Numbers Compared

Everyone seems to want to compare Mick Staton to his neighboring Senator/supporter Ken Cuccinelli.

Ken, like Mick, first ran in a special election.  Ken, like Mick defeated a more "moderate" Republican who was considered the "better choice" to win the election.

Of course the most glaring difference is Ken won his special election 55%-45% while Mick lost his 62%-38%.

Here's a numbers comparison you might be interested in:

Ken won his caucus with 942 votes.  He went on to win his special election with 10,041 votes.  That's 9.7 additional voters per Ken caucus vote.

Staton won his caucus with 1,589 votes.  He went on to receive 7,689 votes in his special election.  That's 3.8 additional voters per Mick caucus vote.

Or we can compare total caucus turnout.

In Ken's caucus a total of 1,782 voted, and signed a pledge to the nominee.  Ken went on to win his special election with 10,041 votes.  That's 4.6 additional voters per overall caucus vote.

In Mick's caucus a total of 2,756 voted, and signed a pledge to the nominee.  Mick went on to receive 7,689 votes in his special election.  That's 1.8 additional voters per overall caucus vote.

Two different and competing theories could explain this.

1)  Mick was a weaker candidate than Ken.  Some "moderates" will argue its because he was too conservative, "conservatives" may argue it was the moderate "RINO's" who didn't support their candidate, some might argue it was local issues alone.  Either way, if this theory is true, then Ken is in no additional trouble then he was before, because the issue is Mick being a weaker candidate for whatever reason.

2)  In the four years since the Cuccinelli election, mainstream voters have gotten fed up with conservative GOP candidates.  That's basically the argument tooconservative is making this morning, and that argument is bolstered by the major drop in the numbers above in translating caucus support to the election.  If that theory is correct, Cuccinelli is an unbelievable amount of trouble.

Comments

[Jonathan]

At the Staton GOTV rally last Sunday, one of the speakers, I forgot which one, mentioned that Ken looked like a liberal in his sunglasses. Ken looking like a liberal at a conservative rally? Sounds like theory 2 is closer to the truth.

[Professor Grammar]

Than or Then?

Than is a conjunction used with comparisons. It rhymes with pan.

Then is an adverb that refers to time. It rhymes with pen.

Examples: He likes you more than me.

First you take a cup of flour, and then you sift it.

[Not Larry Sabato]

Thanks Professor Grammer. It's fixed.

Let's reflect for minute on yesterday's scintillating commentary by NLS.

He wrote this: "Turnout is light, I am going to wait to see some numbers before I call the same. I didn't get any blowout vibes when I was visiting polls, but that was in Fairfax County, not Loudoun which dominates this district."

Mark Herring won Fairfax County 67% to 33% yet our intrepid analyst did not pick up on any "blow-out vibes" while standing at the polls in his home county.

Because of this, some people I know want to call you the Helen Keller of politics. I however read her story at a young age and was moved by her perseverance. I cannot stoop that low.

[Rtwng Extrmst]

NLS,

"In the four years since the Cuccinelli election, mainstream voters have gotten fed up with conservative GOP candidates. That's basically the argument tooconservative is making this morning..."

If you have been following TC on this topic over the last week or so you will note that he consistently says "this is not about issues". He then continues, trying to group Republicans into two groups "A" and "B". In his mind "group A" is the good guys, who never stoop to party infighting and only want to serve the community.

Group B, he also sometimes refers to as "far far far right wing" and they are the "bad guys" who need to get out and be quiet because they lie and are only out for political power grabbing. I paraphrase, but that about sums it up.

On first blush, you might think he is talking about "conservative GOP candidates" as you suggest. However, if you look further, you will see that he includes none other than Chris Craddock as one of the "Group A good guys". I don't think anyone would say Chris was not a "conservative GOP candidate".

So, obviously TC's contorted logic is talking about somthing other than you suggest.

However, your question is thought provoking. I tend to believe Staton had much more to overcome than Cuccinelli. Cuccinelli will not have it easy given current trends, but then again, when did he ever have it easy? He's been primaried twice and defeated two strong Dem opponents.

Cuccinelli is a much different political animal than either Black or Staton. He has a record on a wide variety of issues important to GOP voters, and he will have the power of incumbancy, something that only Black lost in NOVA that I can think of. Black elicited utter hatred in his community from a large segment even within his own party. I am not aware of this same disadvantage for Cuccinelli.

[Virginia Centrist]

Wrong.

There are plenty of Republicans who hate Cuccinelli.

And for Democrats, he's ENEMY #1.

But hey - the Fairfax GOP is pretty strong right now. So you're probably right, Cuccinelli's safe.

Ken Cuccinelli is smarter and a better campaigner than Mick Staton. He will not be very mcuh trouble at all.

I also have a pet theory:

Republicans are going to get killed by voters across the nation in 2006 - the landscape will be littered with former Republican office holders.

However, by 2007, voters may have gotten enough of their some of their anxiety out of their system. These Virginia legislative Republicans may not face as intense a backlash.

[Rtwng Extrmst]

VC,

I never said he was safe. If he were to think that way he most definitely will lose. I just don't think the same dynamic is in place for him as was for Black and Staton. There is over a year and a half til the next election. We will see what the Fairfax GOP looks like by then and what is important in the minds of voters.

the comment two up sounds like chris craddock.

so chris, you say this unbiased?

I heard you were running for Chairman of the GOP is this true?

BEN- Why don't you challenge Cuccinelli?

[Freddie]

At the Cuccinelli caucus, his opponent, Mike Thompson Sr., was endorsed by Phyllis Schlafly. Both candidates tried to flank each other on the right, but Ken managed to run to the right of Phyllis Schlafly's man.

[ZB]

First of all, Delegate Harry Parrish was apparently back at work today in the HoD. This is very good news indeed.

Regarding Cuccinelli, I'd be interested NLS in the numbers from the 37th Senate district in the Kaine/Kilgore race (and in the LG and AG races). Do you have these? How about Kerry/Bush?

Especially if we could compare them to the 33rd, I'd think that'd be quite instructive.

Sen. Cuccinelli beat Jim Mitchell in 2003 with only 53.5% of the vote. I'd think, given his divisive record, he'd be a top target in any year... but given the Fairfax/NoVA trend, I think he's in serious trouble.

The reason why Staton lost is that he was not conservative enough. He ran the special against herring and only talked about residential growth and a tiny bit about taxes.

He failed to motivate his base by not mailing about social issues only about he was the developers worst nightmare.

Oh, I heard that before, "not conservative enough". That will help, denial always clouds the truth.

We should be looking at an internal purge, the likes of Dale Myers and John Nicholas, puppet masters behind the curtain, need to be tossed. Else, our house will never get clean enough for others to come in as part of a resurrection.

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

I'd love to see the numbers that ZB references above in the 34th (I believe that's Devolites-Davis' district) and the 39th (O'Brien).

[Not Larry Sabato]

Stay on topic!

[David]

Oh, please. Staton made it perfectly clear where he stood on social issues. In case you are not familiar with the code, it appears on his website, under "Social Issues," and in statements about "sharing the values" of Dick Black.

The die-hard Black supporters were the ones who could absolutely be counted on to vote for this guy. The far right wing gave it all they got, and we all see the extent of their base now. It's pretty darn narrow.

Cuccinelli will speak to his base in code, too - even as he goes for the "real issues" makeover. NoVA voters won't be fooled.

[A Voter]

Another option you might want to consider: Staton just didn't run an effective campaign.

You can disagree with Sen. Cuccinelli's issue stances, if you'd like, but the man has proven himself to be an excellent campaigner. He's outspent in record numbers in EVERY election.

In the last election he was the #1 target by Warner, and while we had other republicans losing in his district (Brickner) in the same election Ken won!