Support NeoGAF

[Nydius]

Democrats don't vote in the midterms of a democratic president. It's not some general rule that can be applied. People just think it is because of 2010 and 2014. In 2006, democrats made big gains, same with 1998 and the primary under HW.

2006's 45% turnout was an outlier. It was a referendum on the Iraq War, not a scathing indictment of George W. Bush who, if you'll recall, this state went for twice. For your statement to be accurate, turnout would have been high in GWB's first midterms in 2002... except it wasn't. Not by a long shot. At 32.3%, Virginia voter participation in 2002 midterms were worse than they had been in a VERY long time, and makes the dismal 2014 midterms look good by comparison.

Virgina is like a D+3.3 state right now on the presidential level. It's more purple on the state and congressional level.If trump couldn't win the state in a good year a carly fiona or laura ingraham type candidate can't win in an off year either. A republican can only win VA in non-presidential elections if they are moderate enough. Neither Ingraham or Fiona are moderate enough for the Virgina electorate.

You realize you just contradicted yourself by pointing out that the state is more purple in congressional runs and more blue in presidential runs, right? Just because Trump won doesn't mean Fiorina can't win - again, look at 2014. Lots of places were giving Ed Gillespie almost no shot to unseat Mark Warner and yet he damn near did.

Please spare me the whole "not moderate enough". Everyone said that about Trump and look where that ended up. Ken Cuccinelli wasn't moderate. He was a tea party darling who pandered to the far right and evangelical christian voters. (For those not from VA, Cuccinelli was the GOP Attorney General who defended the use of forced transvaginal ultrasounds in women seeking abortions.) Yet up until election week it was practically a toss up, coming down to who have the better GOTV mechanisms.

Mark Warner is another example: He's pretty well known as a moderate Democrat, and was very pro-business during his time as Governor. You'd think that would have helped him overall, right? Nope. In fact, Gillespie targeted Warner's moderation as a weakness during the 2014 Senate campaign.

The whole concept of "gotta be moderate to appeal to the mainstream voters" was already flimsy before the 2016 election and absolutely obliterated afterward. All they have to do is run an ideological campaign that ignores Fiorina's faults while making Kaine seem like Hillary 2.0 and that will be enough for the base and the right leaning centrists. Which then brings it back down to an issue of turnout, where the GOP continually gets the edge in midterms.

Like I said, I'm watching the VA GOP mobilize already in a way I haven't seen them do since the 1990's when they wanted nothing more than to get Bill Clinton out of office. They are extremely energized with Trump's surprise victory and they are confident they can use that momentum to get a Republican into the Senate, especially since they get to face off against Hillary's running mate and tie Kaine to Clinton. Meanwhile, the VA Democrats are being extraordinarily silent despite a critical Gubernatorial contest that could give the Republicans full control of VA Government if they win and a forthcoming critical Senate run. Hell, for Governor there's at least four declared possible GOP candidates and only two for the Democrats.. and we have fucking primaries for Governor in 5 months...

 

[gcubed]

having someone travel the country to try and lose an election in random states isn't a way to get anyone to vote for you

 

[Empyrean Heaven]

You guys really need to stop this. Tim Kaine's seat is seen as one that is very unsteady in 2018 after Virginia very nearly went red. If Republicans get big names in these races, not every qualified ones, but big ones, like Carly in Virginia and Curt Schilling going for Elizabeth Warren in Mass. (I'M NOT KIDDING) Republicans could be looking at the vaunted Supermajority.

 

[Blader]

2006's 45% turnout was an outlier. It was a referendum on the Iraq War, not a scathing indictment of George W. Bush who, if you'll recall, this state went for twice. For your statement to be accurate, turnout would have been high in GWB's first midterms in 2002... except it wasn't. Not by a long shot. At 32.3%, Virginia voter participation in 2002 midterms were worse than they had been in a VERY long time, and makes the dismal 2014 midterms look good by comparison.

2002 midterms are generally considered an outlier, with the GOP getting a boost from post-9/11 flag-waving rallying around Bush. Similarly, the '98 midterms were unusually good for Dems because of the blowback against the GOP's Clinton impeachment efforts. But those two years aside, midterms generally favor the party not in power, and that's a trend going back many many years.

(I would also argue that Hurricane Katrina, Bush's attempts at privatizing Social Security, and scandals piling up all contributed to Dem turnout in 2006, not just Iraq. And even if it was just Iraq, I think that's still in and of itself an indictment of Bush.)

You guys really need to stop this. Tim Kaine's seat is seen as one that is very unsteady in 2018 after Virginia very nearly went red. If Republicans get big names in these races, not every qualified ones, but big ones, like Carly in Virginia and Curt Schilling going for Elizabeth Warren in Mass. (I'M NOT KIDDING) Republicans could be looking at the vaunted Supermajority.

Virginia didn't nearly go red. But I do agree every GOP challenge should be taken deadly seriously, even Curt Schilling.