Sunday, February 28, 2010

Explaining VA-05, Part II: The Republicans

What better time to talk about the difference between the Republicans in the race than the day after their debate in Lynchburg?

In my COMPREHENSIVE analysis of the only independent and public poll on the race, I noted that there are three tiers right now: generic no-name Republicans, Ken Boyd, and Robert Hurt.

But it's not because Hurt is better than Boyd, or Boyd better than everyone else. The candidates fall into these tiers because of name recognition in the district. Give anyone, Verga or McPadden for example, the same name ID as Hurt and I will bet you they'll be running the same against Perriello as Hurt. Period.

Boyd runs 6% ahead of the generic Republican average by picking up just less than 1% of total voters from the Democratic column, almost entirely Democrats who had been undecided, 2% of total voters from the Independent column, almost entirely Independents who had been undecided, and 3% of total voters from the Republican column, almost entirely Republicans who had been undecided. As I said before, there's no significant dent to Perriello's base numbers unless you run Goode.

The difference between Hurt and Boyd is entirely among Republicans, with Hurt adding just 2% of total voters to his performance from the ranks of undecided Republicans. Hurt has twice the name ID as Boyd. Some people want to read into that 2% difference, which may not even be statistically significant, and say Hurt is the only candidate who can defeat Perriello. I say that anyone who can keep the Republicans and conservatives together can defeat Perriello.

Some people claim that Hurt is the only candidate who can defeat Perriello because of some non-existence network of support he's built up over the years running in races in one of the most Republican areas of the state. Hurt's never had to campaign a day in his life before going up against Perriello. You want to see what a network of support looks like? Here.

Others bring out the money issue, as if Eric Cantor is going to hold a grudge against someone who defeats Hurt in the primary. We all know where Hurt's big money is coming from. When Hurt is defeated in the Republican primary, Eric Cantor will be on the phone that very night with the new Republican nominee lining up fundraisers for him or her. Why? Because Cantor knows that Perriello is too much of a target to give him a pass.

When casting your vote for the Republican primary, don't make your vote based on a belief that so and so is the only candidate who can win because of some showing in a poll. Don't make your vote based on an idea that someone can raise more money. Or has a history of winning races. Make your vote based on who you think will be the best member of Congress.

25 comments:

  1. why do you have negative things to say about where Hurt gets his money? people all over the country are interested in this race & I hope every conservative & Republican nationwide contributes to Hurt so he can beat Perriello.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's exactly the point Kelley. People all over the nation will donate to beat Perriello, regardless of the nominee.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well done NAS! Exploding the myth of Robert Hurt as THE ONE is doing service to the 5th district. Now is not the time to settle for a RINO. He raised taxes, voted to make his dad richer with uranium mining study and had to get a hall pass to collect money during session. The only new areas he is setting the standards in this race is the ragged edges of ethical behavior.

    The national republicans have back the wrong horse and it's up to us to show the rest of the country we can pick our own representative
    and don't need another mandate from DC (even if it is a well funded Washington mandate)

    ReplyDelete
  4. NAS,

    Hurt has more of a network than any other candidate. The other candidates can barely even get a campaign manager. Verga is on his second, McPadden is on his 3rd or 4th, and i dont even think Morton has one because she has no cash.

    Hurt does have a network of supporters in his district. To ignore this or to think it doesnt exist is silly.

    Edible Cville Hurt is no RINO look at his voting record outside the 2004 vote, and tell me if you still think he is a RINO.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Excellent commentary, NAS.

    It is time for some of the conservatives to take a serious, objective look at their campaign potential, and the best interests of the 5th District.

    McPadden is the one who best understands and is most committed to Constitutionally limited Federal government. He is the best speaker and communicator, either one on one, or before large groups. There has been some turnover in his campaign organization, and I think that was largely responsible for the 3rd place straw poll showing at the Lynchburg event. That said, it appears that he has a strong nucleus of support.

    Verga, Boyd and Morten are not attracting grass roots support, except for within their home bases. Ferrin is not a serious candidate. He has not done well in straw polls and he has not raised any money.

    ReplyDelete
  6. edible: can you prove that Mr. Hurt owns uranium-laden land?

    if you don't like Robert Hurt, that's fine. but accusing him of crooked dealings gets none of us anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kelly you want proof of Hurt dad is involved in uranium mining and Robert helped out? Here you go: http://bit.ly/bR0hvM.

    "Henry Hurt, an investor and a childhood friend of Coles's, has a son Robert, a Pittsylvania delegate who won a state Senate seat in November." Senator Hurt was directly involved in lobbying for it. It's not an accusation but a matter of fact.

    ReplyDelete
  8. edible: Mr. Hurt is indeed a good friend of Coles, that I knew. ARE Mr. Coles & Mr. Hurt the only 2 people in Pittsylvania that want to mine this uranium & bring money & jobs to Pittsylvania? and studying the proposed operation would be a reasonable, prudent thing to do, right?

    Robert Hurt has been "vetted". what could give voters pause has been discussed here & at the other 5th district blogs ad nauseum. Are the other potential nominees as exhaustively vetted?

    ReplyDelete
  9. When presented with clear evidence of a charge Kelly, you respomd with good friends? Your avoidance of the charges at hand is stunning. What I have said is true. Sen. Robert Hurt's Henry got his son to sponsor legislation that made Henry's and his dads very good friend "uncle" Cole investment worth more. Without the study there is zero chance that uranium will be mined. This is a conflict of interest that Sen. Hurt would have done well to avoid. It shows a stunning lack of understanding- and it appears Sen. Hurt treats the seat as if he is in the house of lords and is to the manor born.

    As for your laughable statement that Hurt has been vetted- welcome to the big leagues. This is a congressional seat, if you think this is bad, wait till the general. Perriello will go after Hurt for trying to strip mine Pittsylvania for uranium. Add the fact that Hurt own father looks to make money- possible millions and you have an attack ad that writes its self. This and many other things need to be brought out NOW! If he can't survive it that will allow another candidate to come forth and win the seat. Remember, a primary is what Sen. Hurt wanted.

    Lastly as for vetting the other candidates you should have no worry about that. With Chris LaCivita at the helm there is zero chance any candidate that might threaten Hurt hasn't been researched. Hurt will and has attacked his opponents. Considering what they would face in the fall consider this a inter squad scrimmage.

    ReplyDelete
  10. this uranium issue has been hashed out in Pittsylvania--the Board of Supervisors visit & re-visit this issue. local papers from Pittsylvania down to Halifax & Mecklenburg run weekly articles on this.

    this is NOT news. lots of people stand to make money from uranium mining. Mind you, if Sen. Hurt had not voted on providing a study, he would have not been representing Pittsylvania.

    rather than attacking Hurt, why don't you promote your candidate?

    ReplyDelete
  11. First you challenge me to prove Hurt is involved with uranium mining and after I did you say everyone already? Could you please explain that to me.

    If it's no big deal, why do you care what I say, as long as it is true? I am looking for someone who can go to Congress and not get sucked into protecting special interest. I think that Sen. Hurt should have not have gotten involved BECAUSE of his father and his father's very good friend. I need a congressman who doesn't skate the edges of ethics but perhaps sets the standard.

    Lastly I don't have a candidate, yet. It's becoming clear to me that Hurt is more flawed then as first presented. Most of the area is just learning about Hurt and you will excuse me if I explore his record and have questions.

    I'm finding that there are many, many people who don't want mining in Pittsylvania. The fact the the Board of Sups keep looking at the issue is proof that it's a real issue. Honestly, how is that discussion not in the best interest of the party and the voters?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Kelley, when Hurt loses the primary in June who's fault will that be? Will it be because of his so-called conservative record or possibly his liberal record? Most folks on these blogs have you marked as "No one but Hurt" You have every right to waste your time on the blogs if thats what Bob asked of you, so be it. BTW I like how you try to ignore Hurt's 2004 voting record, do you think Tommy will? How about the vote he made that was declared Unconsitutional by a slim majority in the Virginia Supreme Court 7-0? I believe that tax hike vote was in 2007. In my opinion Mr. Hurt votes with his conservative backers when he knows they are watching, pro-life, 2nd Amendment groups for instance but when he doesn't see anyone looking over his shoulder he votes as he pleases.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just breaking in to say I never talk politics, only food, wine and beer (Libby, of http://ediblecville.blogspot.com) - beware of imitations! ;) ;) ;)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hurt did not SPONSOR the study legislation. As a matter of fact, the study was DEFEATED by the General Assembly! The study came to fruition when an independent state commission (Mines and Energy) voted itself to alone conduct the study.Hurt had nothing to do with that!

    Please get your facts together, edible cville, when you are slandering the best conservative candidate we have running in the Fifth!

    ReplyDelete
  15. VaPatriot read the Washington Post article. Hurt did support the study perhaps he wasn't a co-sponsor- really doesn't change a thing if he didn't. Hurt was involved and had to get an ethics ruling because of his dad's involvement. "Robert Hurt, a Republican whose House and Senate districts include Coles Hill, said he supports a study.. He said he would not recuse himself from a vote " Sorry it's all there in black and white.

    He's up to his neck in this and he will have to answer to the people of the 5th on uranium mining that will make his father an even richer man. If talking about Hurt's spotty ethic record is slander than you need a new dictionary. I can only imagine what C. LaCivita would do with this story if Hurt wasn't his boy. Sen. Hurt is far from the 5th best conservative but don't worry you and Kelly aren't going to let that stop you.

    Tell you what, you get Virgil to back up your claim on Hurt and I will not write one more word about it. Deal?

    ReplyDelete
  16. edible not-credible cville, EVERYTHING I said remains true 100%.

    You said he sponsored the study..........
    I said he did not........................
    You were wrong...........................
    I was right..............................

    Now, name me one state-wide ELECTED politician who is against the study! You can't, because there are none who are against the study! Why should Robert have a different position from EVERY other ELECTED politician on such a controversial issue?

    Nice try, edible not-credible cville, but, you're just not credible!

    ReplyDelete
  17. The maturity of your response VaPatriot is testament to the lack of discourse you tolerate. Other than saying Sen Hurt "sponsored" instead of "supported" everything I said was true as well. You try and imply the study was defeated and that is a misleading at the very best (your either lying or just plain uniformed) from last month's Danville paper
    "The long-awaited study of uranium mining and milling in Virginia has been given the green light to proceed. The National Academy of Sciences and Virginia Tech have agreed to the study. The NAS will conduct the study."

    You say the study was defeated I say:
    Virginia panel OKs uranium mining study: A Virginia coal and energy panel on (May 21, 2009) approved the framework of a scientific study on proposed uranium mining in the state, saying they want to make safety their top priority. A subcommittee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy amended a list of recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences on what to include in the study. It would range from market trends to technical practices to health risks, but would not take a position for or against the mining. (The News & Observer May 21, 2009)

    Virginia state panel subcommittee approves first phase of uranium study: On March 24, 2009, the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission's Uranium Mining Subcommittee took a critical step toward a study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the commonwealth. The subcommittee unanimously approved a draft of the study's first phase outlining the technical and scientific aspects of the analysis that Michael Karmis, director of the Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech, said would take about 18 months.
    However, the second portion of the study that would address the socioeconomic aspects of uranium mining and milling will be decided upon at a later date, Delegate Lee Ware, R-Powhatan, said after the meeting held in the General Assembly Building. (Danville Register March 24, 2009)

    Virginia state panel votes for uranium study: The Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy voted 12-0 today to study whether uranium can be safely mined in Virginia. (Richmond Times-Dispatch Nov. 6, 2008)

    Virginia House Panel rejects study of uranium mining: Lawmakers concerned about land, air and drinking water contamination killed a proposal on March 3, 2008, that would have allowed a study of whether uranium can be safely mined on 200 acres in south-central Virginia, eliminating any chance that the controversial bill could pass this year. After more than an hour of debate, the House Rules Committee defeated a bill that opponents argued would be the first step toward lifting a 25-year-old state ban on uranium mining.
    The bill would have created a 17-member commission to oversee a National Academy of Sciences study. The company would have picked up the cost of the report, which had been estimated at $1 million or more. If the study had shown that mining could be done safely, Virginia Uranium could have used it as leverage in asking the General Assembly to lift the ban on uranium mining. (Washington Post Mar. 4, 2008)

    Senate of Virginia approves uranium mining study: The Senate of Virginia has passed legislation establishing a two-year study on the safety of uranium mining. The study eventually could result in lifting the moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia. (Daily Press, Feb. 12, 2008)



    There are only three statewide elected official so the Governor, the Lt. Governor, and the Attorney General. But then you say every elected official, which is not the same thing

    Did Hurt support the study -yes
    Will his father get richer if the uranium is mined-yes
    Are their politic ans who are opposed- yes

    ReplyDelete
  18. edible not-credible cville, once again you have proven you have NO understanding of the issue. The study was put forth to the General Assembly where the duly-ELECTED state delegates and state senators had an opportunity to either support the study or oppose the study.

    To be frank with you, I don't even remember if the state senate actually voted on the issue. However, if they did, I'll grant you that Hurt probably supported the bill with his vote. I do know that he had said in Chatham that he would support a study.

    Again, HE DID NOT SPONSOR the bill.....a HUGE difference when one is pontificating as you and I both are doing.

    However, the House of Delegates actually defeated the study bill in a recorded vote in one of its committees where South Boston Delegate Clark Hogan held significant power and was against the study.

    The study was, thus, dead after the 2009 General Assembly as far as ANY state senator or state delegate was concerned!!!!

    However, after the GA had adjourned for the year, an INDEPENDENT state commission held a vote (without any General Assembly involvement) and decided to sponsor the study by itself, exclusive of GA involvement! Thus, Hurt had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STUDY going forward!

    Again, edible-not credible-cville, please get your facts straight before maligning Virginia's best hope to take back the 5th Congressional seat from the crazies in Washington and return it to commonsense conservatives!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Vapatriot you really very funny, I already gave you the Hurt didn't sponsor but please bring it up again. Hurt did support it and he needs to answer for it. Do you know who is on the "independent commission" you bring up? I do and it show how ill prepared you are to argue this http://bit.ly/cQ613t. Check it out and find 13 members of the house and senate members plus some appointees of the Governor.

    Hurt supports the study, his father will make money if it's approved, Sen. Hurt should have recuse himself. Tom boy's going to beat Hurt like a piñata about uranium mining. It is in everyones best interest to have all the facts out now.

    I linked article that show Hurt supports it, I given you the Senate vote on the study and others. All you have given is assertion of things but not one sliver of proof. But you did get the sponsor vs. support thing right so you got that going for you.

    Having you talk about my credibility is funny considering the lack of facts you have brought. But you are a Hurt supporter, facts seem to mean very little to you anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Edible-not credible-cville, I'm beginning to really like your responses; they are really comical! Thanks, we all need some comic relief occasionally, and, your grammar really accentuates your thoughts.

    I do believe it's fair to say we have pretty much exhausted this argument. So, rather than respond to your drivel today, let's commit to fight again on another field (blog field) where we can entertain the troops in a better fashion with fresher material.

    Since I'm choosing to not respond to you, we'll just call this one a draw. I'm positive we'll have many, many more opportunities to fight again until the outcome is obvious to all sides.

    Thanks again for the game; it was wonderful play!!!

    ReplyDelete
  21. The non response-response, did LaCivita teach you that? Make light of grammar (you try to do this on an iphone)and not talk facts-classic retreat mode. I do thank you for acting as black knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail in this. Every assertion of yours (save one) swept aside in a torrent of sourced quotes by me. But you would agree to a draw, seriously you are such a precious snowflake. After bringing nothing to the table- Your independent commission-hmm not so independent after all.

    Continue to be critical of the superficial and don't look at the facts. You must think debate prep for Hurt is making sure he has a good haircut (He does have that going for him). Crawl off, black knight and nurse your wounds but make sure a tell everyone how well you did.

    ReplyDelete
  22. LOL, you're so funny with your delusions! See you at the next battle, no-cred!

    ReplyDelete
  23. VaPatriot next post is a tale.
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  24. No-cred, I am truly sorry you feel that way about yourself. My understanding is that the cville area has quite a few, really good counseling centers. I really hope you get a chance soon to take advantage of their offerings before you take any really serious steps.

    I am truly looking forward to playing with you again in the next arena. Please don't disappoint me by taking any drastic measures on your own without consulting someone who can counsel you first. We really need you out here, no-cred!

    ReplyDelete
  25. VaPatriot- what a troll you are. I hope you don't work for the Hurt campaign. You're only damaging the Hurt's creed with your obnoxiousness. Edible you really don't help your case by dealing with such a troll. The uranium mining issue is getting a great deal of play these days and it deserves serious treatment, which vapatriot is unable/unwilling to give.

    ReplyDelete