Column by Not Gretchen Bulova:
A Survey USA poll shows 51% of Virginians approving of the job George Allen is doing in the Senate, 31% disapprove, and 18% are unsure. Although certainly not great numbers, these numbers do signal that Allen will win re-election.
In order to defeat Allen in November, Democrats will need to lower his approval ratings into the lower 40's and bring his disapproval ratings into the lower 40's. There are 2 basic ways to accomplish this.
The first, is Allen causing it himself. Stupid comments (i.e. Senator Bunning in Kentucky in 04), stupid ads (i.e. Kilgore Death Penalty), and not campaigning. None of these seem likely as Allen is a seasoned campaigner with a top notch presidential staff working for him.
The most likely scenario is for the Democrats to go on the attack, go on the attack early and stay on the attack. Without negative ads directed at Allen's record, Democrats don't stand much of a chance. Even in this negative Republican political climate, the Democrats must go on the offensive to win in November.
P.S. Sorry I've been away so long!
Allen is going to destroy Webb and company in the fall!
Allen 4 President!
Posted by: | March 30, 2006 at 09:27 AM
Thank God you're alive, GB. I thought for sure Ben had killed you and buried you in the basement.
Posted by: | March 30, 2006 at 09:43 AM
Doesn't Senator Bunning talk to an invisible rabit named Harvey?
Posted by: Virginia Centrist | March 30, 2006 at 09:47 AM
Haha. Ben didn't murder me, although I will be honest, I do sleep with the alarm system on!
Posted by: not gretchen bulova | March 30, 2006 at 09:48 AM
You fail to consider another, and the most viable alternative: Harris Miller is given the nomination (it should be his birthright) and cruises to the Governorship in 2009.
Posted by: harrismillerfan | March 30, 2006 at 09:52 AM
I considered that, but then I also considered the fact that Leslie Byrne or Mark Warner will beat him in the 09' primary for Governor.
Posted by: not gretchen bulova | March 30, 2006 at 09:55 AM
In spite of this poll just remember Webb has the support of alot of former Deaniacs. With their political skill and blogging power Webb can pretty much start measuring the drapes for his Senate office.
Posted by: | March 30, 2006 at 10:03 AM
This is an uphill battle, but one Webb will win.
Posted by: Webb Defeats Allen | March 30, 2006 at 10:11 AM
I'm interested to hear what folks here think of Allens recent record:
1. 96% support of a president with 33% approval.
2. Allen's comment that he'd rather have been born in Iowa.
3. Not knowing the name of the new head of the Fed Bernanke, AFTER he'd been confirmed by the Senate.
4. Growing backlash against the extreme right.
Any comments on how these will influence the election?
Posted by: Webb Defeats Allen | March 30, 2006 at 10:14 AM
I meant to point out in #4:
4. Growing backlash against the extreme right;
that Allen overwhelming courts and supports.
Posted by: Webb Defeats Allen | March 30, 2006 at 10:16 AM
Anon 10:03:
What political skill do the Deaniacs have? Dean lost big time.
Posted by: Freddie | March 30, 2006 at 10:32 AM
I think he was being sarcastic. Just hard to show through on the internet.
Posted by: not gretchen bulova | March 30, 2006 at 10:33 AM
Webb beats Allen:
I think the problem is that Bush's rating in VA is probably about 45% or so. Add to the fact that the intensity of the disapproval in Virginia is probably a bit lower, and GW isn't really a HUGE issue in this campaign.
Posted by: Virginia Centrist | March 30, 2006 at 10:44 AM
10:03 Anon - Maybe he can use the same fabric Dean bought for the White House drapes.
Miller will get the nomination and lose.
Posted by: Jason | March 30, 2006 at 10:49 AM
Ah, is it just me or isn't a 51% approval rating for an ex-Governor, sitting Senator with Presidential hopes in a GOP leaning Red state a sign of weakness, not assured relection?? And 18% unsure?? Unsure about what? Sounds like opportunity for a Dem pickup to me. Or at least a significant dent to his 2008 plans.
Posted by: Not Impressed | March 30, 2006 at 10:52 AM
WDA:
1) In a Conservative leaning state, this won't hurt him one bit. Allen is running on his own merits and Virginians understand that.
2) Politicians make those kind of comments all the time. Besides, wasn't Allen born in LA anyway? Who wouldn't rather be born anywhere else than LA? No one cares.
3) So? 98% of Virginians don't know the guy either and really won't care that Allen can't remember one name.
4) Like was posted above, we're in a Conservative state, this won't hurt him. Allen also courts the fiscal conservatives who have been shafted over the last six or so years, the same people who failed to turn out for Kilgore in the Gov. race. Allen's numbers are high because Virginians like him, like what he stands for, and he'll get another term.
Webb will lose to Miller. Miller will lose to Allen.
Posted by: Jason | March 30, 2006 at 10:54 AM
Not Impressed: It sounds like good numbers considering noone's been paying attention to anything dealing with Senator Allen for almost 6 years. Once the campaign gets moving those undecideds will fall in his favor.
Posted by: Jason | March 30, 2006 at 10:55 AM
hate to burst some of your idealistic bubbles folks but,
its all about money and the power of incumbency/name recognition
speaking of money when is the Webb three-week fundraising thing up. I am curious how much money he will collect.
Posted by: novamiddleman | March 30, 2006 at 10:56 AM
Jason:
I guess. 51% is not that impressive. It's blah. It certainly doesn't suggest weakness, but it also doesn't suggest popularity.
George Allen is a right-winger - so it's to be expected that his numbers will lag far behind popular Senator John Warner.
And if the VAGOP wants to think that "fiscal conservatives didn't come out for Kilgore" argument is true, then more power to them!
Posted by: Virginia Centrist | March 30, 2006 at 11:38 AM
With the National support that Webb is lining up, the fundraising will only grow.
I think Allen will be tough to beat, but the only man who can do it is Webb.
Posted by: Alicia | March 30, 2006 at 11:38 AM
Webb's got more good news on the way. The more people know Webb the more they like him, the more people learn about Allen, the less they like him.
;)
Posted by: Webb Defeats Allen | March 30, 2006 at 11:53 AM
I think part of the Dem plan is not necessarily to beat Allen, but to wound him enough to hurt his chances in 2008. A Senator Allen is a whole lot better than President Allen. So keeping him below 55% this year would have to help that effort, wouldn't it?
Posted by: Not Impressed | March 30, 2006 at 12:12 PM
NGB:
Love all this lovely blogopshere discussion. But seriously, why don't people see Miller as Mark Warner Part II. Look at what a failed Senate bid did for Warner: now he may be president. Someone explain why the same can't happen to Miller if we help him get this Senate nomination.
Posted by: harrismillerfan | March 30, 2006 at 12:14 PM
I don't disagree with you HMF but Warner turned out to be pretty good, despite losing the Senate race, why couldn't Miller turn out to be the same thing?
Posted by: not gretchen bulova | March 30, 2006 at 12:16 PM
Allen's going to have to make up some new talking points on hate crimes legislation. Parroting ones that have been exposed as an urban myth ("protesters arrested for quoting Bible verses") http://www.equalityloudoun.org/?p=264 makes him look like a tool of the anti-family right.
Acting all surprised that New York Times reporters attend his town hall meetings doesn't make him appear too on the ball, either.
Posted by: David | March 30, 2006 at 12:20 PM
It is plain and simple, WAY TOO EARLY, for this kind of talk, NGB.
Furthermore, a sitting Senator from a majority party should have approvals in the 60's right now.
Posted by: Doug in Mount V ernon | March 30, 2006 at 12:27 PM
Doug -
That was the theory years ago, but it is no longer true.
It used to be incumbents with re-elects under 50 were vulnerable, not it's under 40. The paradigm has shifted. 50% is now considered a solid #.
Posted by: not gretchen bulova | March 30, 2006 at 12:30 PM
Oh yeah, and Anon, Freddie, and NGB:
Those "Deaniacs" are still engaged in politics, are changing the make-up of the voters to more liberal-leaning voters, as confirmed in Pew Research and the just recently released Gallup Poll showing Democrats once again as the majority party identification, and once factoring in the leanings of independents, with a commanding 49-42 lead. Some of this is reaction against Bush, but some of is also due to a rebirthing of the progressive movement started by the Dean "people-powered" movement.
Plus, DFA has helped to elect hundreds and soon thousands of former Deaniac progressives to state and local offices all over the country.
Posted by: Doug in Mount V ernon | March 30, 2006 at 12:32 PM
Sorry NGB, the theory's still true. Allen is definitely with an edge, but he can also be beaten. Are you asserting that he just can't be beaten? If yes, are you being paid by Fox?
Posted by: Doug in Mount V ernon | March 30, 2006 at 12:34 PM
no, I'm not asserting he can't be beaten. I'm asserting what I asserted in my post. That we can't win just by touting ourselves, that we will have to go negative on Allen in order to win.
Posted by: not gretchen bulova | March 30, 2006 at 12:37 PM
The right way to gauge this question is to pose whether Mark Warner would still be beating Allen were he running, which earlier polls had indicated was the case.
Posted by: Doug in Mount Vernon | March 30, 2006 at 12:38 PM
Ahhh, I agree he will need to go negative. Going negative is fine, as long as it's fair. Kilgore was not fair in his negative ads, and that's why they backfired. I hope Webb keeps it fair.
Posted by: Doug in Mount Vernon | March 30, 2006 at 12:40 PM
Those polls weren't a true reflection of A. whether Mark Warner would have actually beaten Allen, since Warner just came off the biggest press high he'll ever get and B. how either of these Democrats will do, neither will ever be as popular as Warner was at the point.
Posted by: not gretchen bulova | March 30, 2006 at 12:40 PM
On B. Agreed, however, it does show the extent of Allen's "soft" favorable ratings.
Posted by: Doug in Mount Vernon | March 30, 2006 at 12:45 PM
Shameless plug for Allen/Webb analysis:
http://www.prospect.org/midterm/archives/2006/03/index.html#009638
Posted by: Dave Wasserman | March 30, 2006 at 12:59 PM
not gretchen bulova:
A lot of Deaniacs really do think they are politically skillful. That is why I did not see the sarcasm. Some of them may be skillful, but it did not show in the Dean campaign.
Posted by: Freddie | March 30, 2006 at 01:48 PM
I know that Republicans seem to think that 51% is a mandate in this day and age, but that is a real low number for a red-state incumbant. Real low. The fact that 31% disapprove and the guy hasn't really done much wrong (except be a Republican) says a lot too.
Most Virginians have no clue who Webb or Harris are, so let's get through the primary and wait for the campaign to really kick off over the summer.
Posted by: Not Paul Tribble | March 30, 2006 at 02:07 PM
If Webb's the nominee, Dems can win this fall. If not, well, remember MiUiV.
Posted by: Webb Defeats Allen | March 30, 2006 at 02:11 PM
Allen a fiscal conservative? I can't breath I am laughing so hard! A fiscally conservative Republican? That is an oxymoron if I ever heard one!
Posted by: Chris | March 30, 2006 at 03:14 PM
Gee, 51%? That's a majority, but hardly an impressive one for an incumbent.
Georgia Allen is vulnerable, and he knows it. In fact, a bare majority proves it!
Posted by: K | March 30, 2006 at 04:38 PM
Why do you say things like "these numbers do signal that Allen will win re-election..?" You don't know that.
Such definitive predictions!! What is your real goal here? Are you an oracle?
Posted by: | March 30, 2006 at 06:25 PM
Here is why the Harris Miller-Mark Warner II analogy doesn't work. One, John Warner wasn't considered vulnerable or even slightly vulnerable in 1996. Allen is more vulnerable (and maybe much more vulnerable) Two, despite Sen. Warner's popularity Mark Warner polled very well and gained instant credibility because he ran so close to Sen. Warner. And three is this question: What makes you think Miller will run Allen that close that he gains that kind of credibility for a run at Gov.?
I am not saying he couldn't but nominating Miller with an eye on 2009 when Webb might have a chance to knock Allen down or out doesn't make such sense for the Dems.
Posted by: George Templeton | March 31, 2006 at 01:50 AM