Beltway Hype for Gillespie

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I keep seeing stories on POLITICO about this guy and how he's gonna make it a good race. No, he's not. Mark Warner is super popular. They even went so far as to wire about how he could upset. What's with the hype when it's obvious he's gonna lose?

[Miles]

Yeah, its really annoying; they just nominated him at the convention, so the hype may die down soon. It would be a shock if he came within 10 points.

[ElectionsGuy]

I'm thinking 15 point win for Warner, 57-42. Safe D

The focus on this race is nonsensical.

[IceSpear]

You never see the Beltway writing stories about a possible Democratic upset in Nebraska or Texas.

[Maxwell]

You never see the Beltway writing stories about a possible Democratic upset in Nebraska or Texas.

Well, what about early on with Wendy Davis? And Bob Kerrey running for his old seat? I mean, never this much excitement as with Gillespie (because he's one of them), but still.

[badgate]

IIRC there was a Bob Kerrey story during the Dem surge in 2012. I don't think he even was leading, or tied, with Fischer, but it was during the surge and everyone from Carmona to Warren were doing well.

[Miles]

Eh, interesting way to look at it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[IceSpear]

Eh, interesting way to look at it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This actually made me laugh. Politico's boner for Gillespie is reaching self parody levels.

I look forward to their column about how "None of these candidates" winning the Nevada governor primary is indicative of a dissatisfied Democratic electorate that will surely pave the way for Senator Ed Gillespie.

[Never]

Eh, interesting way to look at it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gillespie wouldn't happen to be friends with some of the reporters at Politico, would he?

I suppose you could say he is the most important Republican here, but that seems to be a stretch. Republican congressmen like Bob Goodlatte, Scott Rigell, and Frank Wolf (until he retires) at least have a say in the House. General Assembly Speaker William J. Howell and State Senate Majority Leader Tommy Norment also appear to be fairly important Republicans here, albeit lesser-known ones.  Nevertheless, looking at those individuals, one could probably argue that the state lacks an important Republican who stands above all of the others.

[windjammer]

And seriously, I guess the Pubs will probably nominate Obenshain in 2017?

[TX Conservative Dem]

Beltway folks need to get back to REALITY.

Warner's gonna punk Gillespie by double digits in November: somewhere between 56-39 or 60-39.

It appears the VA GOPers will pick Obenshain for the governorship in 2017.

[Mr. Reactionary]

And seriously, I guess the Pubs will probably nominate Obenshain in 2017?

[Never]

And seriously, I guess the Pubs will probably nominate Obenshain in 2017?

No, Obenshain probably won't be nominated for governor in 2017.

There are credible Republican state senators (Jeff McWaters for one) who might be better candidates and would not have the baggage of losing statewide.

[Miles]

I thought the CW after 2013 was Obenshain would get the right of first refusal for 2017.

Another name that was floated on RRH (who I think could be good) is Rigell.

[Never]

Never, I'm going to have to disagree.

While it's certainly not a done deal, I think Obenshain will certainly be one of the front-runners for Governor. Having said that, I would honestly prefer someone else.

It's just my instinct, which in this case might be wrong... but I just don't see Obenshain going for another run.

Rigell would be good and is a likely option, but he might just as well challenge Tim Kaine in 2018.

[Maxwell]

Maybe I'm just naming random congressmen, but what about Robert Hurt for Governor?

[Never]

Maybe I'm just naming random congressmen, but what about Robert Hurt for Governor?

Well, he's definitely young enough. Given his background in law, he could be an option for Attorney General as well. On the other hand, it doesn't seem that congressmen are elected to the Governor's Mansion that often here in Virginia, though that is an easy trend to break.

This discussion is making me think that we could have a crowded field on the Republican side in 2017.

[Never]

I thought the CW after 2013 was Obenshain would get the right of first refusal for 2017.

Another name that was floated on RRH (who I think could be good) is Rigell.

Conventional Wisdom doesn't always work out in VA. We just saw that with Cantor, but also at this point before the 2013 governor's race, when almost everyone (myself included) thought that former Lt. Gov. Bolling would be the next governor, and we know what happened there.

Now, if Obenshain had actually won the Attorney General's race last year, I think he would definitely be the clear leader on the Republican side.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it's impossible for the GOP to nominate Obenshain in 2017 for governor, though I contest the belief that he is the favorite. In my opinion, he hasn't shown that he deserves a free pass in the nominating phase, especially when one of the likeliest opponents on the Democratic side appears to be the man he lost to in 2013, Atty. Gen. Herring (of course, Herring's candidacy depends on whether he is willing to go up against Lt. Gov. Northam, though his stance on SSM as Attorney General seems to lay the foundation for a gubernatorial candidacy).

[Mister Mets]

And seriously, I guess the Pubs will probably nominate Obenshain in 2017?

No, Obenshain probably won't be nominated for governor in 2017.

There are credible Republican state senators (Jeff McWaters for one) who might be better candidates and would not have the baggage of losing statewide.

It'll probably be Cantor.

He's a fundraising monster, and the opposition is weak.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'm thinking 15 point win for Warner, 57-42. Safe D

The focus on this race is nonsensical.

Robert Sarvis (L) is running again, he got 6.5% in 2013, and he'll get similar to that now, if not slightly higher.

I do expect this race to tighten, but only to a point. Probably something around 51-41-8 for the final result. (Warner-Gillespie-Sarvis)

[IceSpear]

I'm thinking 15 point win for Warner, 57-42. Safe D

The focus on this race is nonsensical.

Robert Sarvis (L) is running again, he got 6.5% in 2013, and he'll get similar to that now, if not slightly higher.

I do expect this race to tighten, but only to a point. Probably something around 51-41-8 for the final result. (Warner-Gillespie-Sarvis)

Why would he? Sarvis only got so high last year because McAuliffe and Cuccinelli were horrible candidates. Warner is popular and Gillespie is just a generic R.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'm thinking 15 point win for Warner, 57-42. Safe D

The focus on this race is nonsensical.

Robert Sarvis (L) is running again, he got 6.5% in 2013, and he'll get similar to that now, if not slightly higher.

I do expect this race to tighten, but only to a point. Probably something around 51-41-8 for the final result. (Warner-Gillespie-Sarvis)

Why would he? Sarvis only got so high last year because McAuliffe and Cuccinelli were horrible candidates. Warner is popular and Gillespie is just a generic R.

History shows that candidate quality isn't always a barrier to significant third-party support in downticket races. Some examples:

In the 2012 Montana Senate Race, Dan Cox (L) got 6.6% despite both Tester and Rehberg being strong candidates.

In the 2008 Oregon Senate Race, David Brownlow (C) got 5.2% despite both Merkley and Smith being strong candidates.

Now, why do I think Sarvis will outperform what he did last time? Well, because this race isn't nearly as competitive.

Some potential Warner voters will say 'Warner's going to win anyways, he doesn't need my vote, so I'll cast my vote for Sarvis, who I actually support the most'. That's not something they really could say in the governor's race last year, the polls were showing a McAuliffe advantage of only about 7 points and McAuliffe was constantly telling his supporters to not trust the polls, turn out, understand that the race would tighten in the final hours (as it did), and understand that he actually needed their vote. So there's some extra Sarvis support there.

Also, some potential Gillespie voters will say 'I would vote for Gillespie if the race was competitive, but it's not, Warner is going to win no matter how I/my peers vote, so I'm just going to vote for Sarvis, who I actually support the most'. They're able to say that more now than they could in the governor's race because there's a wider margin here. So there's some extra Sarvis support there as well.

[IceSpear]

I'm thinking 15 point win for Warner, 57-42. Safe D

The focus on this race is nonsensical.

Robert Sarvis (L) is running again, he got 6.5% in 2013, and he'll get similar to that now, if not slightly higher.

I do expect this race to tighten, but only to a point. Probably something around 51-41-8 for the final result. (Warner-Gillespie-Sarvis)

Why would he? Sarvis only got so high last year because McAuliffe and Cuccinelli were horrible candidates. Warner is popular and Gillespie is just a generic R.

History shows that candidate quality isn't always a barrier to significant third-party support in downticket races. Some examples:

In the 2012 Montana Senate Race, Dan Cox (L) got 6.6% despite both Tester and Rehberg being strong candidates.

In the 2008 Oregon Senate Race, David Brownlow (C) got 5.2% despite both Merkley and Smith being strong candidates.

Now, why do I think Sarvis will outperform what he did last time? Well, because this race isn't nearly as competitive.

Some potential Warner voters will say 'Warner's going to win anyways, he doesn't need my vote, so I'll cast my vote for Sarvis, who I actually support the most'. That's not something they really could say in the governor's race last year, the polls were showing a McAuliffe advantage of only about 7 points and McAuliffe was constantly telling his supporters to not trust the polls, turn out, understand that the race would tighten in the final hours (as it did), and understand that he actually needed their vote. So there's some extra Sarvis support there.

Also, some potential Gillespie voters will say 'I would vote for Gillespie if the race was competitive, but it's not, Warner is going to win no matter how I/my peers vote, so I'm just going to vote for Sarvis, who I actually support the most'. They're able to say that more now than they could in the governor's race because there's a wider margin here. So there's some extra Sarvis support there as well.

Libertarians always get a high percentage in Montana. Oregon...I'm not sure about that one, especially since it was a Constitution Party candidate. But if this dynamic worked out the way you think it will, third parties would've gotten a large amount of the vote in the 2008 Senate race. They did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Virginia,_2008

Sarvis will probably do better than they did since he has some name recognition from the recent gubernatorial race, but I'd be shocked if he broke 5%.

[Maxwell]

Politico just gave its kiss of death to Wendy Davis. They had two articles of her on the front page.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/wendy-davis-defiant-as-campaign-grinds-on-108147.html

New rule - any candidate Politico embraces will lose.

[illegaloperation]

The reason this race is in the news is that Virginia is close to DC and it's easy for DC reporters to write about it.


If this was a race of Mark Warner vs Gillespie in Montana, there certainly would't be much coverage.