Senate:
Chap!, John Miller, Ralph Northam, George Barker, Janet Oleszek, and Al Pollard win. And maybe Mike Breiner and Karen Schultz too.
House:
Eric Ferguson, Margi Vanderhye, Paul Nichols, Jay Donahue, and Adam Tomer win. And maybe Rex Simmons, Chris Brown, Bobby Mathieson and Jeannette Rishell too.
UPDATE: We got the Senate! So I may have been a little over-exuberant but Chap, Miller, Northam, and Barker were the winners. Janet appears to be a painful hair short. As for the House, it’s a mixed bag- we got the Vanderhye and Nichols seats as well as the Mathieson seat and the totally unexpected Bouchard victory. But on the other hand we lost Ferguson! Who would have thought that?
About a month out, here’s where I think things stand in the State Senate. (incumbents underlined, projected winners in bold)
Likely Turnover
34th District – Chap Petersen OVER Jeannemarie Devolites Davis
1st District – John Miller OVER Tricia Stall
Leans Turnover 39th District – George Barker OVER Jay O’Brien
6th District – Ralph Northam OVER Nick Rerras
37th District – Janet Oleszek OVER Ken Cuccinelli
Toss-Up 29th District – Chuck Colgan vs. Bob Fitzsimmonds
27th District – Jill Holtzman Vogel vs. Karen Schultz
Leans Retention 28th District – Richard Stuart OVER Al Pollard
22nd District – Ralph Smith OVER Mike Breiner
Likely Retention
13th District – Fred QuayleOVER Steve Heretick
33rd District – Mark HerringOVER Patricia Phillips
20th District – Roscoe Reynolds OVER Jeff Evans
17th District – Edd Houck OVER Chris Yakabouski
Keep in mind that these are the 13 even remotely competitive races. If Breiner and Heretick win, the Republican party will really line up the circular firing squad. You may want to get your popcorn ready.
Up until a few weeks ago if asked I would have said that Ken Cuccinelli had run the strongest campaign among the endangered Republican incumbents this year. With the exception of one serious misstep Ken had controlled the terms of the debate in his re-elect. By separating Janet from her affiliation with the successful Fairfax County Public School system he had been making the best effort at caricaturing her into an impossible choice. But now he has not only reminded voters of her role with the schools but has insisted on a terrible and stupid strategy of attacking the schools themselves. And he’s fallen right into Janet’s outstanding narrative.
So yeah, I’m finishing up my last year of law school, taking a couple classes, representing a criminal defendant in Rockville for Criminal Justice Clinic, working part-time at a firm in Fairfax, trying to keep up with some Democratic party duties, and all the while we’re going to have a baby any day now. Those are my excuses.
But I found a few minutes this morning and I’d like to riff off of something Ben posted this morning. Ben has posted his early predictions for the legislative elections and they look awfully weird to me. They’re weird because all the talk I’ve heard and all the polling I’ve seen indicate that this election is shaping up as a wave. It’s clear that Ben is not reading this election as a wave. In fact, his prediction has barely changed in months. Sure- his predictions point to a successful year for Democrats, but nothing spectacular. A wave is something different. A wave is when bad candidates, vastly outmatched candidates, and candidates in awful districts, win. A wave brings in not only those toss-up competitive races in Democratic-trending districts with sufficiently financed candidates that Ben didn’t include like Barker and Janet, it also sweeps in people like Donahue, Brown, Pollard, Del Toro, Brennan, Rishell, Martinez, Bouchard and Schultz.
That phrase is going to be heard a lot between now and election day. Why? Because it truly represents the screwy compromise that is this transportation bill and, even more, it epitomizes the screwy ideology that rules the roost in Richmond. The weird public policy results directly from the fact that the decision-makers – people like Ken Cuccinelli, Jay O’Brien, and Jeannemarie Devolites-Davis – are beholden to a narrow ideological set that demands fealty to the catechism of weakened government and “no new taxes”.
Of course, these fantasy-land agendas clearly don’t pan out in reality (or we would have NO transportation legislation). I wrote earlier about the Cuccinelli and O’Brien apostasy against the Norquist cult. So, in their cheap effort to disguise that apostasy yet cling to electability, we’re left with a bill that is more concerned with political appearances and CYA than with rational, stable, and transparent funding.
At the event I mentioned in the last post I also got to talk to Creigh. Strangely enough he recognized me and appropriately, (if not accurately) in his role with the Senate Democratic Caucus, exhorted me to support all of our State Senate candidates including George Barker. (I assured him that I have consistently been resolved to do my part to make sure we win all these State Senate races. Primaries are important, if temporarily divisive, but at the end of the day we’ve all got the same goal.)
I’ve got to say I was impressed with Creigh for picking me out of a lineup. This small proof that the modest Deeds has some pretty good raw political skills, combined with his highly amusing, self-deprecating interview with the Ditzocrats has Creigh’s stock rising. He’s still got a good ways to go to trump Brian Moran with me, but I am pleasantly surprised. Sure would like to see them work something out.
Will It Be A Wave?
September 17, 2007So yeah, I’m finishing up my last year of law school, taking a couple classes, representing a criminal defendant in Rockville for Criminal Justice Clinic, working part-time at a firm in Fairfax, trying to keep up with some Democratic party duties, and all the while we’re going to have a baby any day now. Those are my excuses.
But I found a few minutes this morning and I’d like to riff off of something Ben posted this morning. Ben has posted his early predictions for the legislative elections and they look awfully weird to me. They’re weird because all the talk I’ve heard and all the polling I’ve seen indicate that this election is shaping up as a wave. It’s clear that Ben is not reading this election as a wave. In fact, his prediction has barely changed in months. Sure- his predictions point to a successful year for Democrats, but nothing spectacular. A wave is something different. A wave is when bad candidates, vastly outmatched candidates, and candidates in awful districts, win. A wave brings in not only those toss-up competitive races in Democratic-trending districts with sufficiently financed candidates that Ben didn’t include like Barker and Janet, it also sweeps in people like Donahue, Brown, Pollard, Del Toro, Brennan, Rishell, Martinez, Bouchard and Schultz.
Will it be a wave? My thinking right now is yes.
Posted in 21-51, commentary | 5 Comments »