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.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
BREAKING: Lynchburg Tea Party Encourages Voter Suppression?
Is the Lynchburg Tea Party, which is now an arm of the Republican Party in all but name, encouraging voter suppression? "Republicans Vote TODAY – Democrats STAY HOME!"
"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:
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?
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?
Sunday, October 24, 2010
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 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.
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.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
A Look Back on the 5th, Part Three
In 2008, as we all know, the bottom fell out of the Republican Party in the 5th District. Virgil Goode was defeated by liberal underdog Tom Perriello. But there are some problems with the standard account of how this happened.
Let's start with the basics. In an incredibly close election, Perriello defeated Goode in what was essentially a 50-50 race. Perriello won 50.08% and Goode won 49.85%. But in the Presidential race, McCain still held onto the 5th with a narrow victory of 51% to 48%.
This is the infamous Obama surge that Perriello rode to victory. But while Obama was winning Virginia with 53% of the vote, a surprising 8% improvement over John Kerry, his improvement over Kerry in the 5th was only 5% better. With the high percentage of black voters in the 5th, plus the liberal bastion of Charlottesville, many assumed that Obama would have a more significant impact in the 5th District. In fact, the swing seems somewhat muted. When I think of surge, I think of a big swing to one party or candidate. There was certainly a swing, but more of a nudge than a surge.
Part of Obama's improvement over Kerry was reduced because of McCain's improvements over Bush. The 5th was one of the few congressional districts in Virginia where McCain received more votes than Bush in 2004. Certainly Obama did a better job than McCain in increasing support, but McCain was not nearly as lackluster as some commentators analyzing the 5th have indicated.
Let's look at how Goode compares to McCain across the district.
Albemarle County: 40% McCain, 37% Goode (-3%)
Appomattox County: 64% McCain, 64% Goode (0%)
Bedford County: 66% McCain, 62% Goode (-4%)
Brunswick County: 35% McCain, 38% Goode (+3%)
Buckingham County: 49% McCain, 50% Goode (+1%)
Campbell County: 68% McCain, 64% Goode (-4%)
Charlotte County: 55% McCain, 56% Goode (+1%)
Cumberland County: 51% McCain, 52% Goode (+1%)
Fluvanna County: 50% McCain, 48% Goode (-2%)
Franklin County: 61% McCain, 62% Goode (+1%)
Greene County: 60% McCain, 54% Goode (-6%)
Halifax County: 51% McCain, 53% Goode (+2%)
Henry County: 56% McCain, 57% Goode (+1%)
Lunenburg County: 51% McCain, 50% Goode (-1%)
Mecklenburg County: 52% McCain, 55% Goode (+3%)
Nelson County: 45% McCain, 44% Goode (-1%)
Pittsylvania County: 62% McCain, 62% Goode (+0%)
Prince Edward County: 44% McCain, 46% Goode (+2%)
Bedford City: 55% McCain, 50% Goode (-5%)
Charlottesville City: 20% McCain, 19% Goode (-1%)
Danville City: 40% McCain, 42% Goode (+2%)
Martinsville City: 35% McCain, 39% Goode (+4%)
Across the district, Goode's crossover has been shattered. He performs only 1% better than John McCain in his home county of Franklin! Henry is about the same, with only the City of Martinsville showing any significant crossover for Goode. His best counties outside of his home base are Mecklenburg, the only county with in a North Carolina media market and outside of Perriello's ad campaign, and Brunswick, the most isolated part of the district. Even then he outperforms McCain by only 3%.
A consistent 3% could have saved Goode, but in 2008 he is facing a Democrat with resources able to compete across the district. He's hit hard not only in the northern counties like Greene and Albemarle, but sees a significant crossover of McCain voters to Perriello in Bedford and Campbell County. I have no idea what was going on in these Lynchburg suburbs, but it's something to look for in 2010.
From 2000 to 2006, the Republicans had a good run in the 5th District. This included a counter-cycle performance in 2006 that only narrowly brought down their performance. If 56% was an elevated ceiling for Republican support in the district during good times, it's easy to see them dropping to 53% in what was a solid Democratic wave year. What's impressive for the Republicans is that it didn't drop even more.
Looking back, I think stories about African-Americans, liberals, and college students are a little overplayed. Yes, the 5th has them. But it also has farmers, conservatives, and regular blue collar workers. And even some Hillary voting PUMAs. This district is very polarized and has few swing voters. Which is why the Republican surge in 2004 was weak in the district, and why the Democrats were unable to capitalize on their own surge in 2006 or 2008. At the same time, the electorate is shifting slowly toward the Democrats as Charlottesville grows and Southside declines.
What surprises me is that the few swing voters out there, at least the swing voters in 2008, weren't in Charlottesville and weren't in Southside (at least what most people call Southside). Bedford and Campbell, two of the main suburbs of Lynchburg, stand out for putting Perriello over Goode. Why? The Lynchburg metropolitan area is one of the bastions of the Republican Party, particularly because of social issues. In 2006, the region turned out strongly for the anti-gay marriage amendment. This is the home of Liberty University! Jerry Falwell Jr. has donated to Hurt's campaign, but I have seen little emphasis on social issues from Hurt's campaign. Instead, I've seen Perriello wisely vote against federal funding of abortion and work to downplay potentially controversial social issues. Smart move. This is an area to watch for me on election night.
Before we go, we'll look at the Survey USA polls from 2008. Like 2006, Survey USA had three polls of the 5th District race:
August 10-12: Goode 64%, Perriello 30%
October 6-7: Goode 55%, Perriello 42%
October 30-November 2: Goode 50%, Perriello 47%
Looking at some of the internals, we find that the first poll from August had 17% black voters, equal to their 2006 polling. The October poll also had 17% black voters. But then right before the election, Survey USA's poll put it at 22% and said that Perriello could win with 25%. After the election, as they argue their polling in 2010, they seem to be arguing that the black percent of the vote in 2008 was 25%, far higher than any other source I've heard.
In other words, throughout the 2008 election Survey USA tried to convince everyone that they didn't see ANY increase in black turnout from 2006 to 2008. Then, at the last possible second, they put out a poll showing black turnout significantly higher and Perriello within the margin of error. This was after both parties had internal polling showing the race a dead heat and Goode in risk of being defeated.
Let's look at party. August: 41% Republican, 33% Democrat, 20% Independent. October: 38% Republican, 34% Democrat, 21% Independent. Final: 38% Republican, 40% Democrat, and 20% Independent.
Poll by poll, Survey USA shows an electorate more and more favorable to the Democrats, with Democrats eventually outnumbering Republicans by 2%. This is a 14% swing from 2006, when they had the final poll with 44% Republicans, 32% Democrats, and 22% Independents. Yet the outcome of the 5th district swung to the Democrats by only 5%. Is it possible that Survey USA isn't tracking changes in voters, but changing in party identification? Throughout 2008, people who voted Republican were more likely to call themselves independent, after the anger at Bush's reckless spending? A prelude to the trend that continues today with the Tea Party.
Finally, ideology. August: 39% Conservative, 34% Moderate, and 12% Liberal. October: 40% Conservative, 31% Moderate, and 13% Liberal. Final: 41% Conservative, 35% Moderate, and 17% Liberal.
Ironically, while at the same time showing a surge in Democrat voters, Survey USA sees a slight increase in conservative voters during the 2008 campaign! Liberals are higher, but the breakdown as a whole seems very similar to Survey USA's final poll from 2006. This gives support to my theory that changes in the party breakdown in the poll is due to people changing how they describe themselves, not who is voting. Instead, conservatives started to shift to calling themselves independent, but still turnout and vote Republican.
And the two competing polls from Survey USA right now? One has blacks at 12%, which is less than even 2006. The other has them at 20%. Which is right? I am leaning heavily toward the 20%. Signs point to 2006 being a bad year for Democrats in Southside, particularly in African-American areas. 17% may be the low point that is produced by a Democrat campaign with no resources for GOTV. 20% sounds reasonable, especially if you're putting 2008 at 25% as Survey USA does.
Party? The RDD has it at 36% Republican, 32% Democrat, and 29% Independent. This would have Democrats at about the same turnout as 2006, but with a shift of Republicans to Independents from 2006. This is consistent with the idea that conservative Republicans call themselves independents as they affiliate with the Tea Party movement, but I also don't want to read too much into Survey USA's party breakdown given how large their swing was in 2008 despite few changes in the outcome.
Finally, ideology. 47% Conservative, 35% Moderate, and 10% Liberal. This is a swing of around 7% from 2008 and 2006. If true, it means the electorate in 2010 will be even more favorable to Republicans than in 2006, which was already a sensible year for them in the Fifth District.
It's very hard for me to sort out the twists and turns in Survey USA. That the only way they seem able to change Perriello's % is through changing the racial composition of their sample seems questionable to me. They did it in 2008 and again in 2010. Is it possible that they are bad at sampling white voters in this sprawling, diverse district and they compensate through fiddling with the black %? We'll find out . . .
Next, a look at the polling in 2008 as we try to sort out what's going on.
Let's start with the basics. In an incredibly close election, Perriello defeated Goode in what was essentially a 50-50 race. Perriello won 50.08% and Goode won 49.85%. But in the Presidential race, McCain still held onto the 5th with a narrow victory of 51% to 48%.
This is the infamous Obama surge that Perriello rode to victory. But while Obama was winning Virginia with 53% of the vote, a surprising 8% improvement over John Kerry, his improvement over Kerry in the 5th was only 5% better. With the high percentage of black voters in the 5th, plus the liberal bastion of Charlottesville, many assumed that Obama would have a more significant impact in the 5th District. In fact, the swing seems somewhat muted. When I think of surge, I think of a big swing to one party or candidate. There was certainly a swing, but more of a nudge than a surge.
Part of Obama's improvement over Kerry was reduced because of McCain's improvements over Bush. The 5th was one of the few congressional districts in Virginia where McCain received more votes than Bush in 2004. Certainly Obama did a better job than McCain in increasing support, but McCain was not nearly as lackluster as some commentators analyzing the 5th have indicated.
Let's look at how Goode compares to McCain across the district.
Albemarle County: 40% McCain, 37% Goode (-3%)
Appomattox County: 64% McCain, 64% Goode (0%)
Bedford County: 66% McCain, 62% Goode (-4%)
Brunswick County: 35% McCain, 38% Goode (+3%)
Buckingham County: 49% McCain, 50% Goode (+1%)
Campbell County: 68% McCain, 64% Goode (-4%)
Charlotte County: 55% McCain, 56% Goode (+1%)
Cumberland County: 51% McCain, 52% Goode (+1%)
Fluvanna County: 50% McCain, 48% Goode (-2%)
Franklin County: 61% McCain, 62% Goode (+1%)
Greene County: 60% McCain, 54% Goode (-6%)
Halifax County: 51% McCain, 53% Goode (+2%)
Henry County: 56% McCain, 57% Goode (+1%)
Lunenburg County: 51% McCain, 50% Goode (-1%)
Mecklenburg County: 52% McCain, 55% Goode (+3%)
Nelson County: 45% McCain, 44% Goode (-1%)
Pittsylvania County: 62% McCain, 62% Goode (+0%)
Prince Edward County: 44% McCain, 46% Goode (+2%)
Bedford City: 55% McCain, 50% Goode (-5%)
Charlottesville City: 20% McCain, 19% Goode (-1%)
Danville City: 40% McCain, 42% Goode (+2%)
Martinsville City: 35% McCain, 39% Goode (+4%)
Across the district, Goode's crossover has been shattered. He performs only 1% better than John McCain in his home county of Franklin! Henry is about the same, with only the City of Martinsville showing any significant crossover for Goode. His best counties outside of his home base are Mecklenburg, the only county with in a North Carolina media market and outside of Perriello's ad campaign, and Brunswick, the most isolated part of the district. Even then he outperforms McCain by only 3%.
A consistent 3% could have saved Goode, but in 2008 he is facing a Democrat with resources able to compete across the district. He's hit hard not only in the northern counties like Greene and Albemarle, but sees a significant crossover of McCain voters to Perriello in Bedford and Campbell County. I have no idea what was going on in these Lynchburg suburbs, but it's something to look for in 2010.
From 2000 to 2006, the Republicans had a good run in the 5th District. This included a counter-cycle performance in 2006 that only narrowly brought down their performance. If 56% was an elevated ceiling for Republican support in the district during good times, it's easy to see them dropping to 53% in what was a solid Democratic wave year. What's impressive for the Republicans is that it didn't drop even more.
Looking back, I think stories about African-Americans, liberals, and college students are a little overplayed. Yes, the 5th has them. But it also has farmers, conservatives, and regular blue collar workers. And even some Hillary voting PUMAs. This district is very polarized and has few swing voters. Which is why the Republican surge in 2004 was weak in the district, and why the Democrats were unable to capitalize on their own surge in 2006 or 2008. At the same time, the electorate is shifting slowly toward the Democrats as Charlottesville grows and Southside declines.
What surprises me is that the few swing voters out there, at least the swing voters in 2008, weren't in Charlottesville and weren't in Southside (at least what most people call Southside). Bedford and Campbell, two of the main suburbs of Lynchburg, stand out for putting Perriello over Goode. Why? The Lynchburg metropolitan area is one of the bastions of the Republican Party, particularly because of social issues. In 2006, the region turned out strongly for the anti-gay marriage amendment. This is the home of Liberty University! Jerry Falwell Jr. has donated to Hurt's campaign, but I have seen little emphasis on social issues from Hurt's campaign. Instead, I've seen Perriello wisely vote against federal funding of abortion and work to downplay potentially controversial social issues. Smart move. This is an area to watch for me on election night.
Before we go, we'll look at the Survey USA polls from 2008. Like 2006, Survey USA had three polls of the 5th District race:
August 10-12: Goode 64%, Perriello 30%
October 6-7: Goode 55%, Perriello 42%
October 30-November 2: Goode 50%, Perriello 47%
Looking at some of the internals, we find that the first poll from August had 17% black voters, equal to their 2006 polling. The October poll also had 17% black voters. But then right before the election, Survey USA's poll put it at 22% and said that Perriello could win with 25%. After the election, as they argue their polling in 2010, they seem to be arguing that the black percent of the vote in 2008 was 25%, far higher than any other source I've heard.
In other words, throughout the 2008 election Survey USA tried to convince everyone that they didn't see ANY increase in black turnout from 2006 to 2008. Then, at the last possible second, they put out a poll showing black turnout significantly higher and Perriello within the margin of error. This was after both parties had internal polling showing the race a dead heat and Goode in risk of being defeated.
Let's look at party. August: 41% Republican, 33% Democrat, 20% Independent. October: 38% Republican, 34% Democrat, 21% Independent. Final: 38% Republican, 40% Democrat, and 20% Independent.
Poll by poll, Survey USA shows an electorate more and more favorable to the Democrats, with Democrats eventually outnumbering Republicans by 2%. This is a 14% swing from 2006, when they had the final poll with 44% Republicans, 32% Democrats, and 22% Independents. Yet the outcome of the 5th district swung to the Democrats by only 5%. Is it possible that Survey USA isn't tracking changes in voters, but changing in party identification? Throughout 2008, people who voted Republican were more likely to call themselves independent, after the anger at Bush's reckless spending? A prelude to the trend that continues today with the Tea Party.
Finally, ideology. August: 39% Conservative, 34% Moderate, and 12% Liberal. October: 40% Conservative, 31% Moderate, and 13% Liberal. Final: 41% Conservative, 35% Moderate, and 17% Liberal.
Ironically, while at the same time showing a surge in Democrat voters, Survey USA sees a slight increase in conservative voters during the 2008 campaign! Liberals are higher, but the breakdown as a whole seems very similar to Survey USA's final poll from 2006. This gives support to my theory that changes in the party breakdown in the poll is due to people changing how they describe themselves, not who is voting. Instead, conservatives started to shift to calling themselves independent, but still turnout and vote Republican.
And the two competing polls from Survey USA right now? One has blacks at 12%, which is less than even 2006. The other has them at 20%. Which is right? I am leaning heavily toward the 20%. Signs point to 2006 being a bad year for Democrats in Southside, particularly in African-American areas. 17% may be the low point that is produced by a Democrat campaign with no resources for GOTV. 20% sounds reasonable, especially if you're putting 2008 at 25% as Survey USA does.
Party? The RDD has it at 36% Republican, 32% Democrat, and 29% Independent. This would have Democrats at about the same turnout as 2006, but with a shift of Republicans to Independents from 2006. This is consistent with the idea that conservative Republicans call themselves independents as they affiliate with the Tea Party movement, but I also don't want to read too much into Survey USA's party breakdown given how large their swing was in 2008 despite few changes in the outcome.
Finally, ideology. 47% Conservative, 35% Moderate, and 10% Liberal. This is a swing of around 7% from 2008 and 2006. If true, it means the electorate in 2010 will be even more favorable to Republicans than in 2006, which was already a sensible year for them in the Fifth District.
It's very hard for me to sort out the twists and turns in Survey USA. That the only way they seem able to change Perriello's % is through changing the racial composition of their sample seems questionable to me. They did it in 2008 and again in 2010. Is it possible that they are bad at sampling white voters in this sprawling, diverse district and they compensate through fiddling with the black %? We'll find out . . .
Next, a look at the polling in 2008 as we try to sort out what's going on.
Friday, October 22, 2010
A Look Back on the 5th, Part Two
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. Part One is here.
At the end of Part One, we had finished up looking at the changes in the 5th District from 2000 to 2004. The 5th District after 2004 looked to be a pretty solid Republican district, with the base Republican vote around 56% during some good Republican elections. Goode's crossover appeal had leveled out and was being boosted by the powers of incumbency. This put him safely over 60% in every election. I ended with the question, "What would happen if you combined a good Democratic year with a Democrat with resources?" We'll get there in 2008; we have to look at 2006 and a few more trends first.
First, as I noted in Part One, the 5th after redistricting was a slightly less Republican district than in 2000. But that didn't stop Bush from topping his 2000 performance when running for reelection. But Bush only narrowly outperformed his 2000 performance in the 5th District. At the same time, the nation swung to Bush by 5 points nationally and 1 point in Virginia. We know that Virginia has been moving demographically toward the Democrat Party for a few years now. But pundits have always been focused on Northern Virginia for this shift. Is it possible that the 5th, particularly around Charlottesville, was also shifting to the Democrat Party? If we assume a uniform 5 point shift nationally, but the 5th shifted only 1 point, was there a 4 point shift toward to the Democrats in the demographics of the 5th District? Or does the 5th District not swing as much as the rest of the nation?
Let's look at the 2006 results. Virgil Goode failed to break 60% for the first time in his reelection. He defeated his same liberal Democrat challenger from 2004 59% to 40%. At the top of the ticket, Republican George Allen won the 5th District but lost the state. In the 5th, he won 54% of the vote to Webb's 45% of the vote. Let's first compare Goode to Allen. The crossover was down to 6% across the district.
Albemarle County: 42% Allen, 45% Goode (+3%)
Appomattox County: 65% Allen, 70% Goode (+5%)
Bedford County: 65% Allen, 71% Goode (+6%)
Brunswick County: 42% Allen, 46% (+4%)
Buckingham County: 54% Allen, 59% Goode (+5%)
Campbell County: 68% Allen, 72% Goode (+4%)
Charlotte County: 60% Allen, 65% Goode (+5%)
Cumberland County: 58% Allen, 63% Goode (+5%)
Fluvanna County: 54% Allen, 57% Goode (+3%)
Franklin County: 61% Allen, 71% Goode (+10%)
Greene County: 62% Allen, 64% Goode (+2%)
Halifax County: 59% Allen, 64% Goode (+5%)
Henry County: 57% Allen, 70% Goode (+13%)
Lunenburg County: 57% Allen, 62% (+5%)
Mecklenburg County: 59% Allen, 64% (+5%)
Nelson County: 46% Allen, 48% Goode (+2%)
Pittsylvania: 65% Allen, 70% Goode (+5%)
Prince Edward County: 52% Allen, 58% Goode (+6%)
Bedford City: 54% Allen, 61% Goode (+7%)
Charlottesville City: 22% Allen, 24% Goode (+2%)
Danville City: 50% Allen, 55% Goode (+5%)
Martinsville City: 43% Allen, 59% Goode (+16%)
Goode's crossover is flat across the district outside of his old State Senate district, with the lowest crossover in the northern parts of the district. What's important about this race is Webb's lackluster performance in the 5th. His 45% performance is just slightly north of John Kerry's 43%. And that's with a wave pushing the Democrats into office, including Jim Webb. In fact, Webb seems to have done uniquely poor in the 5th compared to his statewide surge. Look at this analysis of the shift in voting between 2004 and 2006. The Southside portions of the 5th and 4th are the heart of a strong pro-Republican shift against a Democrat wave. Why?
I don't have a good reason for this shift to Allen. At the state and local level, George Allen has always been successful in reaching out to the African-American community, despite what liberals claim. Here's a dear friend of the St. Paul College community. I can also understand that Webb, strapped for cash, was unable to devote resources to the rural parts of the state. Were African-Americans juts not voting, or were they voting for Allen, or a little of both?
Whatever the reason, Virgil Goode was brought under 60% in 2006 thanks to a decline in his crossover appeal. Allen's 54% showing is only a slight decline from the historic 56% in the 5th District for Republican candidates. Goode would have hit 60% if he had the same crossover he did in 2004 or 2000. Drip by drip, election by election, his support is being narrowed to Republicans. That's fine with a Republican district like the 5th. Especially since the 5th District seemed to behave counter-cyclically in 2006, with something happening on the ground in Southside to blunt the Democratic wave felt nationally.
Scroll up and re-read my discussion of 2004. If Bush's national wave was enough to overcome a swing to the Democrats with demographic changes around Charlottesville, we'd expect the lack of Bush to help the Democrats. A "neutral" election in 2006 might even see the Democrats doing 4 points better in the 5th. Instead, they topped out around 2. That's with a Democratic wave pushing Webb into office. Something, either the strength of George Allen in Southside, the lack of resources of Jim Webb for rural Virginia, or the contrarian voting habits of the 5th District was pushing the 5th toward the Republican Party while everyone else seemed to be going to the Democrats.
Lucky for us, we have some polling from 2006 to add to the story. There are three Survey USA polls from 2006.
July 23-25: Goode 59%, Weed 35%
October 8-10: Goode 56%, Weed 40%
October 30-November 1: Goode 61%, Weed 35%
Election Day: Goode 59%, Weed 40%
The results seemed to be spot on for Goode, although it seems that all of the undecideds broke to Weed in the end. Maybe people didn't want to admit to a pollster, even a robotic one, that they like Weed?
Let's look at the interns for Survey USA.
First, race. The July poll had 19% black voters, the October poll 17%, and the final poll 17%.
Next, party. The July poll favored Republicans 45% to 29% Democrats to 23% Independents. In October, the breakdown was 42% Republican, 33% Democrats, 23% Independents. Final poll, 44% Republican, 32% Democrats, 22% Independents.
One more, ideology. The July poll had 44% conservatives, 35% moderates, and 11% liberals. October, 39% conservative, 39% moderate, and 13% liberals. Final, 42% conservative, 36% moderate, and 11% liberal.
We haven't talked about 2008 yet, that's Part Three, but I want to point out how these polls compare to the current Survey USA polls.
The RDD poll showing it an 11 point race has 20% black voters. The RBS poll showing it a 17 point race has only 12% black voters. That's projecting less black turnout than in 2006. While I understand that black turnout should be down from 2008, in which Survey US had it at 22% but believes the election day total was 25%, I don't see why it should be even less than 2006. The RDD seems more realistic than their RBS.
Also, their party breakdown in the RDD poll seems odd with 36% Republican, 32% Democrats, and 29% Independents. Is that a sign that they are underestimating Republican turnout? I don't know, because their ideology is 47% conservative, 35% moderate, and 10% liberal. That's very similar to 2006. Are more Republicans calling themselves independents these days because of the Tea Party? Could be.
Part three next.
At the end of Part One, we had finished up looking at the changes in the 5th District from 2000 to 2004. The 5th District after 2004 looked to be a pretty solid Republican district, with the base Republican vote around 56% during some good Republican elections. Goode's crossover appeal had leveled out and was being boosted by the powers of incumbency. This put him safely over 60% in every election. I ended with the question, "What would happen if you combined a good Democratic year with a Democrat with resources?" We'll get there in 2008; we have to look at 2006 and a few more trends first.
First, as I noted in Part One, the 5th after redistricting was a slightly less Republican district than in 2000. But that didn't stop Bush from topping his 2000 performance when running for reelection. But Bush only narrowly outperformed his 2000 performance in the 5th District. At the same time, the nation swung to Bush by 5 points nationally and 1 point in Virginia. We know that Virginia has been moving demographically toward the Democrat Party for a few years now. But pundits have always been focused on Northern Virginia for this shift. Is it possible that the 5th, particularly around Charlottesville, was also shifting to the Democrat Party? If we assume a uniform 5 point shift nationally, but the 5th shifted only 1 point, was there a 4 point shift toward to the Democrats in the demographics of the 5th District? Or does the 5th District not swing as much as the rest of the nation?
Let's look at the 2006 results. Virgil Goode failed to break 60% for the first time in his reelection. He defeated his same liberal Democrat challenger from 2004 59% to 40%. At the top of the ticket, Republican George Allen won the 5th District but lost the state. In the 5th, he won 54% of the vote to Webb's 45% of the vote. Let's first compare Goode to Allen. The crossover was down to 6% across the district.
Albemarle County: 42% Allen, 45% Goode (+3%)
Appomattox County: 65% Allen, 70% Goode (+5%)
Bedford County: 65% Allen, 71% Goode (+6%)
Brunswick County: 42% Allen, 46% (+4%)
Buckingham County: 54% Allen, 59% Goode (+5%)
Campbell County: 68% Allen, 72% Goode (+4%)
Charlotte County: 60% Allen, 65% Goode (+5%)
Cumberland County: 58% Allen, 63% Goode (+5%)
Fluvanna County: 54% Allen, 57% Goode (+3%)
Franklin County: 61% Allen, 71% Goode (+10%)
Greene County: 62% Allen, 64% Goode (+2%)
Halifax County: 59% Allen, 64% Goode (+5%)
Henry County: 57% Allen, 70% Goode (+13%)
Lunenburg County: 57% Allen, 62% (+5%)
Mecklenburg County: 59% Allen, 64% (+5%)
Nelson County: 46% Allen, 48% Goode (+2%)
Pittsylvania: 65% Allen, 70% Goode (+5%)
Prince Edward County: 52% Allen, 58% Goode (+6%)
Bedford City: 54% Allen, 61% Goode (+7%)
Charlottesville City: 22% Allen, 24% Goode (+2%)
Danville City: 50% Allen, 55% Goode (+5%)
Martinsville City: 43% Allen, 59% Goode (+16%)
Goode's crossover is flat across the district outside of his old State Senate district, with the lowest crossover in the northern parts of the district. What's important about this race is Webb's lackluster performance in the 5th. His 45% performance is just slightly north of John Kerry's 43%. And that's with a wave pushing the Democrats into office, including Jim Webb. In fact, Webb seems to have done uniquely poor in the 5th compared to his statewide surge. Look at this analysis of the shift in voting between 2004 and 2006. The Southside portions of the 5th and 4th are the heart of a strong pro-Republican shift against a Democrat wave. Why?
The Southeast region of the state is also the most heavily African-American. So despite "macaca", George Allen actually fared better these counties, relatively speaking, than George Bush did. Perhaps, you may think, as with urban areas, there is simply not much room for improvement? Not so; in Sussex County (61% African-American), Webb's 52-48 margin of victory was smaller than Kerry's 56-44 win. Again, it's unclear what to the underlying cause of Webb's weakness among African Americans was. Was it the result of more resources going into Central & Southwest Virginia? Allen's immediate effort to earn the endorsement of black politicians? Voter intimidation? We can't say which it was with any certainty.
I don't have a good reason for this shift to Allen. At the state and local level, George Allen has always been successful in reaching out to the African-American community, despite what liberals claim. Here's a dear friend of the St. Paul College community. I can also understand that Webb, strapped for cash, was unable to devote resources to the rural parts of the state. Were African-Americans juts not voting, or were they voting for Allen, or a little of both?
Whatever the reason, Virgil Goode was brought under 60% in 2006 thanks to a decline in his crossover appeal. Allen's 54% showing is only a slight decline from the historic 56% in the 5th District for Republican candidates. Goode would have hit 60% if he had the same crossover he did in 2004 or 2000. Drip by drip, election by election, his support is being narrowed to Republicans. That's fine with a Republican district like the 5th. Especially since the 5th District seemed to behave counter-cyclically in 2006, with something happening on the ground in Southside to blunt the Democratic wave felt nationally.
Scroll up and re-read my discussion of 2004. If Bush's national wave was enough to overcome a swing to the Democrats with demographic changes around Charlottesville, we'd expect the lack of Bush to help the Democrats. A "neutral" election in 2006 might even see the Democrats doing 4 points better in the 5th. Instead, they topped out around 2. That's with a Democratic wave pushing Webb into office. Something, either the strength of George Allen in Southside, the lack of resources of Jim Webb for rural Virginia, or the contrarian voting habits of the 5th District was pushing the 5th toward the Republican Party while everyone else seemed to be going to the Democrats.
Lucky for us, we have some polling from 2006 to add to the story. There are three Survey USA polls from 2006.
July 23-25: Goode 59%, Weed 35%
October 8-10: Goode 56%, Weed 40%
October 30-November 1: Goode 61%, Weed 35%
Election Day: Goode 59%, Weed 40%
The results seemed to be spot on for Goode, although it seems that all of the undecideds broke to Weed in the end. Maybe people didn't want to admit to a pollster, even a robotic one, that they like Weed?
Let's look at the interns for Survey USA.
First, race. The July poll had 19% black voters, the October poll 17%, and the final poll 17%.
Next, party. The July poll favored Republicans 45% to 29% Democrats to 23% Independents. In October, the breakdown was 42% Republican, 33% Democrats, 23% Independents. Final poll, 44% Republican, 32% Democrats, 22% Independents.
One more, ideology. The July poll had 44% conservatives, 35% moderates, and 11% liberals. October, 39% conservative, 39% moderate, and 13% liberals. Final, 42% conservative, 36% moderate, and 11% liberal.
We haven't talked about 2008 yet, that's Part Three, but I want to point out how these polls compare to the current Survey USA polls.
The RDD poll showing it an 11 point race has 20% black voters. The RBS poll showing it a 17 point race has only 12% black voters. That's projecting less black turnout than in 2006. While I understand that black turnout should be down from 2008, in which Survey US had it at 22% but believes the election day total was 25%, I don't see why it should be even less than 2006. The RDD seems more realistic than their RBS.
Also, their party breakdown in the RDD poll seems odd with 36% Republican, 32% Democrats, and 29% Independents. Is that a sign that they are underestimating Republican turnout? I don't know, because their ideology is 47% conservative, 35% moderate, and 10% liberal. That's very similar to 2006. Are more Republicans calling themselves independents these days because of the Tea Party? Could be.
Part three next.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
A Look Back on the 5th, Part One
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.
In 2000, Virgil Goode switched parties to become an Independent and went on to win his reelection 67% to 31% with a scattering for other candidates. No Republican candidate ran for office. At the top of the ticket, George Bush carried the district 56% to 40% for Al Gore. George Allen defeated Chuck Robb in the 5th district by a similar 57% to 43% margin. A 2% showing by Ralph Nader in the 5th District may have hurt Gore very slightly.
A while back, Ben Tribbett looked at the 5th District results for Bush and Allen to show very minor, but interesting, differences in their performances. It's difficult to put a real trend to the differences in performance for Bush and Allen, but the overall conclusion is that the 5th District's Republican lean was around 56% to 57%, with the Democrats counting on about 43% unless there was a "strong" third party candidate on the far left.
Virgil Goode's performance of almost 10 points better than the Republican party demonstrated the strength of his independent appeal and his deep ties to the district. Here's a short rundown of his performance compared to Bush and Allen across the district.
Albemarle County: 49% Bush, 48% Allen, 58% Goode (+9.5%)
Appomattox County: 62% Bush, 61% Allen, 69% Goode (+7.5%)
Bedford County: 67% Bush, 67% Allen, 79% Goode (+12%)
Buckingham County: 50% Bush, 52% Allen, 62% Goode (+11%)
Campbell County: 65% Bush, 65% Allen, 75% Goode (+10%)
Charlotte County: 57% Bush, 59% Allen, 63% Goode (+5%)
Cumberland County: 56% Bush, 58% Allen, 65% Goode (+8%)
Fluvanna County: 57% Bush, 58% Allen, 66% Goode (+8.5)
Franklin County: 60% Bush, 62% Allen, 82% Goode (+21%!)
Halifax County: 55% Bush, 55% Allen, 63% Goode (+8%)
Henry County: 55% Bush, 57% Allen, 72% Goode (+16%!)
Lunenburg County: 55% Bush, 55% Allen, 65% Goode (+10%)
Mecklenburg County: 57% Bush, 59% Allen, 58% Goode (+0%)
Nelson County: 47% Bush, 50% Allen, 61% Goode (+12.5%)
Patrick County: 66% Bush, 66% Allen, 82% Goode (+16%!)
Pittsylvania County: 65% Bush, 66% Allen, 74% Goode (+8.5%)
Prince Edward County: 51% Bush, 51% Allen, 54% Goode (+3%)
Bedford City: 52% Bush, 51% Allen, 68% Goode (+16.5%)
Charlottesville City: 31% Bush, 30% Allen, 43% Goode (+12.5%)
Danville City: 52% Bush, 52% Allen, 60% Goode (+8%)
Martinsville City: 45% Bush, 47% Allen, 64% Goode (+18%!)
Goode's old State Senate district included Franklin County (+21%), Henry County (+16%), Patrick County (+16%), and Martinsville City (+18%). These were among Goode's top crossover counties. But other impressive showings crisscrossed the district. Strong showings in the Bedford area next door to Franklin. A strong crossover in the "liberal" city of Charlottesville. And oddities I can't begin to explain like 0% in Mecklenburg (because it's in a NC media market? Home county of Democrat John Boyd?), the lowly 5% in Charlotte county (Kelley forgot to campaign?) but a strong 10% in neighboring Lunenburg.
I don't have any public polling of the 5th District from 2000, but I think we can conclude a few major points. First, Goode's over 60% showing was not because the district itself was a 60%+ Republican/conservative district. While strongly Republican for Bush and Allen, Goode's own personal appeal to independents and Democrats who voted for Al Gore and Chuck Robb was able to push him over the 60% benchmark. Second, I wonder if Goode is kicking himself for letting the legislature take out Patrick County and parts of Henry County after the 2000 redistricting. While Goode's crossover dropped significantly by the time we reach 2008, he might have pulled out a narrow victory if he had more of his old base in the 5th District.
Two years later, after redistricting, Virgil Goode defeated Charlottesville liberal Meredith Richards 63% to 36%. This is down slightly from his 2000 victory. This year, Goode openly affiliated with the Republican Party. He also didn't have the enthusiasm of a presidential election getting out the base to elect a Republican President and drag down Senator Chuck Robb. But I've hardly heard anyone argue that 2002 was a year in which Democrats benefited from an "enthusiasm" gap. It's worth noting that after redistricting, the 5th became slightly less Republican. The new 5th, which had Goode give up core supporters in Patrick and Henry to gain voters in Albemarle, Greene, and Brunswick lowered Bush's performance from 56% to 55% and increased Gore's to 41% from 40%, with a stronger showing for Ralph Nader in the district thanks to more of the suburbs of Albemarle. Given Goode's crossover in the rest of Albemarle in 2000 (less than his district wide showing) and in the more African-American counties in the Southeast (like Mecklenburg and Prince Edward), adding Albemarle and Brunswick probably reduced his overall crossover appeal across the district. Not that it mattered in 2002.
There's no polling for the 5th District race in 2004 either, but we can compare it to Bush's performance in the district. Goode won another solid victory, this time over liberal Democrat Al Weed, 64% to 36%, virtually unchanged from 2002. Bush won the district with 56% of the vote, slightly higher than what his 2000 showing in the district would have been. Kerry was able to pull back Nader voters and beat Gore's performance with 43% of the vote. Here's the comparison of Goode and Bush.
Albemarle County: 49% Bush, 50% Goode (+1%)
Appomattox County: 66% Bush, 75% Goode (+9%)
Bedford County: 67% Bush, 76% Goode (+9%)
Brunswick County: 40% Bush, 51% Goode (+11%)
Buckingham County: 53% Bush, 64% Goode (+11%)
Campbell County: 69% Bush, 76% Goode (+7%)
Charlotte County: 58% Bush, 70% Goode (+12%)
Cumberland County: 58% Bush, 65% Goode (+7%)
Fluvanna County: 59% Bush, 62% Goode (+3%)
Franklin County: 63% Bush, 75% Goode (+12%)
Greene County: 66% Bush, 69% Goode (+3%)
Halifax County: 57% Bush, 68% Goode (+11%)
Henry County: 60% Bush, 75% Goode (+15%)
Lunenburg County: 55% Bush, 68% Goode (+13%)
Mecklenburg County: 57% Bush, 66% Goode (+9%)
Nelson County: 50% Bush, 53% Goode (+3%)
Pittsylvania County: 65% Bush, 74% Goode (+9%)
Prince Edward County: 49% Bush, 57% Goode (+8%)
Bedford City: 58% Bush, 64% Goode (+6%)
Charlottesville City: 27% Bush, 29% Goode (+2%)
Danville City: 49% Bush, 58% Goode (+9%)
Martinsville City: 45% Bush, 66% Goode (+21%)
Goode's crossover from Bush is down to 8%, a slight change from the 10% in 2000. But I think the pattern has changed dramatically. Areas in the northern part of the district, such as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, and Nelson, have very small crossovers while all three were close to average in 2000. His crossover in his old State Senate district is down outside of Martinsville. Instead, Goode has expanded his crossover in the more rural parts of the district. The changes in the crossover could be caused by many factors. Goode is now the incumbent and should be expected to have the advantage across the district. Weed, based in Nelson County, probably had enough resources to devote to the campaign in the northern part of the district. But with a severe financial disadvantage, it's doubtful Weed was able to significantly reach out to voters in the Southside portion of the district.
Looking back, this is the first sign of trouble for Goode. Goode's personal appeal is on the decline and his advantage over a typical Republican seems to be based on a generic advantage as the better financed incumbent. If a Democrat with real resources were able to run against Goode they could cut his crossover appeal down to zero. That would leave him hanging onto the core of Republican voters, around 56% of the district in the period from 2000 to 2004--several good election cycles for Virginia Republicans. What would happen if you combined a good Democratic year with a Democrat with resources?
Stay tuned for 2006 and beyond . . .
In 2000, Virgil Goode switched parties to become an Independent and went on to win his reelection 67% to 31% with a scattering for other candidates. No Republican candidate ran for office. At the top of the ticket, George Bush carried the district 56% to 40% for Al Gore. George Allen defeated Chuck Robb in the 5th district by a similar 57% to 43% margin. A 2% showing by Ralph Nader in the 5th District may have hurt Gore very slightly.
A while back, Ben Tribbett looked at the 5th District results for Bush and Allen to show very minor, but interesting, differences in their performances. It's difficult to put a real trend to the differences in performance for Bush and Allen, but the overall conclusion is that the 5th District's Republican lean was around 56% to 57%, with the Democrats counting on about 43% unless there was a "strong" third party candidate on the far left.
Virgil Goode's performance of almost 10 points better than the Republican party demonstrated the strength of his independent appeal and his deep ties to the district. Here's a short rundown of his performance compared to Bush and Allen across the district.
Albemarle County: 49% Bush, 48% Allen, 58% Goode (+9.5%)
Appomattox County: 62% Bush, 61% Allen, 69% Goode (+7.5%)
Bedford County: 67% Bush, 67% Allen, 79% Goode (+12%)
Buckingham County: 50% Bush, 52% Allen, 62% Goode (+11%)
Campbell County: 65% Bush, 65% Allen, 75% Goode (+10%)
Charlotte County: 57% Bush, 59% Allen, 63% Goode (+5%)
Cumberland County: 56% Bush, 58% Allen, 65% Goode (+8%)
Fluvanna County: 57% Bush, 58% Allen, 66% Goode (+8.5)
Franklin County: 60% Bush, 62% Allen, 82% Goode (+21%!)
Halifax County: 55% Bush, 55% Allen, 63% Goode (+8%)
Henry County: 55% Bush, 57% Allen, 72% Goode (+16%!)
Lunenburg County: 55% Bush, 55% Allen, 65% Goode (+10%)
Mecklenburg County: 57% Bush, 59% Allen, 58% Goode (+0%)
Nelson County: 47% Bush, 50% Allen, 61% Goode (+12.5%)
Patrick County: 66% Bush, 66% Allen, 82% Goode (+16%!)
Pittsylvania County: 65% Bush, 66% Allen, 74% Goode (+8.5%)
Prince Edward County: 51% Bush, 51% Allen, 54% Goode (+3%)
Bedford City: 52% Bush, 51% Allen, 68% Goode (+16.5%)
Charlottesville City: 31% Bush, 30% Allen, 43% Goode (+12.5%)
Danville City: 52% Bush, 52% Allen, 60% Goode (+8%)
Martinsville City: 45% Bush, 47% Allen, 64% Goode (+18%!)
Goode's old State Senate district included Franklin County (+21%), Henry County (+16%), Patrick County (+16%), and Martinsville City (+18%). These were among Goode's top crossover counties. But other impressive showings crisscrossed the district. Strong showings in the Bedford area next door to Franklin. A strong crossover in the "liberal" city of Charlottesville. And oddities I can't begin to explain like 0% in Mecklenburg (because it's in a NC media market? Home county of Democrat John Boyd?), the lowly 5% in Charlotte county (Kelley forgot to campaign?) but a strong 10% in neighboring Lunenburg.
I don't have any public polling of the 5th District from 2000, but I think we can conclude a few major points. First, Goode's over 60% showing was not because the district itself was a 60%+ Republican/conservative district. While strongly Republican for Bush and Allen, Goode's own personal appeal to independents and Democrats who voted for Al Gore and Chuck Robb was able to push him over the 60% benchmark. Second, I wonder if Goode is kicking himself for letting the legislature take out Patrick County and parts of Henry County after the 2000 redistricting. While Goode's crossover dropped significantly by the time we reach 2008, he might have pulled out a narrow victory if he had more of his old base in the 5th District.
Two years later, after redistricting, Virgil Goode defeated Charlottesville liberal Meredith Richards 63% to 36%. This is down slightly from his 2000 victory. This year, Goode openly affiliated with the Republican Party. He also didn't have the enthusiasm of a presidential election getting out the base to elect a Republican President and drag down Senator Chuck Robb. But I've hardly heard anyone argue that 2002 was a year in which Democrats benefited from an "enthusiasm" gap. It's worth noting that after redistricting, the 5th became slightly less Republican. The new 5th, which had Goode give up core supporters in Patrick and Henry to gain voters in Albemarle, Greene, and Brunswick lowered Bush's performance from 56% to 55% and increased Gore's to 41% from 40%, with a stronger showing for Ralph Nader in the district thanks to more of the suburbs of Albemarle. Given Goode's crossover in the rest of Albemarle in 2000 (less than his district wide showing) and in the more African-American counties in the Southeast (like Mecklenburg and Prince Edward), adding Albemarle and Brunswick probably reduced his overall crossover appeal across the district. Not that it mattered in 2002.
There's no polling for the 5th District race in 2004 either, but we can compare it to Bush's performance in the district. Goode won another solid victory, this time over liberal Democrat Al Weed, 64% to 36%, virtually unchanged from 2002. Bush won the district with 56% of the vote, slightly higher than what his 2000 showing in the district would have been. Kerry was able to pull back Nader voters and beat Gore's performance with 43% of the vote. Here's the comparison of Goode and Bush.
Albemarle County: 49% Bush, 50% Goode (+1%)
Appomattox County: 66% Bush, 75% Goode (+9%)
Bedford County: 67% Bush, 76% Goode (+9%)
Brunswick County: 40% Bush, 51% Goode (+11%)
Buckingham County: 53% Bush, 64% Goode (+11%)
Campbell County: 69% Bush, 76% Goode (+7%)
Charlotte County: 58% Bush, 70% Goode (+12%)
Cumberland County: 58% Bush, 65% Goode (+7%)
Fluvanna County: 59% Bush, 62% Goode (+3%)
Franklin County: 63% Bush, 75% Goode (+12%)
Greene County: 66% Bush, 69% Goode (+3%)
Halifax County: 57% Bush, 68% Goode (+11%)
Henry County: 60% Bush, 75% Goode (+15%)
Lunenburg County: 55% Bush, 68% Goode (+13%)
Mecklenburg County: 57% Bush, 66% Goode (+9%)
Nelson County: 50% Bush, 53% Goode (+3%)
Pittsylvania County: 65% Bush, 74% Goode (+9%)
Prince Edward County: 49% Bush, 57% Goode (+8%)
Bedford City: 58% Bush, 64% Goode (+6%)
Charlottesville City: 27% Bush, 29% Goode (+2%)
Danville City: 49% Bush, 58% Goode (+9%)
Martinsville City: 45% Bush, 66% Goode (+21%)
Goode's crossover from Bush is down to 8%, a slight change from the 10% in 2000. But I think the pattern has changed dramatically. Areas in the northern part of the district, such as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, and Nelson, have very small crossovers while all three were close to average in 2000. His crossover in his old State Senate district is down outside of Martinsville. Instead, Goode has expanded his crossover in the more rural parts of the district. The changes in the crossover could be caused by many factors. Goode is now the incumbent and should be expected to have the advantage across the district. Weed, based in Nelson County, probably had enough resources to devote to the campaign in the northern part of the district. But with a severe financial disadvantage, it's doubtful Weed was able to significantly reach out to voters in the Southside portion of the district.
Looking back, this is the first sign of trouble for Goode. Goode's personal appeal is on the decline and his advantage over a typical Republican seems to be based on a generic advantage as the better financed incumbent. If a Democrat with real resources were able to run against Goode they could cut his crossover appeal down to zero. That would leave him hanging onto the core of Republican voters, around 56% of the district in the period from 2000 to 2004--several good election cycles for Virginia Republicans. What would happen if you combined a good Democratic year with a Democrat with resources?
Stay tuned for 2006 and beyond . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)