Poll: Dems Running Ahead In...Virginia!

Comments (26)

phil james wrote on September 25, 2007 11:22 AM:

That's my State! Finally started recovering from that nasty War of Northern Aggression they lost. I'd like to see the results though for Northern VA against Deep South/Lynchburg/Bible Belt/Carry-me-back-to Ole Virginny.

rssrai wrote on September 25, 2007 11:38 AM:

It looks like Obama does the worse in Virginia. He only beats Guiliani by 1 and loses to Thompson.

Jim J wrote on September 25, 2007 11:41 AM:

I wonder when the Obama people are finally going to give the whole "he's the only one that can heal the red state/blue state divide" thing a rest? None, and I mean NONE of the polling is bearing that premise out at all. In fact, it seems to be Hillary that's able to do just that. This is why we have primaries and elections, instead of depending on the pundit-fed conventional wisdom, which is almost always 100 percent wrong.

Petey wrote on September 25, 2007 11:47 AM:

So yet another state where Edwards does better than Clinton or Obama in head-to-head general election matchups...

Petey wrote on September 25, 2007 11:48 AM:

So yet another state where Edwards does better than Clinton or Obama in head-to-head general election matchups...

wes2 wrote on September 25, 2007 11:51 AM:

Jim J (and Josh, in his front-page write-up) ...

Why is this a vindication of Hillary? Note that the candidate with the largest overall victory margins in the most match-ups is ... EDWARDS. Hillary is only ahead by one point in her margin over Giuliani -- otherwise, Edwards' margins are significantly larger.

Glen Tomkins wrote on September 25, 2007 12:00 PM:

Be not amazed

The anti-racist vote in VA has always been larger than the racist vote. It's just that from the time that the Republican Party took over the segregationist franchise in the mid-60s until recently, they were able to get away with the dog-whistle thing, whereby they would say and do things that only the racists would pay any attention to, but would not attract the opposition of the larger anti-racist vote, because those voters are too non-insane to notice or care about the secret signals. But since they started letting folks like DeLay be their public face on the national scene, and they started letting local crazies replace the older generation of soothingly moderate conservatives in leading the party locally, and since they expanded the racism to the anti-immigrant thing, where it is more explicitly racist, the dog whistle's pitch has fallen to frequencies where humans can hear it. And the anti-racist humans in this state are not amused by what they're hearing.

phil james wrote on September 25, 2007 12:05 PM:

Non-racists were so not-amused they trashed macaca-man although again Allen won Lynchburg and environs.

Also agree this polling shows EDWARDS as the strongest candidate in the matchups.

slb wrote on September 25, 2007 12:07 PM:

As a lifelong Virginian, this does not surprise me. Virginia is not Mississippi or Utah; it has never been as solidly red as some here seem to think. The state legislature remained in Democratic hands until very recently, and even then it has not been the sort of Republican stranglehold that you see in, say, Texas.

The Virginia GOP is divided into "movement" conservatives who dominate the House of Delegates and who foam at the mouth at the thought of taxes, and more traditional conservatives in the state Senate who don't mind allocating state money for things like road maintenance. They have in all but one session since the GOP gained a majority in both houses managed to run long past the deadlines for putting a budget together because the two factions of the party could not agree with one another about where to get money and what to spend it on. I think a lot of the state is really tired of the constant wrangling, the extended legislative sessions, and the grievous state of the roadways (not to mention traffic congestion around Norfolk and northern VA) because of lack of highway funds.

My parents have voted Republican in national races for as long as I can remember (though for a long time Democratic was the only practical choice in state and local races), but my father is completely disgusted with the GOP now, and the last time the party called to ask for a donation, he told them he no longer considered himself a Republican. I don't think he is unusual in this state.

phil james wrote on September 25, 2007 12:08 PM:

Oh. And just in case you think there isn't a little bias right here at TPM the top-6 poll-tracker listings on this very page don't even show Edwards who in fact is the strongest candidate in the VA results. Are you guys part of the MSM, or what?

Jack Harrington wrote on September 25, 2007 12:23 PM:

Can anyone explain how in the comparisons of the three Dem candidates in head-to-head matchups with the three Rep candidates that John Edwards has consistently better numbers than either Hillary or Obama but in the run for the Dem nomination he's a distant third at 15% compared to Hillary's low-mid thirties and Obama's mid twenties? The polls suggest he is perhaps more electable. Am I overlooking something?

Outside the beltway wrote on September 25, 2007 1:18 PM:

one thing that's clear from these polls is if "Hillary" is the option the percent voting on the other line, Republican goes up

AJ wrote on September 25, 2007 1:21 PM:

C'mon reverse Mark Warner coattails! I have feeling VA is going to be a big battleground, with Edwards at the top of the ticket and Warner for Senate it would be tough for the Republicans to win.

Phil wrote on September 25, 2007 1:27 PM:

SLB: slight correction to your post. Texas has been solidly Republican on the presidential level: like Virginia, it hasn't voted for a Democrat since Johnson in '64.

But the state legislature was controlled by the Democrats probably from Reconstruction up until 2002, and democratic prospects for taking it back in the next couple election cycles are solid.

Phil wrote on September 25, 2007 1:27 PM:

SLB: slight correction to your post. Texas has been solidly Republican on the presidential level: like Virginia, it hasn't voted for a Democrat since Johnson in '64.

But the state legislature was controlled by the Democrats probably from Reconstruction up until 2002, and democratic prospects for taking it back in the next couple election cycles are solid.

So while your point about Virginia was well taken, Texas might not be the best example of a contrast.

dcshungu wrote on September 25, 2007 2:58 PM:

Why is this a vindication of Hillary? Note that the candidate with the largest overall victory margins in the most match-ups is ... EDWARDS. Hillary is only ahead by one point in her margin over Giuliani -- otherwise, Edwards' margins are significantly larger

When one begins to complain about something like this, it is probably time to get out and get some fresh air!

I believe that the story here is not about "The Clinton Supremacy", but rather about how well the three top Dems are doing against the Repubs in a state that no Dem presidential candidate has carried since 1964. Juxtapose your "complaint" against that historic fact and the silliness of it will convince you to take some time off from electoral politics and places like TPM-EC.

BTW: I am a scientist and we always are very careful never to use any variation of the adverb "significantly" unless this is borne out by something called a p-value.

" otherwise, Edwards' margins are significantly larger.."

with margin of error of +/- 4.5, I doubt that any difference between HRC's and Edwards' numbers can be characterized as "significant" (P > 1.0). phil james wrote on September 25, 2007 3:58 PM:

dcshungu

The Hillary bias was introduced by Jim J who concluded HRC was the big healer when Edward's number are either better in raw terms or not significantly different in statistical terms. I among others feel that Edwards is given the also-ran mantra by many people who don't like to stick to the facts.

Cinderella Ferret wrote on September 25, 2007 4:34 PM:

Why was McCain left out of this mix? His campaign has struggled of late, but he seems to be in the hunt however remote his chances may be. The Former TV Actor was included, and Fred, along with his campaign has been staggering about like a drunken--well--TV Actor since it started. Curious. Interesting choice made by the polling company.

wes2 wrote on September 25, 2007 4:58 PM:

dcshungu

As phil james pointed out, my comment was a response to Jim J and Josh M who took a general post about Virginia polling and turned it into a specific statement about one candidate: Hillary.

As far as significance goes, Edwards is the only candidate to have two out of three leads exceeding the combined margin of error. P=phooey. But it is good to know that you're a scientist. It explains a lot...

chigger wrote on September 25, 2007 5:10 PM:

Don't know if these numbers are going to align right in this forum, but here are some stats I pulled from this poll, indicating how much each Dem candidate won/lost by, then added up all the percentage of differences for each one, to give what I guess I'd call a "favorability" rating, of each Dem's total over their theoretical Republican rivals: Clinton 28, Obama 11, Edwards 34. This is the second Survey USA poll this week that I've seen with similar results, with Edwards running better in polling that includes both Republican and Dem voters. Not sure what the difference in undecideds means.

Did this in a hurry, all mistakes mine.

Clinton/Giuliani +6% ,6%undecided
Clinton/Thompson +7%, 7% undecided
Clinton/Romney +15%,9% undecided
total:28

Obama/Giuliani +1%,9% undecided
Obama/Thompson -2%,8% undecided
Obama/Romney +12%, 12% undecided
total: 11

Edwards/Giuliani +5%,9% undecided
Edwards/Thompson +10%,11% undecided
Edwards/Romney +19%,15% undecided
total:34

JEP wrote on September 25, 2007 5:24 PM:

Gosh, just the fact that Edwards is the most likely to beat the Republicans is no reason to support him...

That might ruin the Democrat's reputation as losers..

LOL!!!

dcshungu wrote on September 25, 2007 5:55 PM:

As far as significance goes, Edwards is the only candidate to have two out of three leads exceeding the combined margin of error. P=phooey. But it is good to know that you're a scientist. It explains a lot...

It is silly to keep pushing this line about how Edwards is doing "better". He ain't...take it from the 'scientist.' Besides, one of the criticisms of HRC was that she has such high negatives that she would be stuck at under 50% support. Think again... In all three match ups, she was the only one who got 50% or more... The numbers can be spun to fit one's preconceived notion. What is inescapable is that HRC has been getting stronger (check out the latest poll from NH); Obama has stalled and will fade away soon (especially since HRC will likely outraise him in Q3), and Edwards will surge and then come up very short in the end.
If the fact that I am scientist explains anything, it should be why my arguments are so coherent and logical... :-)

Anonymous wrote on September 25, 2007 6:24 PM:

dcshungu

You've lost me on both consistency and logic, I'm afraid. If the difference between 7 & 10 points and 15 & 19 points isn't significant (your first complaint), then how can the difference between 50/50/53 and 48/49/52 be meaningful (your latest), given the 4.5 MOE? The poll results, fwiw, seem to only give us that Edwards leads Romney and Thompson outside the MOE, and Clinton and Obama both lead Romney, but not Thompson. Everything else amounts to a tie.

Am also curious as to what sort of scientist spends so much time making assertions about the future.... Nice work if you can get it...

dcshungu wrote on September 25, 2007 7:00 PM:

You've lost me on both consistency and logic, I'm afraid. If the difference between 7 & 10 points and 15 & 19 points isn't significant (your first complaint), then how can the difference between 50/50/53 and 48/49/52 be meaningful (your latest), given the 4.5 MOE? The poll results, fwiw, seem to only give us that Edwards leads Romney and Thompson outside the MOE, and Clinton and Obama both lead Romney, but not Thompson. Everything else amounts to a tie.

Re-read the post and you'll get it. I never claimed that 50/50/53 was more meaningful in terms of statistical difference. None of the differences are significant in statistical sense. The point was that we were repeatedly told that HRC had such high negatives that she'd be stuck with 40-some support (someone just made this same point again in another thread), yet here she is garnering 50+% support against all three Repub candidates in a state that has not voted Dem in over 40 years. Got it?

Am also curious as to what sort of scientist spends so much time making assertions about the future....

Ivy League Physics...Medical Physics...Nearly all of science is about divining the future based on currently available data...of course, the more reliable the current data, the better the prediction.

Liberal Larry wrote on September 25, 2007 7:25 PM:

I will NOT vote for a corporate Democrat

Wayne wrote on September 26, 2007 12:40 PM:

Bill Clinton came awfully close to winning Virginia in his 1996 contest against Bob Dole. The state went Republican quite comfortably in the next two elections, but it seems to me that the '96 election was a sign that things were slowly moving the Democrats' way in the state.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)