and it's happening faster than you think.

Not only are the suburbs growing, they are leaning more and more heavily towards the democratic party.  I don't think Republicans have a single senate seat in NOVA anymore and I think the house members are pretty vulnerable. 

Additionally, when the silver line (finally) gets completed, I expect even bigger and more rapid growth in the further out parts of Fairfax.  It will make Fairfax more appealing to city-dwellers who lean far to the left.

So while I won't deny that black turnout was probably pretty good in Virginia last year, you're missing the bigger picture here.  NOVA is growing rapidly, 2016 will be a totally different electorate than 2012.

I never said Virginia isn't trending Democratic. It's been noticeable for a quarter of a century.

The GOP isn't doing very well on the federal level in Virginia lately now is it?  Care to explain why?  HINT: The last 3 elected senators there were not named Obama nor were they black...

What about my posts leads you to think I'm arguing that Virginia isn't moving to the left?

[roadkill]

There's nothing wrong with thinking that the temporary future trends favor one party, but I get bothered sometimes when one thinks that one party will dominate for a generation or more (which is the aspiration of many D's around here too). Its pretty unprecedented and hasn't happened since post Lincoln.

Democrats held the Presidency from 1932 to 1952.  Also, Republicans held the White House from 1968 to 1988 with only one term going to a Dem.  Actually ... between 1968 and 2008 there were five Republican Presidents serving seven terms vs. two Democratic Presidents serving three terms.  That's pretty dominate, and it's not too crazy to think that Democrats could do (or are doing now) something similar.

[barfbag]

There's nothing wrong with thinking that the temporary future trends favor one party, but I get bothered sometimes when one thinks that one party will dominate for a generation or more (which is the aspiration of many D's around here too). Its pretty unprecedented and hasn't happened since post Lincoln.

Democrats held the Presidency from 1932 to 1952.  Also, Republicans held the White House from 1968 to 1988 with only one term going to a Dem.  Actually ... between 1968 and 2008 there were five Republican Presidents serving seven terms vs. two Democratic Presidents serving three terms.  That's pretty dominate, and it's not too crazy to think that Democrats could do (or are doing now) something similar.

It's not crazy but if you look at those 40 years only one Democrat was voted out of office and one Republican.

[roadkill]

It's not crazy but if you look at those 40 years only one Democrat was voted out of office and one Republican.

True, but if you look at the only two Democrats to win, they were both Southern moderate Democrats that could eat into the Republican base and they got help from outside factors.  Carter was just able to edge out Ford, even though no one ever elected Ford to anything and it was following the whole Nixon scandal.  Clinton was able to beat Bush the elder mainly due to a very strong 3rd party candidate, Perot, that took a good portion of the conservative vote away from Bush. 

Actually ... Since Truman, we've only had two Democratic Presidents that weren't conservative Southern Democrats, Kennedy and Obama.  In that period of time it's always been Democrats that had to put up a candidate that appealed well to moderate Republicans.  To win they had to steal votes from the Republican base.  Now it looks like the shoe is on the other foot.

[barfbag]

It's not crazy but if you look at those 40 years only one Democrat was voted out of office and one Republican.

True, but if you look at the only two Democrats to win, they were both Southern moderate Democrats that could eat into the Republican base and they got help from outside factors.  Carter was just able to edge out Ford, even though no one ever elected Ford to anything and it was following the whole Nixon scandal.  Clinton was able to beat Bush the elder mainly due to a very strong 3rd party candidate, Perot, that took a good portion of the conservative vote away from Bush. 

Actually ... Since Truman, we've only had two Democratic Presidents that weren't conservative Southern Democrats, Kennedy and Obama.  In that period of time it's always been Democrats that had to put up a candidate that appealed well to moderate Republicans.  To win they had to steal votes from the Republican base.  Now it looks like the shoe is on the other foot.

If we can't eat into the north, then we'll be stuck under 300 EV. PA, NH, and possibly ME are the only winnable ones unless Christie runs and then NJ.

[roadkill]

If we can't eat into the north, then we'll be stuck under 300 EV. PA, NH, and possibly ME are the only winnable ones unless Christie runs and then NJ.

Isn't that the big worry among Republican strategists?  That it's becoming harder and harder for their candidate to have a clear path to winning.  They're having to depend more and more on winning just about every toss-up and/or getting slight upsets in Dem. leaning states.  Where as the Dem. candidate only has to win the states they're suppose to win plus one or maybe two battleground states.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

As we can see conservatives have been in denial Ohio as well just like they don't think Kasick or Portman is vulnerable. If Va was in play along with counterparts NV and Co they can't win. They, the GOP, have a 2004 strategy lock up Ohio and win prez. Never mind Va.