8:54 EDT [Ed]: A few other random notes are in order before we turn off the liveblog and spend a little time mulling over deeper thoughts for posting tomorrow. With 88% of the precincts reporting, and a lot of those still out in high-population areas like Fairfax and Richmond, 266,000 votes have been cast in this primary, over the 250k most often predicted. Looks like PPP's "high" estimate of 300,000 votes could be close to right.
And maybe it doesn't matter that much except for the pride of the participants, but it's still not clear who will finish second behind Deeds. At the moment, McAuliffe's running just under 7,000 votes ahead of Moran. Of the precincts still out, the biggest blocs are in Fairfax, where Moran's been running about eight points ahead of McAuliffe; in the City of Richmond, where their positions are reversed; and in Roanoke, in a region where Moran has been running very poorly. Unless the Fairfax numbers are very big, looks like McAuliffe will probably hold onto the consolation prize, such as it is.
8:37 EDT [Nate]: Well, I think both parties are going to go into November with a candidate they're feeling pretty happy about. And the stakes are fairly high: given Virginia's newfound status as a swing state, whomever wins is a decent bet to make a VP short list in 2012 or 2016.
8:24 EDT [Ed]: So in addressing the three analytical factors I posed last night in anticipation of this primary, you'd have to say that: (1) yes, the Persuasion camp in the Persuasion-versus-Mobilization debate on how to win low-turnout primaries got a nice talking point for the future, since there was no Deeds Machine in sight today, while the highly-organized Moran and McAuliffe GOTV efforts missed most of their marks; (2) no, you can't chalk it all up to the Washington Post endorsement, given the margin of Deeds' win and its breadth, far beyond the DC media market (though the endorsement was a good momentum generator); and (3) no, the race wasn't at all close enough for Virginia's relatively restrictive early voting rules to matter.
8:15 EDT [Ed]: If I were Bob McDonnell, I wouldn't be real happy about tonight's results. Deeds showed no real regional weaknesses, and with all due consideration of the problems that Moran and McAuliffe caused themselves and each other, it does look like the Bath County senator knows how to run a campaign. The win was decisive enough that there shouldn't be too many hard feelings among Democrats, and Deeds will get some nice media buzz. And let's don't forget that Deeds basically tied McDonnell in the AG race four years ago, despite being outspent. The first couple of head-to-head polls between Deeds and McDonnell should be very interesting.
8:00 EDT [Nate]: This really is looking like a collapse of Howard Dean in Iowa proportions for McAuliffe; he had the lead just two weeks ago and now he's about to lose by 20+ points. Just for fun, here's another version of the Iowa polling in 2004, this one generously provided to 538 by Ann Selzer of top-ranked polling firm Selzer & Co.
7:50 EDT [Ed]: With the votes now pouring in, Creigh Deeds is winning in nine of Virginia's eleven congressional districts (Moran narrowly leads in the 8th on the strength of his Alexandria performance, but the lead probably won't hold, and McAuliffe leads narrowly in the 3d, with Richmond still out). This is quite a statewide victory for Deeds.
7:45 EDT [Nate]: OK, the 538 decision desk is calling this one for R. Creigh Deeds. Almost half the vote is in, and although we're a little bit light on turnout from areas like Richmond, neither Moran nor McAuliffe is doing anywhere near as well as they'd need to to make up for Deeds' large advantage. It's really a battle for second place at this point.
7:38 EDT [Ed]: Very bad signs for Brian Moran. He's winning Alexandria handily, but Deeds is beating him in Arlington, Fairfax, Loudon and Fauquier by big margins. And McAuliffe isn't doing well at all in NoVa so far.
7:29 EDT [Nate]: Below is a map of Virginia's Congressional Districts; you can see the results as they come in by CD here.
7:20 EDT [Nate]: Deeds' strength in the rural part of the state is overwhelming -- we don't have many results in from NoVa yet but I don't know I see how McAuliffe gets enough votes there to make up for Deeds' huge margins elsewhere in the state, particularly with Moran eating into some of the NoVa vote.
7:18 EDT [Ed]: Took a quick look at the official returns page, and the early precincts are mostly in Deeds' base area: Staunton and vicinity. His statewide lead was significantly diminished by a single precinct from Henrico coming in for T-Mac.
7:15 EDT [Nate]:Wow -- just 20 precincts in, but Deeds has a very early lead of 67% to T-Mack's 18%. See for yourself here.
7:00 EDT [Ed]. The polls are about to close throughout Virginia, so we'll be having some commentary and analysis from the 538 crew as the results come in.
6.09.2009
Virginia Gubernatorial Primary Live Blog
@ 6:58 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments
FIRST!
Why did it take so long to project the VA winner in the general election, nearly 4 hours, when Obama beat McCain by healthy 6.30 margin.
Too add to my last comment, Ohio was projected FAST, and Obama beat McCain by a 4.6 margin.
And gawd, who could forget how long it took for all the ballots to come in, in the George Allen-Jim Webb race.
The tallied votes often are skewed and not reflective of the whole state - I imagine that was the reason for the 2008 delay.
Was there any exit polling for this? I doubt the media paid for it, meaning it will take actual results and expert analysis of these to ascertain a projection.
Faifax is very slow because of the method in place to effectively triple-check precinct poll numbers before they are officially posted. It's a big county, 1.1 million people or so. It was put in place a few years ago to try and prevent any mistakes on the vote count.
Can anyone recommend the best site for checking live results as they come in?
The site I always use is the virginia.gov site, found at https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/Election/Data/2009/B19D959E-A4DD-4C27-BC08-30C8F2FF2F92/Unofficial/2_s.shtml
Right now we have 11 votes in. Exciting stuff!
For those of us who haven't paid enough attention can we get a quick synopsis of Deeds and Moran? I know McAuliffe is a jerk from the 2008 election.
Well, the first two Arlington precincts are in, and Deeds has 47.47%. Park Lane and Rosslyn are not exactly hotbeds of conservative activity either. The general perception is that if Deeds pulls 25% in Fairfax/Arlington/Alexandria, he's in decent shape. If he pulls 30%, he's in easy.
Ed, which precinct is yours over in Arlington?
Two precincts in liberal NOVA Arlington Virginia also have an overwhelming lead for Deeds. This race is over. Deeds has won.
Here's the quickiest synopsis I can give:
Brian Moran: Former delegate from Northern Virginia (NOVA). Brother is Congressman Jim Moran. Has been trying to position himself as the most liberal of the candidates. Was considered the slight front runner at the very beginning.
Creigh (Pronounced Cree) Deeds: State Senator from Bath County; one of the most rural parts of the state. Considered the most moderate of the candidates and arguably the most viable candidate.
In regards to the race itself. Most of the race was considered a two man race with McAulieffe and Moran polling very closely and Deeds trailing behind. A few weeks ago, the Washington Post gave a surprising endorsement of Deeds and he gained a huge wave of momentum. The last few polls have showed Deeds taking a commanding lead with the Moran falling rapidly in the polls. Most argue this can be somewhat deceptive as the turnout rate was never expected to be good.
How will that do?
I voted for Deeds....and I convinced and changed the minds of ten other people to vote for him all in the tenth district!!! So wohooooo go Deeds!!
The last poll I can find on this was a SurveyUSA one yesterday, which had it has Deeds 42%, McAuliffe 30%, Moran 21%. Deeds appears to have taken all of the undecided vote, and some of McAuliffe's. Granted it's 33% reporting, but it's looking like it's going to be Deeds vs. McDonnell in the fall.
I'm still a bit excited for the Lt. Gov. race between Jody Wagner and Mike Signe. They're remarkably similar and I think both would do a great job, but I'm hoping Signer wins based more or less on sheer enthusiasm. Unfortunately for him, though, Wagner has 735 of the vote with 33% of the precincts reporting.
So you Deeds fans, from an out-of-state-r, what's so great about him?
(All I know is why I was hoping McAuliffe lost, and as of two weeks ago, it looked like Moran was most likely to do that by taking Deeds voters. Guess I was way off the margin)
Nick: Because he has the best chance at beating McDonnell and he's not a carpetbagger like McAuliffe (which is what a lot of people consider him to be). I would love to support Moran, but he could never hope to win in a state like Virginia.
@Jenny
I think it comes down to how fast the ballots are counted, and what areas they're coming from. If you're getting roughly a representative sample of ballots being counted, i.e. not just from one candidates stronghold, it makes you much more confident in calling a state. So what probably happened was that VA results were coming in lopsided and not getting a full picture of what was happening in the state as a whole, while OH was putting out the results more comprehensively of the entire state.
Deeds appears to follow the formula set by Webb, Warner, and Kaine to a tee. He is a moderate Democrat. He will get 100% support from the Democrats in the state and attract a good number of independents and conservatives. Moran probably would not have been as successful getting Virginia independents and conservatives. McAuliffe should have never ran.
Moran vs Deeds straight up in a campaign, I'm not sure who would have won.
Why is Creigh Deeds awesome? http://creighdeedsfacts.blogspot.com/
Also, why is Moran doing so badly on his home turf? Excepting his brother's CD, he's down double-digits from Deeds all over NoVa. Could the WaPo have really been that important, or the weather really that bad?
Thanks Mark.
It's funny, but after Obama, Kaine, Webb, Warner, Warner, etc., I've come to think of Virginia as a "blue" state, while considering my home of Montana a "red" state.
In reality, they seem much alike (albeit MT doesn't have a suburban metropolis like northern Virginia). While Montana has large rurual areas, it has a Democratic governor, two Democratic senators, a competative state legislature; all of which have come about in recent years, and are separated from the national party.
And here in Montana democrats know you have to have a moderate to win.
Deeds is very well liked here on the blue island that is the people's republic of Charlottesville, who he's represented well in the state senate since 2001 (he replaced the late Emily Couric). He might run right of this constituency on some issues, but he's been an effective legislator and advocate for the issues that count here. So it's not just rural and southwest. Glad to see the results bearing that out, too.
For those of us that are numerically challenged, WaPost has a map with pretty colors showing the primary votes.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2009/elections/va/governor/1307/?hpid=topnews
Antmatic: "Moran vs Deeds straight up in a campaign, I'm not sure who would have won."
If results continue the way the are going, it looks like Deeds could pull of a 50%+1 victory, very rare in a competative 3-way race.
Ironically, I was frustrated at the process (plurality to win, rather than majority) early on when it looked like Moran and Deeds would split the "non-McAuliffe" vote. Of course, then, it looked like Moran was ahead in the polls and Deeds should drop out. Luckily, I'm not a Virginia political consultant.
Arlington is done except for absentees and Creigh wins with a bit over 48% Amazing.
The Post called it for Deeds.
Nate,
Your Iowa 2004 comparison is a little worrysome. I was an early John Kerry supporter (like December 2003, when he had 5% support nationally), but he became a much less interesting candidate (i.e. lost his backbone) when he become the frontrunner and then the nominee.
Obviously, McAuliffe would have been a disaster in the general election, but Deeds' strong support does not guarantee a strong showing in the fall (although it does suggest one).
Rather than destructing/deflating due to attacks at the end, or even a larger profile of an opponent, politicians like McAuliffe or Dean may be able to get supporters, but when decision time comes, people can't see themselves pulling the lever.
nice work, nate and ed.
Next time, when the 538 decision desk calls the vote, use your twitter account. you beat politico by 20 min, and most twitter breaking news by 30!
Totally OT but while I've had my eyes on the VA prim tabs was I the only one failing to notice the Supreme's released a brief unsigned opinion refusing the appeal and clearing the way for Chrysler --> Fiat, et. al.?
Nick (this is from another Mark): Deeds first of all has the best chance of winning. He lost the attorney general race in 2005 by 323 votes to guess who? Bob McDonnell! What does that prove?! First he lost when Virginia was purple maybe slightly red (I now consider it a little bit the the left of center). He was also outspent by McDonnell two to one!!! Two to one in a slightly red state by 323 votes out of about five million votes. So he is probably the person who has the biggest chance aganst McDonnell for starters. Second, he has expereince as a delegate and a state senator for a rural county for about two decades!!!!! Thirdly and lastly, he is open minded and has views that I believe. He is a moderate, and a conservative on gun rights (he owns a pistol and shotgun). He is pro-choice. And liberal on a lot of the other issues. He has always played fair in politics. And is a nice guy. The Washington post said that in there endorsement of him. He is best to continue the Kaine, Warner tradition and transition. Overall, he is the best candidate.
P.S. McAullife is an exagerater
P.S.S. Moran changed his views for political gain (said he supported gay marriage in the end of the primary probably because he was losing ground......)
Oops I made some mistakes in my summary i mean P.P.S instead of P.S.S....and I spelled a few words wrong. Whatever.
I'm glad this is turning from a story about Terry McAuliffe (at least to the national press) to one about Deeds.
Tomorrow's papers will be about a strong candidate who ran a good campaign, rather than a man who generally lived out of state (really, lets call him a carpetbagger) and leveraged his political connections into a governorship (or a chance at one, which it looks now like he would have likely lost).
It's a good day for the Democratic party, a better day for Virginia, and best of all for the democratic process.
p.p.s.s. It looks as if McAuliffe is going to get 2nd (although there may be some northern votes hiding somewhere). Too Bad.
Rather than comparing this outcome to Iowa 2004, I'd suggest comparing it to the 1992 Wisconsin Senatorial Democratic Primary. Russ Finegold shocked two well-funded opponents, winning w/70% after polling in the teens shortly beforehand...
"whomever wins is a decent bet to make a VP short list in 2012 or 2016.
"
Is Joe Biden going somewhere?
@Charlie
2012 for McDonnell
2016 for Deeds
> Is Joe Biden going somewhere?
I like Joe, but I hope Obama picks someone else. Someone that can win POTUS in 2016.
The closest, although not perfect, comparison I can think of is the 2004 Illinois Senate seat.
Dan Hynes (Brian Moran) was the initial establishment favorite. He led in most of 2003, but could never could wrap things up. Then came a wealthy candidate Blair Hull, who promised to spend $40 million of his own money, and spend he did. After months of ads, Hull finally took the lead in late 2003 and January and February of 2004. Then came a bombshell in late Feb 2004, with some nasty information in his divorce files. Hull soon fell like a rock.
It was about that point that a third candidate started to take off. Until March 2008, this candidate was in the teens and his support primarily limited to black and progressive communities. But Hull's collapse and some endorsements caused many people to take another look (or for many a first look), and the momentum grew. This third candidate ended up winning with 53% of the vote.
Turnout will be about 320K--very good considering the severe weather, and the general lack of interest. For the fall, the trick for Democrats is to play the expectations game--the Republicans are expected to win both races, and should do so easily. That way, if Deeds wins (Corzine is a lost cause in NJ), it's a big win for the Democrats. I don't think they're up to the task of this.
Terry McAuliffe ran a New York campaign, and Virginia is not New York.
I think VA made the right choice and elected and electable candidate for the fall. McCauliff just seemed like a political operative and not really a leader.
Now, he's 0-2 too at winning. I imagine he's gonna take a break for a while.
ONLY 0-2? You must have forgotten 2002 and 2004. Make that 0-4 (or 0-5 if you count congressional and presidential elections seperately).
Any Virginians out there, did McAuliffe being so obviously a Hillary guy last year make a difference in the Primary? I get the feeling that, for want of a better term, the 'Obama wing' of the party is fairly well plugged into purple areas like VA. I get the feeling that the 'Hillary wing' plays well in blue areas, but is always going to struggle in socially moderate places like VA.
The wider point at the moment being that the GOPs concentration on social issues has allowed the Dems to moderate some social positions and seem more inclusive (Casey on abortion, any number of westerners on Guns as examples) whilst remaining essentially liberal. The liberalism has never played badly in border areas, the social liberalism has caused more problems for the Democratic Party in the South.
Never been a big Terry McAuliffe anyway. I'm glad the good people of Virginia voted him out.
The better man won.
Obviously Deeds' strength in the primary was his popularity in the boondocks, and generally a democrat is going to do better in NOVA. So why is he trailing so much in the polls? I would actually have expected not just a Deeds lead in the race at this point, but a comfortable lead at that.
As far as the mention that the winner might be a veep candidate in 2012 or 2016, I think Jim Webb is also a very likely consideration there.
Post a Comment