The Fightin' 19th!

Want to know more about Robert Hurt's State Senate seat, the Fightin' 19th? Ben Tribbet profiled the seat along with several others back in 2006 as part of his series looking ahead to the 2007 elections. The numbers at the time:

George Bush defeated John Kerry 46,348 (61.2%) to 29,359 (38.8%).

Jerry Kilgore defeated Tim Kaine 26,730 (55.3%) to 21,645 (44.7%).

George Allen defeated Jim Webb 34,056 (61.2%) to 21,624 (38.8%).

At this point, pre-2008, there's far less fluctuation on the Democratic side (just 8,000 votes or so) than on the Republican side (around 20,000 votes). There is a solid base of hard core Democratic voters that consistently turned out, versus a larger mass of Republicans that vary on the election. I'm sure the 2009 election messed with this trend, but I don't want to waste time talking about how horrible Deeds was as a candidate.

And here is 2008, based on my calculations:

John McCain defeated Barack Obama 45,448 (58.05%) to 32,837 (41.95%).

Virgil Goode defeated Tom Perriello 44,398 (57.99%) to 32,170 (42.01%).

We see McCain hitting Bush's numbers, probably representing a ceiling in the district. But Obama pulls in an additional 3,000, primarily African-Americans, to slightly narrow the contest.

And 2010:

Robert Hurt defeated Tom Perriello 35,716 (56.60%) to 25,926 (41.09%).

Hurt's total is not that different from Allen in 2006, but Perriello boosted Democratic turnout from the previous midterm.

In the localities the vote breaks down like this.

Franklin County:

John McCain defeated Barack Obama 15,414 (60.68%) to 9,618 (37.76%).

Virgil Goode defeated Tom Perriello 15,654 (62.27%) to 9,475 (37.69%).

Robert Hurt defeated Tom Perriello 11,247 (60.69%) to 6,629 (35.77%).

Want to know one reason why Goode lost to Perriello? The almost laughable crossover appeal that Virgil Goode had in his home of Franklin County, where every other landmark is named after his father and he's been running for elections since the 1970s.

Jeff Clark received 3.4% in Franklin County, one of his better showings in the 5th District. Perriello ran behind his 2008 percentages in all of Franklin County outside of the following precincts: Hodgesville, Snow Creek, Fork Mountain, Sontag, Henry, Waidsboro, and all of the three Rocky Mount precincts. He ran practically even with his 2008 performance in Dickinson, Ferrum, Callaway, and Gogginsville. What does this all mean? Perriello did best in the parts of the county excluding the precincts around Smith Mountain Lake and the growth south of Roanoke on 220. This makes me question the criticism I've heard that Perriello didn't campaign enough in "real" parts of the 5th and focused too heavily on affluent areas, including Smith Mountain Lake. Across the 5th, the areas that swung against Perriello were very "un-Southside," more affluent suburban areas that are not typical of how pundits and commentators view the district.

For what it's worth, from 2008 the precincts in Franklin County where Perriello improved over his 2008 performance are the precincts most likely to show probable Obama-Goode ticket splitters. Did Goode Democrats come home to Perriello in 2010 only to see stronger turnout among affluent, surbuban, economic conservatives push him out of office?

Campbell County

Only 9 Campbell County precincts are in the 19th. These tend to be the parts of the county farther away from the Lynchburg growth area, but with higher African-American populations.

John McCain defeated Barack Obama 6,690 (65.32%) to 3,552 (34.68%).

Virgil Goode defeated Tom Perriello 6,162 (62.20%) to 3,745 (37.80%).

Robert Hurt defeated Tom Perriello 4,803 (62%.12%) to 2,713 (35.03%).

Both Obama and Perriello performed better in these Campbell County precincts than the County as a whole in 2008. Perriello's showing in Campbell County as a whole dropped from 35.59% in 2008 to 31.12% in 2010. In the southern portions of Campbell County in the 19th, Perriello's drop was smaller than the more significant decline his support shows in the more suburban precincts around Lynchburg. This is a very similar trend to what we saw in Franklin County. The areas where Perriello improved from 2008 were outside of the growth around Lynchburg and in the southern portions, such as the town of Altavista.

Pittsylvania County

John McCain defeated Barack Obama to 18,730 (61.55%) to 11,415 (37.51%).

Virgil Goode defeated Tom Perriello 18,184 (62.24%) to 11,022 (37.73%).

Robert Hurt defeated Tom Perriello 13,531 (61.47%) to 8,032 (36.48%).

Seriously Robert? You started your career on the Chatham Town Council, you've been representing Pittsylvania for years, you have a huge Republican wave at your back, and you can't do any better in Pittsylvania than the Republican performance from 2008? Perriello was able to match if not exceed his percenatage from 2008 in many of the county's more African-American precincts, minimizing the drop off he faced in the more white areas that swung slightly to Hurt.

Many people, pundits, and commentators argued that Robert Hurt, through his years of service in Southside, would have an advantage defeating Tom Perriello through name recognition and the like. The more I look at the results, the more I'm convinced that Robert Hurt won because affluent suburban Republicans turned out strongly against the big government schemes of Barack Obama and Tom Perriello. It was the R next to Robert's name that put him over the top.

Danville City:

Barack Obama defeated John McCain 12,352 (59.13%) to 8,361 (40.02%).

Tom Perriello defeated Virgil Goode 11,485 (57.97%) to 8,322 (42.00%).

Tom Perriello defeated Robert Hurt 8,552 (57.56%) to 6,123 (41.29%).

2008 was a big difference from 2004, when John Kerry narrowly defeated George Bush 9,436 (49.37%) to 9,399 (49.18%). McCain is behind Bush in Danville, which may represent four more years of affluent white voters moving away from the economic death spiral that is Danville. Almost all of Obama's improvement over Kerry in the 19th comes from Danville's African-American precincts.

Despite a significant flood of African-Americans turning out to vote for Obama, Perriello kept his total close to Obama's and minimized ballot drop off. Virgil Goode also held the McCain voters very well. It's also worth noting that this is the heart of Danny Marshall's delegate district in the 14th, around 2/3rds overall. The 14th includes all of the city of Danville, 5 precincts in Henry County, and 4 precincts in Pittsylvania County.

In 2007, when Adam Tomer lost to Danny Marshall 48% to 52%, Danville was actually narrowly split between the two candidates: Tomer received 51% and Marshall 49%. A strong Democratic turnout in Danville is a major threat to Marshall, which is something that Republicans will try to address in redistricting.

The problem with Marshall's campaign and almost all Democrats not named Barack Obama has been turning out Danville's African-American base. Tom Perriello in 2010 was able to mobilize this constituency, which if replicated in the future could really worry Marshall and other Southside Republicans. And it's the only hope for Democrats in the upcoming special election.

Worth noting from Ben's analysis is "In the Governor's race, 4,000 of Kilgore's 5,000 vote margin came out of Pittsylvania County." The importance of Pittsylvania County in this district cannot be overstated. And likely Democratic nominee Hank Davis is making sure to bring that point home:

"The next senator needs to come from Pittsylvania County," said Davis, who has made no formal announcement. "We are the largest both in terms of size and population and we're smack dab in the center of the district."

It's going to be difficult, if not impossible, for the Democrats to win the 19th in the special election, but it would start with replicating the strong turnout among African-Americans in Danville and trying to improve their performance in Pittsylvania through Hank Davis's local service and potentially a Republican fumble if they nominate someone from outside Pittsylvania and Danville. Perriello's shown it's possible to turn out African-Americans in Danville, will Hank Davis take the next step?

Robert Hurt's Special Election

Why would all three of the big name Delegates in Robert Hurt's old State Senate seat back away from running in the upcoming special election?

Why would the Republican establishment clear the field for an unelected partisan with no legislative experience?

What's going on in Southside right now?

More to come . . .

Does Robert Hurt Have a Cocaine Problem?

After reflection, soul searching, and prayer, I have decided to bring forward information on Senator Hurt's past that, so far, the press has either been ignorant of or has decided to ignore. In either scenario, lackluster reporters like Catherine Amos and Janelle Rucker have let down the public by failing to reveal important facts about Senator Hurt, the man and his character.

Hurtards like to think that Senator Hurt is just a local Southside boy. They ignore that he was born into wealth and spent most of his early childhood either in New York City or at one of the nation's most elite and privileged boarding schools. After attending a series of safety private schools to satisfy the claim that he has a degree, he began to practice law in Pittsylvania County. But with his background of power and privilege, how much work does Senator Hurt actually do at his law firm? And who does he work for?

In at least two cases, Senator Hurt served as the attorney for criminals involved in crack cocaine dealing. This supposed man of character and integrity decided that defense of drug dealers in Southside Virginia was the best use of his talent and resources.

The first is related to a large drug bust of a crack cocaine ring in the New River Valley. Senator Hurt represented one of the men involved in this ring, Gregory Smith, who was eventually sentence to 13 years in prison for his role. And what was part of Smith's role?

Ashley Nicole "Red" Franklin's boyfriend, Gregory Douglas "Binky" Smith, introduced her to cocaine when she was 16. Franklin, 19, later became an addict and a distributor.

Interestingly, the original article from the Roanoke Times outlining Senator Hurt's role in defending Smith is no longer available through their website, while the original outlining about the cocaine ring from an earlier date is still up. Here is the transcript of the article linking Senator Hurt to a drug dealer who addicted a young teenage girl to crack cocaine.

MAN GETS 13 YEARS FOR ROLE IN DRUG RING

A federal judge sentenced a Radford man to more than 13 years in prison in connection with his participation in a large crack cocaine ring in the New River Valley.

Judge Samuel Wilson said that he took Gregory Smith's extensive criminal history into account as part of the sentence. Smith, 31, is the first of 11 defendants to be sentenced in connection with thering. Federal authorities have argued that at its height, the ring trafficked 1 to 5 kilograms of crack and powder cocaine per month into the New River Valley.

All of the defendants in the case have pleaded guilty to drug conspiracy charges, except the alleged ringleader, Richard Lamont Lighty.

Wilson also said he took into consideration the argument by Smith's attorney, Robert Hurt of Chatham, that Smith was a minor player in the drug conspiracy.

Smith, already in custody on state charges, will have to serve his federal sentence consecutively, Wilson said. He also fined Smith $1,000.

Does Senator Hurt still believe that addicting young girls to crack cocaine is a "minor" part of the drug trade? The only thing "minor" here was the age of the girl when her life was ruined by illegal drugs.

In a second case, decided earlier this year, Robert Hurt represented a convicted criminal, Alpheus Spencer Adams, involved in the cocaine trade. Here Senator Hurt was representing a criminal attempting to use the appeals system to get his conviction overturned on a technicality, and the courts rightly ruled against these shenanigans.

I am disgusting that the media in the 5th District has been unable to perform its minimal task of looking into the background of candidates for public office. Jeff Clark's name has been dragged through the mud, but no one has even touched Robert Hurt's record. This is just the first step in revealing the true Robert Hurt.

A Look Back on the 5th, Part Four

Over the next few days, I'll be posting my analysis of the 5th District and point out trends to watch for on election night. Look back at Part One, Part Two, and Part Three.

Have you heard? Are you living in a cave? If not, you've already heard the big news that Barack Hussein Obama will be coming to Charlottesville this Friday to save Tom Perriello like Jesus bring Lazarus back to life. The strange thing is that this miracle may actually work.

As I noted in the first three posts, Survey USA has been the most prolific poll of the 5th District in the past elections. And over and over again they show some odd internals to their polling, even if they've generally been on the money in their final poll. What's fascinating is that they often radically change their assumptions with their final poll and produce results in line with the expectations for the election. That's what happened in 2008 and what may happen in 2010. Will we see one more Survey USA poll showing it a close race, in line with the overwhelming consensus of other polling firms?

First, Perriello is one of the top five recipients of outside support from liberal groups, to the tune of $1.2 million dollars. It's hard to find a vulnerable Democrat who wouldn't kill for that support of outside support, but few are receiving it. If Perriello is so doomed, as Survey USA and Hurtards would like us to believe, why is he getting the big bucks? Democrats may hate America, but they aren't stupid.

The same goes for Barack Hussein Obama. He's not going to waste his time stumping for doomed candidates. A visit by Obama indicates two things. First, that this election is close. Second, that the Democrats actually think Obama could help Perriello.

What gives?

Obama didn't win the 5th District, but Perriello did. Could a visit by Obama alienate independent voters and send them into Senator Hurt's career politician arms. Maybe, but there's also an argument that Perriello sees an Obama visit as a way to gear up the Democrat base in a year in which Republicans are already geared up.

An Obama visit makes sense if you read my first three posts and realize that maybe it's not that the 5th District has contrarian voters, but that it is heavily polarized with few swing voters. With few swing voters, the district won't shift to one party or another as much as the national waves back and forth from 2004 to 2008.

If that's the case, Perriello's only goal is to motivate the Democrat base, especially in Charlottesville. Nothing else matters. We'll see if it works.

"Conservative" Jim McKelvey: Off the Rails!

The Perriello campaign has released a great new ad hitting Robert Hurt with the words of his own Republican primary opponents:



Now those very same opponents are angry that Perriello is using their own words against Senator Robert Hurt. Throughout the campaign multiple pundits, bloggers, and commentators noted that the primary field against Hurt was full of amateurs and first time candidates who couldn't really wage a serious campaign. I defended them, but I have to say this episode clearly demonstrates the naivete of McKelvey, Morton, McPadden, and others.

Did the group of them really believe they could get away with this rhetoric without having it used against Senator Hurt? Let's not forget the DCCC web video against Hurt right after the primary, which had more of the attacks on Senator Hurt's eight year record of raising taxes.



Over and over again, candidates like McKelvey made crystal clear that they were so strongly opposed to Senator Hurt they would refuse to endorse him in the general election. After the primary, all of Hurt's Republican opponents fell in line to endorse him. Why were their minds so easily changed? Perhaps because they never really opposed Hurt that much, they were just desperate for traction and support in the Republican primary. This is offensive to the voters. We deserve true conservative champions who will stick to their ideals. The entire field against Hurt has demonstrated that they were just saying anything to get support and are not to be trusted. I will actively work to defeat them in any future Republicans primaries, should they have the foolishness to try to run again.

McKelvey stands out for his particularly lies and deceit. This supposed conservative champion sent out a press release against Tom Perriello for his campaign attacks on Hurt. Here's a portion:

Tom Perriello uses my name (and a prior press release of mine) as the "factual" basis to falsely state that Robert would do away with 400 teacher jobs, cut funds for college scholarships, increase personal property taxes, allow unsafe products to come into our country from overseas, or somehow send jobs overseas to China. This is a blatant lie on Perriello's part. These false statements clearly show that Congressman Perriello will do anything to get elected, and that he is willing to stoop so low as to lie to his fellow citizens, because he wrongly believes that such lies will win him the election. Mr. Perriello has shown here in the last days of this important election that he completely lacks the honesty, character, and integrity required to lead us here in the 5th District. The only candidate who possesses the honesty, character and integrity to lead us as our next congressman is Robert Hurt.

I have a questions for Jim McKelvey, which I doubt he's man enough to answer.

You campaigned against unconstitutional government agencies and forced Hurt to sign a pledge to defund these agencies. Which are they? Senator Hurt has already shamelessly claimed that he won't do anything to cut Social Security and Medicare, the two largest entitlement programs causing our nation's fiscal crisis. Do you agree that these programs are constitutional? If Medicare is constitutional, how is the rest of Obamacare not constitutional? If you can be forced to pay into a Ponzi retirement scheme like Social Security against your will, isn't the mandate of Obamacare also constitutional?

The Register & Bee is Wrong

Today, the Register & Bee culminated its months of biased coverage in favor of career politician and chronic tax raiser Robert Hurt with a weak, hollow, empty endorsement of his campaign for Congress. The reason, as far as I can tell, is that they have been convinced that his victory would somehow balance the budget.

The wasteful spending in Washington reveals a fundamental problem that must be addressed at the ballot box. The balance of power between Republicans and Democrats is so skewed right now that it has been impossible to reach a political consensus. Instead, it has left us with divisions that have nearly destroyed our system.

Only through bipartisan compromise can we heal that rift. Only by sending Republicans like Hurt to Congress can we accomplish that.

Consider that economists now believe the recession ended last summer. If that’s true, then by next summer, we should actually notice an improvement.

When that happens, the increased tax revenues will help to chip away at the federal budget deficit. But if Congress is allowed to spend that new money, then we’ll be no better off than we are today.

The Register & Bee has demonstrated that its entire staff has the intellect of Catherine Amos. The problem with the deficit was not created overnight by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and Perriello. It was a bipartisan effort of first Republicans and then Democrats. And the problems in the future with increased spending comes from an entitlement system, particularly Social Security and Medicare, that is going to explode with the retirement of the Baby Boomers.

Robert Hurt's signature issue of the campaign has been to attack Tom Perriello for cuts to Medicare. He's attacked Perriello for not saying enough to protect and defend Social Security. Senator Robert Hurt is not serious about balancing the budget. Just today, the Lynchburg News & Advance published candidate responses on balancing the budget. Just like in the debate, Senator Hurt couldn't come up with a single specific program to cut.

It's bizarre, but Perriello's support of a bipartisan commission that will likely suggest cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and other big programs, combined with his willingness to put everything on the table, including bloated defense spending, makes him more fiscally conservative than Senator Hurt.

If that makes you feel like this election has come down to a choice between two evils, don't despair. There is a conservative candidate for office, Jeff Clark! On November 2nd, vote Jeff Clark for a conservative voice for the 5th District.

Senator Hurt Flip-Flopping to Election Day

Want a clear sign that the election is just two weeks away?

Watch Senator Hurt flip-flop on issue after issue trying to pander to voters in his race against Tom Perriello.

First, he's flip-flopping on trade and coming out against a trade deal with South Korea that's been supported by both President Bush and President Obama. This is just days after his stuttering performance in the WSLS debate where he was unable to name one issue where he would break from his party. After receiving heat from Perriello for not opposing the trade deal, his handlers have decided that they need Hurt to change his position from waffling to solidly opposed. Norman Leahy has more on the bipartisan idiocy in opposing this trade deal.

So now Hurt finally has an issue where he can claim he disagrees with his party. Good for him. And he's come around to supporting the same job killing, protectionist stance of his opponent, Tom Perriello. Great. Now with either candidate we'll have someone in office who will vote against job creation and innovation.

But that's not good enough. Senator Hurt wants to do more to run our economy into the ditch, again, and end job creation in Virginia. So he's now adopted the anti-uranium mining position of his environmentalist opponent.

Hurt, he said, is also on record as opposing the lifting of the state uranium-mining ban. Both these positions, LaCivita noted, are consistent with Perriello’s views.

First off, if Hurt is opposed to lifting the uranium-mining ban, why did he vote for a study to assess the potential for uranium-mining? I guess he was for it before he was against it! Senator Hurt's opposition to uranium mining means fewer jobs for Southside Virginia. It means retarding the development of the nuclear energy industry around Lynchburg. It means continued dependency on Russia for our uranium needs. Senator Hurt, you should be ashamed for flip-flopping on this issue and putting your election ahead of economic growth for Southside.

How many more flip-flops can Senator Hurt perform before Election Day?

Candidates' Personal Lives

A few weeks ago, I was provide with a few fascinating leads into the personal life of Senator Robert Hurt. At the time, I followed up on the leads and decided that while probably true, they didn't provide enough reason to bring them to light at this time. Already Senator Hurt had tried to drag Jeff Clark's name through the mud, but I felt like this blog would take the high road and stay away from the dirty politics of personal attacks. I also had hopes that the media in the 5th District would finally step up and perform its duty as the watchdog of the public good.

Well, this is what I get for living democracy in the hands of Catherine Amos and Janelle Rucker.

Now that the press has decided that Tommy Boy's driving lesson is the most important issue in the campaign, I have been contacted by a few people who I informed about this information regarding Senator Hurt. With the election days away, they are encouraging me to put out into the public some overlooked episodes in Hurt's past. This is the only way to ensure that the public can make an informed decision.

I have consistently criticized Tucker Watkins for his decision to attack Tom Perriello as a "New York Lawyer" during the 2008 campaign. Tucker continues to be a gossip mongering spreading absurd lies about Tommy Boy. But I've also been told that the Hurt campaign has also been participating in whisper campaigns against their Democrat opponent, not just his geographic origins but his sexual orientation. This sort of scorched earth politics may be natural for Senator Hurt's highly paid Washington consultants, but it's not how we do things in Virginia.

I have not decided yet if I am going to discuss the information I've been provided about Senator Hurt. But I want to make clear that the tone of this entire election has been offensive.

DCCC Hanging Onto Perriello

With all of the back and forth over the election, debates over the issues, and accusations of flip flopping, it's hard to keep focus on what really matters.

Demonstrating to people that I'm right and they are wrong.

A few months ago the blogosphere was a buzz with the news that the DCCC had decided to cut off vulnerable Democrats like Tom Perriello and Frank Kratovil. I called this out as absurd reporting by the Washington Post and totally wrong.

The list of vulnerable Democrats is based not on an internal statement by the DCCC, but by the journalist's own guess work. We know this as a fact. How? Because it includes Frank Kratovil of Maryland. DCCC Head Chris Van Hollen of Maryland is NOT going to indicate that they are cutting off his fellow Maryland Democrat. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is NOT going to give up on saving Kratovil. End of story.

The same is true of Perriello. Tommy Boy is the White House's favorite Democrat. They are not going to give up on him. The more people talk about Perriello being cut off, the lazier Robert Hurt's already lackluster campaign will become. Believing this crap is dangerous and could cost Hurt the election.

Well where are we now? Months later?

National Democrats are still pouring money into the reelection bids of freshman Reps. Tom Perriello (Va.), Glenn Nye (Va.) and Frank Kratovil (Md.), even as the party has largely given up on some other candidates facing similarly tough races across the country.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has drawn attention by canceling its reservations for advertising time in a handful of districts where the committee believes its chances are dwindling, shifting its resources to more winnable races.

But although Kratovil, Perriello and Nye all regularly appear on lists of the most endangered incumbents in the country, the DCCC appears to believe they still have a fighting chance and has spent more than $1.5 million combined on the three contests.

I CALLED IT!!!

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The DaColbert Code - I Called It!
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election March to Keep Fear Alive

Of the vulnerable Democrats mentioned in September, I specifically objected to Perriello and Kratovil. Now, with days to go, the DCCC has cut off the other vulnerable liberals mentioned in the Washington Post story but continues to cling to Perriello and Kratovil. I CALLED IT!

Robert Hurt, Chronic Liar?

The fund raising numbers for the Perriello and Hurt campaigns are in . . .

Perriello's campaign said it will report raising $810,000 in that time frame, giving him $1.3 million on hand in the final stretch of the contest, which is one of the most closely watched races in the country.

Hurt's camp said it will report raising more than $900,000 in the same period, making it the strongest fundraising showing so far for Hurt, who is running neck and neck in the polls with Perriello. Jeffrey A. Clark, an independent running in the 5th, has not reported.

Hurt out raising Perriello by a solid $90,000, if not more once the numbers come out? That's impressive for the lackluster challenger.

Wait, you say that the FEC numbers show Hurt raising less than $900,000? Only $891,769? Well I guess he's allowed to be generous in rounding, but shouldn't he say "almost $900,000" instead of "more than $900,000?"

We've been here before.

Sen. Robert Hurt, R-Chatham, led the crowded GOP field with $101,110 worth of donations.

Hurt’s total was a bit less than the $105,000 his campaign told The Daily Progress in an interview Thursday evening for a story that appeared Friday.

This is the second time that Hurt has exaggerated his fund raising claims. Is career politician and chronic tax raiser Senator Hurt also a chronic liar? Or does his campaign just not know how to count?

Clark Should Stay In Race

On Wednesday, Senator Robert Hurt finally stepped up to debate the important issues in this year's election. Unfortunately, he appeared only with his Democrat opponent Tom Perriello. Independent conservative Jeff Clark was purposefully excluded from the debates because of Senator Hurt's opposition. There are several inconvenient truths about Hurt's weaselly attempts to shut down Clark's campaign.

First, it is in direct contrast to Hurt's refusal in the primaries to consider one-on-one debates with his Republican opponent Laurence Verga. Back then, Senator Hurt said, "Ignoring all the other candidates as Mr. Verga has done in this request is nothing more than a political stunt and is frankly insulting to the fine contributions each of the other candidates have brought to this campaign."

Senator Hurt is flip-flopping on the importance of debates including all candidates. Hypocrite Hurt.

Second, this is nothing more than a political stunt from his handlers that goes against what Senator Hurt originally said when asked about debating Jeff Clark. On the campaign trail, Senator Hurt said he would debate Clark. Then his handlers realized they didn't want this to happenand forced Hurt to go back on his word.

Senator Hurt is flip-flopping on what he said and going back on his word. We call that lying where I'm from.

Third, excluding a third party candidate from the debates goes against the precedent set by former Congressman Virgil Goode, who always pushed to include all candidates in the debates. Goode always understood that it's better to foster democracy and a discussion of ideas than try to score political points by excluding a rival from the debates. Hurt claims he wants to listen to his constituents, but unfortunately he doesn't want them listening to all of the candidates.

Senator Hurt is undermining one of the basic principles of our democracy, that every citizen has a right to be heard and all candidates should be respected as equals.

Fourth, this stance had resulted in Senator Hurt turning down invitations from seniors and veterans. Some of the oldest and most respected debates in the 5th District will now be between Clark and Perriello because Senator Hurt is too afraid to include Clark.

Senator Hurt is cutting and running from our seniors and veterans, putting politics ahead of public service.

Despite these shenanigans, some are pushing for Clark to pull out of the race, instead of pushing for Hurt to accept Clark in the debates. It only goes to show how much of a fraud many of these so-called Tea Party activists are that they care more about silencing a true conservative than standing up to an elite member of the establishment.

I firmly believe that Clark should not pull out of the campaign. To do so, unconditionally, would hand Senator Hurt exactly what he wants: a silenced opposition on the right. Furthermore, pulling out now would end the ongoing lawsuit by the Rutherford Institute against this two party duopoly. I support this lawsuit moving forward and hence call on Clark to stay in the fight.

Right now, so-called Tea Party activists are calling on Clark to pull out of the race because they fear that he may act as a spoiler to Senator Hurt. This is fundamentally undemocratic and elitist. Imagine the snobbery of insulting a candidate's supporters for being too dumb to make the decision for themselves if they want to support Clark, and potentially diminish support for Senator Hurt, or if they want to hold their nose and vote for Senator Hurt anyway. In an election we trust the voters to make the right decision. Why are Clark's supporters being questioned for their inteligence. It is their right to weigh the pro's and con's of voting for Clark, voting for Hurt, or hell even voting for Perriello. Or writing in someone. Or not voting at all. Individual choice is at the core of our democracy.

Clark has every right to stay in the race. His supporters have every right to vote for whomever they wish. I see a constant stream of Hurtards complaining that Perriello's campaign is just negative attacks on Hurt. But then they turn around and try to bully Clark and his supporters by focusing entirely on negatives about Perriello. Maybe Hurtards should spend more time selling their candidate to Clark and his supporters? You attract more flies with honey than vinegar.

Jay Warren Is A Pathetic Reporter!

This evening, Robert Hurt will finally step up and debate Tom Perriello at a candidate forum hosted by WSLS in Roanoke with "reporter" Jay Warren as the moderator. I say "reporter" because his recent candidate profiles leave me asking if Warren attended the same journalism school of Tea Party terrorist Mike Troxel. Warren has shown himself unable to do even basic reporting. His candidate profile of Robert Hurt focuses heavily on Hurt's ties to the district.

“Yeah he's got a lot of history. His family's been here forever,” Hicks said.

That becomes obvious when you walk down the street with Hurt, where everyone stops to say hello. Or Hurt stops them, even the reporters.

"Hey here's Russell. Russell's an ace crack reporter for the Star-Tribune. He does a great job,” Hurt said, introducing the reporter to me. I asked Hurt about his connection with Chatham.

WARREN: “What does Chatham mean to you?”

HURT: “Chatham, I think, means to me personally so much because of course it's where I grew up and it's where my people are and I love it for that reason.”

WARREN: “But for an ambitious person, a lot of people would say you move to the big city, that's where you make all the money, that's where all the action is. Why not go to the big city? Why come to the small town Virginia?”

I can't read any more because I'm about to throw up.

Warren leaves out some important details in Hurt's biography.

Why doesn't Warren ask Hurt about being born in New York City and growing up for nine years in New York City?

Why doesn't Warren ask Hurt about his time at one of the leading private prep schools in the nation?

Why doesn't Warren ask him about his continued attendance at private universities? Does Hurt have any experiences with "the little people?"

Why doesn't Warren ask Hurt about his long term agenda. Yes, an "ambitious" man might move to a big city. Or he could move to a backwoods corner of the state where he can easily secure a political base in order to run for higher office.

Warren is a pathetic reporter, giving even Catherine Amos a run for her money. If this is the game he brings to the debate tonight prepare to be disappointed. It will be a Warren-Hurt love fest.

Hurt's Bailout, And You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet

Back in February, I noted that Senator Hurt's lackluster fundraising was going to cause serious problems for GOP plans to knock off Tom Perriello. A bailout of Hurt by Washington special interests was bound to happen if Hurt didn't kick up his fundraising on his own. He bled himself dry winning a Republican primary that should have been a cake walk for any standard conservative candidate. In May, we noted that Hurt continued to struggle and had about as much on hand as former Congressman Virgil Goode, who wasn't even running. We've been waiting for this Hurt bailout, and I explained the possible forms it would come:

This will mean more funneling of corporate and lobbyist money into Hurt's campaign. He needs a major cash infusion and it doesn't matter where it is from. With the cap on maximum contributions, look for Hurt's campaign to try new and desperate tactics. Perhaps LaCivita will pioneer the use of "independent" corporate ads in the post-Citizens United era. . . .

How long until some of Hurt's big donors are running ads in the Republican primary defending him? I have nothing wrong with corporations expressing free speech, just like George Soros is free to give money to Tommy Boy. But when Soros does it we know who really owns Tommy's vote. So let's not pretend that Hurt is anything but a tool of the big corporations that depend on Washington for bailout money when the corporations pick up the slack to give him the nomination.

I was wrong to think that Hurt needed the bailout to save his ass in the primary, but it seems true that the Washington establishment is pulling out all the stops to get Hurt elected. The NRCC has been spending heavily on this race. And the NRCC isn't the only outside group spending money. The US Chamber of Commerce has also gotten involved, but there are some serious questions about their funding.

Here is the story, plain as day. The UC Chamber of Commerce has one bank account for all of its activities. Money goes on, money comes out. The money that goes in isn't tracked or accounted for in anyway. It's a slush fund. Money comes in from foreign companies, some of them owned by foreign countries, hoping to influence the US political process through the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber tells us not to worry because they don't use this money for running political ads, which would be illegal. But the fact is we don't know.

When President Obama and Speaker Boehner bring new free trade deals to the floor, they'll go to then Congressman Hurt and explain that while this is just more of the same job-killing outsourcing that Southside has experienced for decades, they need his vote. After all, they financed his campaign against Tommy Boy in the first place. They'll call in their favor . . .

Of course this isn't the only bailout happening in the 5th District. Perriello is in the fight of his life and his friends and allies are on the air too. The DCCC is running ads attacking Senator Hurt. Perriello's union and environmental friends have done polling on the race and I expect them to join the fight on TV soon too.

Who else?

None other than George Soros.

The media has finally decided to start reporting on Soros, an infamous opponent of Israel, bankrolling the new liberal "Jewish" lobbying group J STret. Just like the Chamber hiding its contributions from foreign companies, J Street was hiding its contributions from an avowed opponent of Israel. I've blogged about the connection between Soros, J Street, and Perriello before. As I said then, Perriello is at the vanguard of a radical revolution trying to tear down America's hegemony and put our national security in the hands of the UN and other international bodies. He is not a pawn in this game. He's one of the leading fighters.

When will some Soros funded group enter into the 5th District of Virginia? When will we see ads run by "Virginian Families United For Virginia Values in Virginia" or something absurd like that defending Perriello?

It's sad that the 5th District race is coming down to these two candidates. There is no doubt that Hurt will be a lapdog of the Republican establishment that brought us the deficit spending of the Bush years that culminated in the Wall Street bailouts. He will not be a friend to the Tea Party conservatives like Coburn and DeMint. But on the other side Perriello, who has demonstrated a great degree of independence on cultural and social issues, but who is at the forefront of destroying Israel and retreating from America's place at the top of the pack in the world.

Hurt Campaign Meltdown!

Egg is all over the face of supposed "expert" Larry Sabato for saving that the momentum is behind Robert Hurt in the race in Virginia's 5th District. Since that time several polls have come out showing that Perriello is still solidly in the game. Sabato and his aide Isaac Wood are trying to cut the baby in half between the bogus Survey USA polls and the other polls in the race which have shown a much, much closer election. Wood estimates a six point race, which is the highest any non-Survey USA poll has shown the race and that was created by Republican polling firms specifically excluding Jeff Clark from the poll. If the most that Hurt can post without Clark being polled is six points, it's a lot closer than that!

Fresh on the heels of a poll from Tommy Boy's environmentalist and union friends showing it a one point race, which was dismissed as just another "biased" Democrat poll, comes a truly independent, nonpartisan poll from the professional publication The Hill. They are polling key races across the country and find Perriello to be among the best positioned incumbent Democrats in their poll! He is behind by one point without even including Jeff Clark in the poll, which could knock off Hurt by three or four points! Could Perriello actually be leading?!

Hurt Blowout or Tied Race?

We are entering the last month of the election cycle and the whining from the two major candidates has reached historical levels. While Hurt complains about his treatment by the media, Perriello has started to complain about the constant stream of SurveyUSA polls showing him toast. Where's the beef? Not with either one of these so-called men.

Before this, it was Twittergate. Before that was the debate over debates. Complaints over the times of Tommy's Town Halls. Jeff Clark's finances. Threats to Perriello's family. And so forth. And so on.

A lot of style, a lot of drama, and not a lot of substance.

If we actually look at the polling numbers, instead of just throwing a Tommy Temper Tantrum, we might begin to realize why this election has been so emotional, so dramatic, but so substance-less.

Eight months ago, back in February, the first public poll of the race in VA-05 was released by Public Policy Polling. They showed the election, before the Republican primary and much of Hurt's rise in name recognition, at 44% to 44%. TIED. Dead even.

Think about that. On the one hand, Hurt was a virtual unknown to the district outside of the areas he had represented. The primary campaign had barely gotten under way. Certainly this meant he had room to grow?

But this was after a year of even more drama and emotion directed at Perriello. Forged letters. Effigy burnings. Cap and tax. Health care takeover. Town halls. A failed stimulus. After the worst Democrat President since Jimmy Carter, Tommy Boy was still tied? Certainly this meant he could mount a come back once he had a clear opponent to attack?

The biggest problem for the Perriello camp was the makeup of the poll. The February PPP poll was of registered voters, not likely voters. It represented the district as a whole, not the people motivated enough to get off their asses and vote. It showed a district that went narrow for McCain, not heavily Republican like past elections in 2004, and 2000, and 1996 and . . . you get the idea.

As soon as pollsters started screening out unlikely voters, the first time Obama voters like college students at UVA or African-Americans in Danville, a gap was bound to open up between Hurt and Perriello.

But the poll had some good news for Perriello. Throw in a third party candidate with Tea Party values and suddenly Hurt was down to 27% and the Tea Partier got 19%. Perriello was unchanged at 44%. Once a third party candidate announced against Hurt, a clear result of his primary win, and it was possible for Perriello to open up a gap against Hurt. Or at least hold it close.

What has happened?

Let's take a look, without Survey USA. I'll address them later.

The next we have is in late July. Five months later, the Republican polling firm Ayres, McHenry & Associates showed Hurt with a six point lead. Hurt was up to 49% and Perriello down to 43%. The poll's internals show a more conservative, more Republican electorate than the representative sample from PPP. The infamous enthusiasm gap strikes!

But this poll excluded independent candidate Jeff Clark. I know that the betrayal of conservative values by Jim McKelvey and others has hurt Clark's chances, but he should at least have been included in the poll. With Clark polling at around 6 to 4 percent in other polls, this could have cut down Hurt's margin over Perriello in half or even eliminate it.

Also worth noting is that even in this more conservative, more Republican voting sample, Perriello is still at 43%. That leads me to believe that a poll taken at the same time of registered voters, not just likely, would put him over the 44% that PPP found. If the poll included Clark, I suspect it could have shown a small, low digit edge for Perriello. Perriello's ads were making a difference among the public at large, but he's like a salmon swimming up stream against the enthusiasm gap. Right into the mouth of Robert the hungry grizzly bear.

A month later, in late August, we have a Democratic polling firm, Global Strategy Group, showing a two point race. Here Hurt is down to 44%, Perriello is 42%, and Clark is at 6%. This is roughly what I'd expect from the Ayers poll if it had included Clark. Almost no movement.

A few weeks later, in mid-September, the Perriello campaign released their own poll from Benenson Strategy Group showing . . . . you guessed it, a two point race. Hurt is at 46%, Perriello at 44%, and Clark at 4%. This is virtually identical to the Global Strategy Group poll. And virtually identical to what Ayers should have shown with Clark included.

And all of them are about what we would have expected from PPP's February poll if we took their poll of registered voters and modified it for (1) the enthusiasm gap among likely voters favoring Republicans and (2) Clark being on the ballot, but not getting as much support as he could if Jim "Judas" McKelvey and other hadn't changed their mind and broken promises.

So here we are at the start of October. And the race, as far as I can tell, is exactly where it was in February.

I'm reminded of what the good folks at Southside Central predicted right after the Republican primary:

First prediction on the general election vote percentage: Hurt 48%, Perriello 48% Clark 4%. If McKelvey throws his support behind Hurt, it becomes Hurt 49+%, Perriello 49+%, Clark <2%.

First OddsMakers on the general election winner: Hurt 50%, Perriello 50%, Clark 0%. Yep, it’s a fresh start and a toss-up right now.

Ain't that the truth?

Everything that you've read about in the newspapers for the past eight months has been meaningless. The debates, the talk about style, all of it. Everything.

And here is why I'm not mentioning Survey USA. Here's what the campaign looks like if you included Survey USA.

February: The race is tied before polling shifts to likely voters. (PPP)
Mid August: Hurt has surged to a 23 point lead as the polling shifts to likely voters. (Survey USA)
Late July: Perriello has mounted a comeback and is down by 6 without Clark included, potentially down by two or three with Clark included. (Ayers)
Late August: Perriello's comeback settles out at two points behind. (Global)
Later August: Perriello's campaign collapses and he's behind by 26! (Survey USA)
Mid September: The come back kid, Perriello has recovered and is behind by 2. (Beneson)
Late September: Once again race shifts and Hurt is back up by 23 points! (Survey USA)

Seriously? Is the district really swinging back and forth that much?

I don't think so.

Survey USA is clearly polling an entirely different reality in its assumptions about turnout in VA 05 this year. If it was just Survey USA against one polling firm, I could see the argument to split the difference. But four against one?

I think Tommy's a crybaby to go to the press with complaints against Survey USA, but the argument that they are showing an absurdly high number of early voters--a mathematically impossible high number--is persuasive. Survey USA seems to be pre-choosing voters to call and then adding a likely voter screen, something that may come up with a scenario that has an impossibly high enthusiasm gap benefiting the GOP.

If you average together the Survey USA polls (around a 24 point lead for Hurt) and the three other likely voter polls (without correcting for Ayer's excluding Clark) and average it out, you get about a 8.5% gap. Which is, from earlier Tweeting, what Nate Silver had predicted for Perriello's defeat in VA-05.

Nate gives Perriello a 88% chance of being defeated. Not surprising if you assume an 8 point spread. Nate doesn't post the House numbers, but he notes that Gubernatorial and Senatorial candidates ahead by six to eight points end up winning 89% of the time. About what he has for Hurt against Perriello.

I entirely respect a model that treats all pollsters fairly. But I think it's clear that something is clearly off with Survey USA this year in VA 05. Nate hasn't discussed specific House races yet, but I'd love to know if there is any other House race this year that has such a high variance between polls. Survey USA is clearly an outlier and by a huge margin. Is this seen anywhere else in the country?

What if we were to pull it from the batch? I don't know all of the calculations in Nate's House predictions, but I'll just put out this guess. The remaining polls would average out at about 3.3, which would put the race in the 3-6 range and give Perriello a 79% chance of defeat. But if you were to try to fix the Ayers poll to include Clark you'd get closer to 1.7 or 2 depending on how much including Clark narrowed the gap. That puts you within a 55% chance of defeat, if not better for Perriello to hold on. In other words? About even.

This district is narrowly divided right now. The election isn't going to change many minds. It never was. All this talk about independents, moderates, and swing voters is bullshit.

This election was always about who could unite conservatives and keep them energized. Hurt's campaign has failed on two fronts. His vote for the largest tax increase in the history of Virginia alienated true conservatives who weren't drunk of the GOP Kool Aid. His lackluster campaign has failed to energize people outside of his traditional base of supporters. Just being a Republican in a bad year for Democrats may still be enough for Robbie. But he's made this election closer than it should be and Perriello still has a shot at pulling this out.

Robert Hurt, Emo Teen?

Our little Robert seems to be growing up. He's finally hitting the angry and emotional teenage years where he can't take anyone criticizing him. The big bad Danville Register & Bee has just pushed him around so much he had to write them a heartfelt letter explaining just how he feels.

Your stated fondness for Rep. Tom Perriello’s taxpayer-funded town hall meetings — gatherings in which an incumbent asks hard-working and busy citizens to come and listen to him — is lazy business when compared to the on-the-ground campaign we’ve conducted for the past 10 months. We have not stood in one place and told voters to come to us. We have sought them out by the thousands all over the Fifth District — in their homes, on the streets, on their farms, in their businesses and in their workplaces.

Whaaaaa!

Here's more of Robert's on-the-ground campaign:

Hurt is pathetic. He won't attend any fair debates, a complete reversal of his stance in the primary. He holds secret forums and locks out the public from his events that pander to his narrow base of good ol' boy friends. The same "conservatives" that rallied behind him in the primary to claim he was a great guy, despite his vote for the largest tax increase in the history of Virginia.

The sad thing is that Hurt can't take the minor amount of pressure the press has applied to him. What would he do under real questioning? Why hasn't the press investigated his time in New York? His time at a wealthy Northern Virginia boarding school? His work as a lawyer? It's time for the press in the district to step it up.

Flashback: Hurt on Debates

Remember when Robert Hurt valiantly defended the right of all Republican candidates to be included in debates?

Hurt could not be reached directly, but released a statement through his campaign manager dismissing the challenge.

“Ignoring all the other candidates as Mr. Verga has done in this request is nothing more than a political stunt and is frankly insulting to the fine contributions each of the other candidates have brought to this campaign,” Hurt said in a statement.

What changed? Why won't Hurt debate all of the candidates?

I guess Hurt has one set of rules for debates when multiple opponents helps him divide the opposition, and another rule for when multiple opponents means a conservative voice holding him accountable.

PDS Spreads to Media!

An epidemic is sweeping across Virginia! No one is safe! Not only our fellow Virginians, but victims are falling ill in Washington DC. If our nation's capitol isn't safe, where will we hide? This blog may be the only safe outpost for reason and sanity in these dangerous times. So keep reading!

I first identified this epidemic through close and careful study of the Hurtards attacking Tom Perriello for EVERYTHING. Perriello Derangement Syndrome, or PDS, creates an irrational hatred of Tommy Boy. If he votes in agreement with you, it means he's just desperate and trying to win reelection. If he votes against you, it shows how he's the lap dog of Pelosi. If he votes against Pelosi, the vote must be of no consequence. If he schedules town halls at a time inconvenience for you, he's hiding from the voters. If he's willing to debate anyone, anywhere, he's getting too much media coverage.

I was pleased to see this piece by Peter Galuszka talking about Perriello's willingness to defend his views to his constituents. There is no doubt: Perriello is a better man, a better human, than Robert Hurt will ever be. Perriello is honest, hard working, and fundamentally decent. Robert Hurt is a career politicians. The rest of what I want to say about him isn't appropriate for a public blog.

I warned the Hurtards that their PDS had to stop. They were setting themselves up for being mocked by Perriello and his supporters for being so irrational. Perriello is now up with ads making this point. The ad lists over and over again his record of independence while another person, the stereotypical Hurtard, continues to complain that he's not really independent and those issues don't matter. Try telling the farmers in our district that opposing increased regulations doesn't matter. Try telling our hunters that defending the 2nd Amendment doesn't matter.

Sadly, PDS appears to be spreading. I've been tracking the sad, pathetic existence of Catherine Amos throughout the campaign. Her reporting is so terrible I have even suggested she might be a secret agent of Tom Perriello, because her reporting is so bad it offends anyone with a basic grasp of reality.

I've also noted another dim-witted floozy reporter Janelle Rucker of the Roanoke Times. The editor's of the paper eventually published a note online correcting her story, but I never did receive a reply to my e-mail pointing out the error. I guess she doesn't want to admit she made a mistake. It's easier going on making mistakes that way.

Unfortunately, it's not just these floozies here in Virginia who are suffering from an inability to get the facts straight. Who can forget Politico's Glenn Thrush and his failure to fact check an NRCC provided transcript (provided by notorious Twittergate villian Andy Sere!) when he claimed Tommy Boy accused his constituents of racism. Today, the Hill's Sean Miller also fell victim.

Virginia Rep. Tom Perriello expects to get the endorsement of the National Rifle Association, which could help his uphill reelection battle.

The fact that the freshman Democrat's campaign touted the pending endorsement a week before it's expected to be officially announced shows how much he needs the boost. His campaign recently circulated an internal poll that showed Perriello tied with Republican challenger Robert Hurt.

Wow! Tom Perriello is DESPERATE. Look here every body, another Democrat clinging to reelection and doing everything possible to win. I'm a great reporter! I just reported something that reinforces conventional wisdom! High five!

The problem is that Perriello didn't tout the pending endorsement today, he issued a statement in response to Robert Hurt preemptively dismissing the endorsement! Hurt, desperate to hold off Perriello's surge in the polls, decided to generate a story late in the week about the endorsement and try to push it aside as meaningless. Perriello simply responded to this desperate act by rightfully touting the important endorsement.

I even made a comment on Sean Miller's article pointing this out to him and directing him to the news story. A few hours later, Miller "updated" the article to include Hurt's dismissal of the pending endorsement. But he didn't update the article to correct the actual chronology of events. Why? Because a desperate Republican challenger against a confident Democratic incumbent isn't conventional wisdom! Sean is just like Glenn, Janelle, and Catherine. They only publish what they know everyone else is saying! They are little more than lemmings doing what the mob of reporters around them are saying. Worthless!

Senator Hurt, Hiding From the Issues

He won't debate, he won't hold public forums, and he won't answer questions that come from anyone but his friends at Fox & Friends! Introducing Senator Robert Hurt:

Hurt's Carpetbagging Team Repeats Lies

Today, Robert Hurt announced that he would decline yet another public debate with Tom Perriello because he is afraid of Jeff Clark. Add to the list of groups Hurt is not snubbing THE AMERICAN LEGION. That's right folks, Hurt doesn't want to talk to veterans who have risked their lives for our country and our freedoms. For shame!

Of course that didn't stop Hurt's carpetbagging team to include the lie, again, that Hurt has participated in "dozens" of public debates.

"Dozens?"

How does Amanda Henneberg live with herself knowing that she's selling her soul to whoever is paying her salary? Having worked for Charlie Crist, has she given up any sense of human decency and is willing to repeat any lie that he bosses tell her to say?

Robert Hurt has not participated in "dozens" of public debates. That's an outright lie. Does Amanda Henneberg even know that it's a lie? How much does she actually know about Robert Hurt, his background, and his campaign? She also claimed, "As we have made clear from the beginning of this campaign, Robert is happy to debate Congressman Perriello one-on-one.” Well we know that's not true, Robert wasn't clear from the beginning of this campaign at all!

Here's the question. Is Amanda Henneberg purposefully lying, or is she so ignorant she doesn't know she's lying?