« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Gerry Connolly (D, VA) concedes VA in 2012.

Shocking. I mean that literally: the control chip must have shorted out, or something. Representative Connolly finally admitted something that we all already knew: forget about what the 2008 map looked like. This is going to be a 2004 election, or maybe a 2000 election:

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said if the 2012 presidential election was held today, President Barack Obama wouldn’t win Virginia, a state he carried in 2008.

Speaking on local Washington radio station WTOP Friday, Connolly said, “In my opinion, no, today he would not win the state.”

But, with more than a year before Election Day, Connolly said Obama still has time to regain the momentum he had in the last election.

Indeed, he has time. Whether he will have the opportunity or the ability to regain that momentum is another, much more entertaining, question.

For those wondering, the status of Virginia in the 2012 election is important largely because it will tell us a good deal about how far the President is going to slip from his 2008 total – and make no mistake about this: Barack Obama will not do better in 2012 than he did in 2008 (both nationally, and on the individual state level). If you compare the 2008 Virginia Presidential election with the 2005 Virginia gubernatorial one you’ll quickly notice that while the vote totals were dissimilar, Obama generally won in the same places that Kaine did, and at about the same percentages. Compare that to 2009, where McDonnell essentially crushed Deed, including in counties that were Democrat strongholds. What concerns the White House – or what should concern the White House – is that the 2009 results may represent a combination of “reversion to the norm” +”bad candidate:” the first would be bad enough, but given the President’s performance lately, the second may end up being a lot more applicable than the administration wants to admit.

And, truthfully: if Virginia is not really in play for the Democrats, then they’re not going to win the next election. In fact, it won’t be particularly close, either; Obama will be spending too much time fighting in formerly safe areas like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (and trying not to lose more ground there) to concentrate on holding territory like Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Ohio… and the way that the map’s looking, Obama needs to keep those states, too. All of them, and not just for the electoral votes: three out of four of them have critical Senatorial elections in 2012, and the fourth (NC) has a governorship up for grabs.

In other words: Connolly’s right that it’s early days yet, but he’s also right in admitting that Obama’s in deep trouble in Virginia. Which, by the way, means that so is Gerry Connolly…

Via @keder.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

 

COMMENTS

  • Xasteius

    of false security…

    Operative phrase:

    But, with more than a year before Election Day, Connolly said Obama still has time to regain the momentum he had in the last election.

    or smear his opponent into oblivion.

  • benko

    Why stop doing something that often works so well?

    And isn’t that one of the Saul Alinsky’s ways of getting things done?

  • jb13

    I also worry that, in addition to a false sense of complacency, Democrats aren’t intentionally trying to make Barack Obama look more beatable than he is.

    Why would they do this?

    Consider: At this point, there are no people in the country more fired-up about the election next year than conservatives. As a result, we are more likely than not going to nominate a conservative in the GOP, perhaps Rick Perry or someone politically similar.

    This will no doubt cause much consternation and hand-wringing among the “smart Republicans” who care if the media actually takes them seriously. So, they will then be presented with a choice: 1) Accept the conservative nominee, and work with us to defeat Obama. Or 2) Launch a 3rd party independent candidacy for president using Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Donald Trump, Michael Bloomberg, etc.

    Of course, if the election looks like it might be close (meaning Obama is running above 40 percent in the approvals and is strong enough to be a contender in the swing states), the public pressure to not do this would be immense, as it would be obvious that such a move would only ensure Obama’s reelection.

    But IF Obama looks like the weakest presidential incumbent anyone has ever seen, and IF they believe they could make the national race into a contest between moderates and conservatives, instead of Republican vs. Democrat, I would not be surprised one bit if they jumped ship and entered their own horse into the derby.

    The thinking would be obvious: If they believe they can get enough support from dissatisfied Democrats, and enough support from moderate Republicans, they can piece together 30-40 percent of the vote in November. So long as the conservative Republican nominee (in this case, say, Perry) brings in 30 percent of the vote, in theory, it could work.

    In practice, of course, we know how it would end: With the “smart Republicans” giving Obama his only sure-fire path to reelection, as the Democrats, like good little drones, get behind the First Black President in American History and his promises of dancing unicorns, free love and manna from heaven from now until time immemorial (or perhaps motivated by fear of the “Iranian-style theocrat whack-job Republicans.” Either way, same result.)

    And that is why we need to be constantly on guard. They tried it in Florida when they believed the Democrat was irrelevant. And we need to make sure they don’t try it again.

    Because, if Obama looks THAT beatable, they just could.

  • victrola

    It just had a brief affair with Democrats pretending they were Blue Dogs. I predict Obama loses Virginia by just under 10 points.

    Whoever we nominate, the Red States are going to be then “reddest” they’ve ever been, and the entire South will go for the GOP, including Florida.

    The real battleground states will be Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. Obama has to win all of these to become President, Republicans just have to peel off one or two battleground states and it’s over.

    The electoral map really favors Republicans.

  • Scope

    Northern VA is the most populated part of the state, and they do vote in big numbers, and they are as liberal as it gets, being a spitting distance to Washington.

    Republicans have been doing very well in state or local elections. They do not have a lock on US Senate seats. Kaine will be very competitive, and whatever R candidate runs against him will have to work hard for that seat. So far the only R candidate challenging him, that has a chance to send him into retirement is George Allen.

    Sorry EE, that is the reality on the ground. I’ll take Allen over Kaine in a heartbeat.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …than he did a national DNC one.

    On second thought, ignore that, Timmy. Do it precisely the same way thIs time.

  • Danielle Davis (ocleverone)

    we’ll have to see what his district ends up looking like after redistricting.

  • victrola

    The last few Senate seats have gone blue because of unique circumstances IMO , like an ultra wealthy Democrat (Warner) that basically ran as an independent with no real competition. Then Allen lost to Webb in 2006 by less than 1 point in a wave election to a Navy admiral that also ran as a Democrat in name only (and Allen had a campaign basically implode over macaca nonsense)

    To me, the way to really judge a state is on the Presidential level, and in “non wave” elections, Bush won the state twice by nearly double digits. Obama is going to have incredible headwinds this time around, to say the least.

    Doesn’t mean we should get cocky, but I wouldn’t want to be a Democrat on Virginias ballot in 2012.

  • toothpick

    I would start with the (Occam’s razor?) explanation that any comments made by Connolly are made because it serves his interest to do so. How might these comments serve his interests?

    - Put some “distance” between him and Obama, both operationally and on principles, to set the stage for a “centrist” campaign
    - Make the R’s overconfident so they won’t fight hard for the state
    - Send a message to Obama that he’d like O to tack center, or at least change his approach to make it more appealing to people who realize O’s policies have failed spectacularly (i.e. people with IQ over room-temp and who are not on the gov’t dole)
    - As jb13 suggests, make it more likely that a 3rd party candidate will jump in and split the R vote

    These are the ones I can think of off-hand, but there might be more.

  • EricB

    …then Obama isn’t going to be re-elected.

    Obama must win Virginia, Ohio, or Florida to win re-election. Put a southerner like Perry on the ballot, and Florida and Virginia will be that much more in GOP hands.

    It might all come down to Ohio, which is a state that isn’t that friendly to Obama.

    I don’t think Michigan will be going red in 2012 unless it’s a landslide. It’s not really a swing state. Our chances are better in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. Those states aren’t necessary to win though.

    Even Florida isn’t as much of a swing state anymore. It leans Republican. If we win Ohio and Virginia, we win.

  • freemanja1991

    ceded his own district as well?

  • neomom

    but not impossible for Obama to keep NC. He barely won here in 2008 – well within the margin of fraud. And his lapdog Governor here has vetoed Voter ID. Neither Obama or Perdue are doing well in polls, but we aren’t taking any of that for granted.

    They will be pumping a lot of money in, starting with the DNC convention next year to try and regain the momentum.