Virginia: Bush 48% Kerry 45% (within margin of error)

[WI_DEM]

Four years ago Chimpy W. Bush won Virginia by a solid nine-points over Al Gore, but today--he is running essentially even with John Kerry--in a state democrats have not carried since 1964 (or did Clinton win it once?).

Rasmussen just released its statewide poll and 48% favor the Chimp compared to 45% favoring Kerry--and this was prior to the Edwards selection.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

Also released were results from Michigan--another battleground too close to call. 46% favor Kerry and 44% favor Bush.

[Doosh]

1. Clinton never won Virginia

finished 2pts behind Dole in 1996 and 4 points behind Bush Sr. in 1992.

[Zynx]

5. He never tried to win it.

[classof56]

2. I keep coming back to this...

Will somebody PLEASE 'splain to me how any reasonable, rational, thinking, cognizant human being on the planet could vote for Bush?? A complete disconnect from reality, maybe? The "I'm not with Stupid, I AM Stupid" factor?

I know...wishful thinking to believe otherwise, but it just boggles my mind that anyone would support this miserable excuse for a man. I know there's the high probability that he will win the election by cheating, stealing, bribing, deception, whatever means it will take, but I continue to pray that won't happen.

Some days it's so hard to keep the faith!

Tired Old Cynic

[Cocoa]

3. tax cuts

plus bigotry (race, sexual orientation), fear of terrorists, the desire to kick ass around the world.

Not a big mystery to me, there are a lot of greedy people, ignorant people and assholes out there.

[classof56]

9. Well, when you put it that way...

I know you're right, of course. But I just hafta keep wondering and asking the question. Wish someone who's going to vote for Dubya would be honest enough to articulate what you just said--as in, "Because I'm a racist bigot who buys into the 'terrorist threat' crap, I love giving tax cuts to the obscenely wealthy, I want the superior USofA to kick ass around the world, no matter what the cost in money and lives, and oh, by the way I'm a greedy, ignorant asshole." THEN I guess I'd have to holler uncle and give it up. Let's just hope we outnumber them!! You've given me some pointers on how to frame my question, though. Thanks!

[quaoar]

11. Oh, I think

That a large number of the folks down here (Alabama) who voted for Bush, Reagan, Jeff Sessions, etc., think of the Democratic Party as the people who care about blacks and gays and raising taxes and giveaway programs to deadbeat minorities and taking God out of the public schools and gun control. When they think of the Democratic Party they think of Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson and Barney Frank.

And the Republican Party has carefully cultivated that perception over the years. LBJ was right when he said, after signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that he had just lost the South for the party.

If it wasn't for racism, the Republican Party would be a mere shadow of itself today.

[spooky3]

12. I agree--just drove to Tidewater, had to make several stops

There are LOTS of people like this here and elsewhere. It is truly scary to be jolted again with that. I think a lot of it results from ignorance, but some of it seems to be that they cope with their reality in a different way than (speaking only for myself) I do. They believe what they desperately want to be true, rather than face the reality and problem-solve. That is how Bush and friends, and liars like Bill O and Rush, prey on them.

It is scary to see so many of them, but I think if Kerry-Edwards can spend a lot of time shaking hands, that will help, but will be a costly campaign strategy. I believe this because I think most of these people really are not paying attention to Senate votes, stances, achievements, etc. Many vote for who seems like a great guy, a family man, to them. And we know Edwards projects that well, and I suspect Kerry does better at that than he is given credit for.

[displacedyankeedem]

4. There's also the "My Daddy voted Republican.....

...so I'm voting Republican too" vote. It's pretty common here in the South. Political inertia as if it were.

[flaminbats]

6. Now I understand why Kerry picked Edwards...

he could be the first Democratic nominee to be competitive in Virginia since L.B.J. and Truman..

[tritsofme]

7. Same poll has * with 54% approval

and with a MoE of 5%, I think that Virginia will end up in the red camp.

[JHBowden]

8. Oh yeah!

This state will probably stay red, but the Repigs now must fork over some $$$$ for it.

[oasis]

10. Give F9/11 a little more time to circulate.Folks will be ashamed to openly

support Dumbya.

[mdguss]

13. Virginia is becoming a southern Pennsylvania:

First, I've worked in Virginia. Warner won the 2001 Governor's election and in 2003, Democrats actually gained seats in the House and Senate. It was the first time they had done that since the early 70's. The Republicans had tried to say Democrats=higher taxes (in 2003, they plastered these signs all over the place), but in the end they went along with Warner's tax plan because the public saw through the it, and supported gaining revenue to fund things like police and fire departments.

Virginia is a winnable state for the Democrats, and it is slowly trending towards the Democratic Party for a few reasons. First, there's rapid growth in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. Ironically, the Republicans generally support this growth, while Democrats generally oppose it (of course there are a few in each party that buck the norm). The growth is bringing government workers, more Democratic-leaning people who've lived in D.C. or Maryland, more minorities and more social moderates into the commonwealth. Northern Virginia--especially in the Arlington/Alexanderia area is almost an urban area. Richmond is a solidly Democratic city. Norfolk/Hampton Roads is another major urban center--but it's the home of Jerry Falwell and is a very conservative place. In the past, Richmond and Norfolk would offset each other and the conservative rural voters would decide the state in favor of the Republicans.

Warner won in 2001 because he managed to get the rural voters to vote for him. He did that by spending a lot of time in the rural areas of western and southwestern Virginia. He went to the diners and family farms of the area, and he convinced them that it was in there economic interest to vote for him. Democrats can win in Virginia with that kind of time and labor intensive approach. The Democrats gained seats in 2003 largely because of northern Virginia trending to the Democratic side.

But, nationally, Warner's approach probably doesn't translate. Still, as northern Virginia trends Democratic, Norfolk will have a hard time offsetting Richmond. The day will come when northern Virginia and Richmond are Democratic enough--like Pittsburgh and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania--to carry the state for a Democrat. Virginia will never be an easy win for a Democrat because of Norfolk/Hampton Roads.

It's possible that Kerry/Edwards could win in Virginia. They'd have to have a good get-out-the-vote operation in northern Virginia--despite its status as the suburbs there are many working class folks down the I-95 and Route-66 corridors--and in Richmond. They'd have to buy tv ads--which is a pricey proposition because northern Virginia is in the extremely expensive Washington market, where they're paying for exposure to the total Democratic locks of D.C. and Maryland.

If they have enough money to run a solid campaign in Virginia, it might be worth it. But chances of vicotry there are probably only in the 30 to 40 percent range. They might be better off with trying to win Arkansas and Louisana. Edwards helps with the rural voters--but to truly get them to vote for Kerry/Edwards, they'd have to spend a fair amount of time out there on their farms.