So tomorrow is the big day for Kaine and Kilgore, who do you think will win the election and why? Kaine is only ahead by 1%. It is VERY close and I am just interested to see who thinks will be the next Virginia GOvernor?

I initially thought Kilgore would win but he was hammered in the debates and Kaine has been steadily leading for the past few weeks after Kilgore launched an ad in which it featured a man who said that Kaine wouldnt support the death penalty even for Adolph Hitler. Kaine who is against the death penalty said he would never touch the Virginia death penalty law. The voters saw that as dirty and Kilgore has slumped ever since then.

I am picking Kaine even though he is not a moderate but a liberal. The reason is because popular democratic Gov. Mark Warner is on his side and the democrats have pulled out some names to campaign with him....Obama, Clinton etc etc. Kilgore is not too helped by Bush who has horrific approval ratings in this red state.

After all that it will be Independant Potts (who is really a republican) who will prove to be the Ralph Nader spolier for Kilgore. He will take off just enough of the vote for Kaine to win by a point or so.

So I am picking Kaine despite the fact for months that most suspected Kilgore would win.

Corzine will also beat Forrester in New Jersey by say 5-6 points tomorrow.

Kaine was announced the winner. He didn't even apparently need Potts. Bush's last minute stop did zilch for Kilgore. Kilgore had this in hand and led for months but his lack of articulation in the debates, Hitler death penalty ad and Bush photo ops were his undoing.

Warner was enough for Kaine who should be noted is not a moderate but a liberal...who was just clearly elected in this red state in which he began as the underdog.

Corzine is alos looking very strong and last I saw he was up 8 points. New Jersey polls are like that. Republicans thought Bush was going to win it in 04 even. That is just the way New Jersey polls look...this race was never really that competitive. Forrester bringing out Corzine's ex-wife at the very end to try and equate marriage with governance is what sealed over any person who was possibly on the fence for Corzine I would say.

In the end it may be an indicator for 06 but in reality what happened is that Democrats held onto two seats they already held. This is not as significant as I want it to be or as others are saying it is. Bush coming straight from S. America to be beside Kilgore (instead of touring the tornado ravaged states) I thought was just a feather in the cap fpr democrats though. To see how small his pull is now in a reliable red state.

Bloomberg probably smoked Ferrer in New York as all polls indicated but Bloomberg is a democrat anyway. Way farther to the left of Lincoln Chafee. He only switched parties to avoid the democratic primary. New York City voters realize this and despite the party affiliation this was a non partisan election because everyone and their dog knows that Bloomberg is a liberal.

for all the talk about Americans unhappiness with the status quo, that’s what people voted for last night. Republicans did well down the ticket in Virginia, but ultimately Kilgore was a bad candidate. He certainly didn’t lose because of Bush. If anything this was a repeat of the 2001 elections, which has to make Republicans hopeful going into 2006.

I think by status quo the people mean the republican leadership. A republican leadership that holds the US House, US senate, White House and the majority of Governorships and State legislatures/Assembly's in this nation.

The republican party is status quo.

Kilgore was not a weak candidate he was the Att. General hot shot who led this contest for months before he came apart in the debates.

This is also not like 2001 because Kaine unlike Warner is a liberal......not a moderate. It is also not like 2001 because Bush's numbers in Virginia as of October 18th of last month was according to this link and other polls I had seen 41% approve and 56% disaprove. This is opposed to outgoing democrat governor Mark Warner whose numbers as of Octover 27th of last month (link) were 64% approve versus 29% disaproval in Virginia.

Bush was cancer in this race because of his unpopularity in this very red state.

This is opposed to the ATT. General and Lt Gov. Posts that republican's won last night in a barely fashion against some more liberal democrats when they had been supposed to win comfortably.

In this bible region solid red state the republican party was having difficulty not with moderate democrats....but with liberal democrats. That is the difference from 01 that and Bush's now anemic approval ratings.

Plus in New Jersey Corzine despite one of the worst senator poll rankings in the nation(link) managed to blow out his republican challenger.

I really do not buy the theory that national politics has anything to do with the election of Governors, especially in Virginia and North Carolina. A Democrat presidential candidate cannot win North Carolina, but the state elects Democrats for governor almost every time. The fact the Republican AG and LG both won and received more votes than Kilgore should tell you something about the candidate.

I agree with this for the most part, though I do think a good Dem Presidential candidate (preferably from the South) could carry North Carolina if he spent some decent time here. The '92 election was a good example of how a Southern Democrat has a chance here (Clinton lost, but by a fairly narrow margin).

Virginia was less about Status Quo maintenance and more about the popularity of Mark Warner. His approval ratings were in the 80's and Kaine securely hitched his wagons to that. And the fact that Kilgore resorted to personal attacks didn't help (though I'll admit to not knowing if Kaine did as well).

This off-year election was not a referendum on the Republican leadership at the Federal level. 2006 [I]will[B] be, however. It remains to be seen if the Democratic leadership has the spine or the common sense to seize that opportunity.

I usually do not buy that governor races have national implications either I just do not agree with the 2001 comparison's. What happened in New Jersey was an outright rejection of the national republican party if you ask me though.

Corzine was not a popular senator and Forrester was Pro-choice, moderate and was even educated at an Ivy league institution. He was still blown out.

The thing I think your overlooking is that in the Virginia the Gov, Lt. Gov and Att. general races the democrats were running 3 liberals. None of them were moderates.

In addition Kaine had 51.73% of the vote and Kilgore had 46.01.....with republican state senator Potts nabbing like 2% of the vote.

For Lt Governor ® WT Bolling had 50.65 and LL Byrne had 49.16

For Att Gen. ® RF McDonell had 50.01 and RC Deeds had 49.91

What is says about Kilgore is that he was running against Gov. Warner's protege not that Kilgore (a popular Att. General) was weak. He was the best candidate Virginia could offer from the republican side unless Senator's Warner or Allen decided to step in.

I disagree, Kilgore ran one of the most negative ad campaigns I've ever seen and he turned off a lot of voters. At one point he stated that his opponent wouldn't execute Hitler (referring to his death penalty stance). I'm sorry, but when you have to mention Hitler in a debate or campaign you've lost.

No I am sorry but you cannot disagree with me. I will not allow it


Kidding.

From my perspective if I think it is true, even if it is below the belt go ahead and use it. Kilgore did not bring up Hitler by himself one of his supporter's did in an ad. Yes he played it and is ultimately responsible...sure and that hurt I just think his performance in the debates and Bush's low numbers in Virginia and Gov. Warner's high numbers is what caused Kilgore (who led for months) to eventually fall off....despite Kaine being a liberal.

I think the Hitler ad was 4rth in line of blame.

1) Warner is very popular and Kaine was his boy

2) Kaine beat him up in the debates

3) Bush has zero pull in the state...even though I do not think he cost Kilgore to lose votes....just prevented him from gaining anymore as Kilgore is more popular in Virginia then Bush.

4) The Hitler ad

smaller factors are Pott's being in the race and Clinton and Obama and other democrats pouring in late money etc etc

Put those all together and this is why conservative Virginia took a liberal democrat over a conservative Republican.....even though Warner and team raised taxes.

The problem with that order I gave is the timeline.

Bush and his low numbers and Warner and his high numbers kept the race semi-close but Kilgore was still in the lead in the early months because Virginia is conservative afterall....until the debates....where Kaine pulled even and then surpassed Kilgore......and then the Hitler ad helped solidify the victory.

Just a question… Using this logic isn't the 2001 election of Warner a bigger coup for democrats than this election. Warner became Governor when Bush was at his most popular level and he was replacing a Republican incumbent. I remember many democrats making a big deal about that election as a precursor to 04. A sitting LG replacing a popular governor of same party is hardly surprising.

Nope it isn't, but serious erosion of republican strong holds and the pickup of 5 (I think) legislature seats is something to get excited about. Kaine extended his reach into the suburbs, he did well with the military vote and he extended his reach westward into the rural areas.

If you look at it from the Dem lt. gov replaced a Dem gov perspective that is pretty deceiving, it doesn't portray what actually happened on the ground to make that possible.

If losing five seats is a “serious erosion” how about the Dems losing the L. Governorship? The biggest part of an off year election is turnout. From what I have read about republican sentiment of Kilgore, it is that the base wasn’t particularly in love with the candidate. This is not to say the Democrats will not do well in 2006, but there is nothing here that transcends local politics.

I'd suggest you join us in this thread if you want to continue that discussion. I'm not going to go through the trouble of citing the evidence again in a casual conversation thread.

I was merely pointing out that you were wrong and weren't really analyzing the race very much.