UPDATED PREDICTIONS- 22 Days Out

STATE SENATE (Party Changes Only):

Chap Petersen defeats Jeannemarie Devolites Davis
Albert Pollard defeats Richard Stuart
Ralph Northam defeats Nick Rerras
John Miller defeats Tricia Stall

NEW SENATE: 21 Democrats, 19 Republicans

HOUSE OF DELEGATES (Party Changes Only):
Eric Ferguson defeats Charles Poindexter
Margi Vanderhye defeats Dave Hunt
Paul Nichols defeats Faisal Gill
Manoli Loupassi defeats Katherine Waddell
Bobby Matheison defeats John Welch
Adam Tomer defeats Danny Marshall

NEW HOUSE OF DELEGATES:  53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, 2 Independents

Comments

[Interested Observer]

What about the Cuccinelli-Oleszek race? Who does NLS predict for that one?

[Chris - Mason Conservative]

More interestingly, what about Jay O'Brien-George Barker?

What part of "party changes only" do you not understand? If they're not on the list he's predicting the incumbent party to win.

[novamiddleman]

I know this would be some work on your part but it would be nice to have a brief paragraph saying what basis you are basing your predictions on

In four of the other senate seats, 37th, 22nd, 27th, Cuccinelli #?, two of the four Dems will win. Most likely are wins by Shultz and Briener due to being open seats. Incumbents could hold on by a narrow margin. Odds just point to this being a wave year not a slight pickup year. Also Dems take the house--several GOP seats not on the radar screen will fall to Dems. Just look at recent polls of generic Dem/GOP by double digits favoring Dems. That pulls over otherwise close elections in low turnout years. By the way I have always voted GOP never Dem.

[novamiddleman]

Arlington, Alexandria, and inner Fairfax (high D areas) dont have any contested elections. A better poll would only be among the competitive districts

[Chippenham]

If only Manoli's pollster agreed with you...

Schultz is probably running closer to Vogel right now than Pollard to Stuart. Stuart will pull it off with a larger margin than most expect.

[bwana]

1. I tend to think Ben is only calling races he thinks has a clear outcome.

2. Anon at 0738...what odds or precedent are you referring to?

[Va Blogger]

Anon738, Ken's district is the 37th, so you just named three districts. Way to know what you're talking about.

[farmerjohn]

Schultz is toast - Washington Post endorsed Vogel this morning:

District 27 : In this open-seat race, we support Republican Jill Holtzman Vogel, a lawyer who made her name as counsel to the Bush-Cheney campaign during the Florida recount of 2000, as chief counsel to the Republican National Committee and as a political appointee in the federal Energy Department. She's also been heavily involved in state and local affairs, which has given her a solid grounding in the issues facing her largely rural district, comprising parts of Loudoun and Fauquier counties and points west. Articulate, fast on her feet and pragmatic, she is the sort of moderate Republican that has become scarce in Richmond. Her opponent, Democrat Karen Schultz, is a respected, hardworking educator, school board member and community leader but lacks Mrs. Vogel's spark and command of state issues.

Anon 8:27 - how many votes does the Washington Post get to cast in District 27?

[dems4dems]

In contested races, the Post endorsed four Democrats and two Republicans (and went fishing on the Janet-Cooch race). The Post always endorses token Republicans whose candidacies fly in the face of the values espoused by the Post's editorial page. They want us to believe they are "independent". I'm sick of them and wish the editorial page would just shut up.

All this inside baseball about the Post does not address the real campaign issue....What is the political impact of such an endorsement on undecideds?

[dems4dems]

May the real issue is which is more important: the so-called "undecideds" or turnout?

[Pete in Williamsburg]

Dems 4 Dems,

It's hard for me to accept that there are many undecideds out there. I would think that an off-gov GA election year has some of the lowest turn-out among voters. I think about the number of voters know the name of their GA delegate and senator and it can't be a very big number. Those are the voters heading to the polls on election day.

I think that anyone who knows there is an election this November is probably a relative insider and has no indecision.

[AlterofFreedom]

Waddell still performing better than Loupassi, although much closer than two months ago. His mailings (about 8 to her 2) seem to be making up some ground. Do not agree with two out east after performances at ODU, Welch should hang on and Rerras did himself the best of any and will win a close one over Pollard. I am not as confident in the Rerras race as Northam is doing well with his message as that of Welch's race. Mathieson took three steps back over the course of the last two weeks. I can't get a real handle yet on the Peterson-Davis race which leads me to believe Chap may just pull it off given that with Davis's reputation we should have had a clearer picture by now but its still really too close to call independently yet.

[Alterof Freedom]

Sorry I meant Rerras over Northam. Stuart and Pollard closer than people think at this point.

[anon 7:38]

I meant to say 22nd, 27th, 37th and 39th Senate districts. Sorry not from Nova. The odds I speak of are if you look back at 2003 with the GOP up +5 statewide in generic ballot and now the Dems are up +11 that is a 16 point swing. Anyone Rep. that won in a competitive district on 2003 by less than 16 points ie 58-42 should not go home early on Nov. 6th.

[Bruce]

Why no post on the endorsements of the POST.

Vogel, Colgan, Herring, Devolites-Davis and Barker in the hot races.

Funniest part - NO ENDORSEMENT in the Cooch v Janet race. Wow, as right wing and anti-post as he is, even the Post couldn't find a way to endorse his opponent.

[bwana]

They must not be too taken with her to say JO :"...has run a lackluster campaign, at times embarrassingly short on substance"

I knew they would throw one endorsement the GOP in a competitive race, but I thought that would be Pollard-Stuart, not JMDD-Chap!

If number of signs mean anything (which we know they don't) Breiner will KILL Smith. That said, I still think Smith wins although it'll be closer than many expect.

Add Barker, Brown, and Day to the pickup list.

[cageyd]

The WaPo is not philosophically able to openly endorse a principled, conservative Republican like Ken Cuccinelli. Their non-endorsement, however, gives Senator Cuccinelli a tremendous boost. By not endorsing the liberal Democrat, Ken's GOP base will now be greatly energized to get out the vote because Janet Oleszek has been publicly exposed as the "empty suit" that can and should be defeated. Janet's Democrat base will be greatly depressed because their greatest fear has been realized - Janet has been publicly exposed as the "empty suit" that they have been trying to hide.

[Gnarly]

Barker (maybe) because of the big loss and drag of Gill in the 51st...but are you NUTS? Brown and Day?...come on...there is absolutely no evidence that those races will be real tight.

[I.Publius]

Dems4Dems, I'm sorry the site cut off the rest of your comment. It was supposed to read:

"I'm sick of them and wish the editorial page would just shut up unless they only endorse Democrats."

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

On explaining the lack of Oleszek and Barker appearing on his list----

I think Ben is having a top secret love affair with both Greg L and Ken Cuccinelli---OMG it's a polygamous affair! (This is a joke and I am not ACTUALLY implying anything here).

But it is funny to think of and perhaps it could explain his recent love affair with Tim Hugo, Corey Stewart, and Jay O'Brien & Gang. Not to be confused with Kool & the Gang.

Perhaps he is jealous of Ron the Elephant?

The Washington Post endorsement editorial today about Janet was outrageously offensive. Because a candidate is easily flustered and speaks with frequent pauses in her prose, does not make her "lacking in substance". If the hacks over there could actually listen to what she is often saying, there is plenty of substance.

If Janet wins, and I maintain she still has a good shot in that district, she would do well to hire a communications coach and really work on her ability to make points more solidly.

The sexist insinuation of the Post editors, however, should be whacked down hard by the Democratic community. Janet is a competent and smart woman with plenty of good ideas, even if she isn't always the best communicator.

The Post editors ought to be ashamed today.

[Chippenham]

Cageyd, if that is how you think people vote (or decide whether to vote) then I hope you're running Ken's campaign. Janet O is a disappointment, but in Northern Virginia I think they are smart enough to know that who controls the legislature is more important than who their legislator is. Afterall, these people work in government. According to the WaPo poll they have a strong preference for a Democratic controlled assembly and elections are always more about the incumbent (who is not aligned with them politically) than about the challenger who afterall would have 4 years to grow into the office.

[cageyd]

Chippenham, while I agree that some people are aware of or concerned about control of the legislature, I think it is a shame that you suggest that people should vote for that reason alone and ignore the candidate. Basically you are saying the only necessary qualification for a candidate is to have a "D" after their name. You, an obvious Democrat, call Janet a disappointment, which is the point that I was making. Perhaps her campaign should state "She a disappointment and not very good, but vote for her anyway". The voters of the 37th District are discerning enough to vote for competence and not for "a disappointment".

[Chippenham]

Cageyd, we will have to agree to disagree. Yes, I would rather have someone who is maybe not the most articulate person but who believes in my ideology represent me than an articulate representative of an ideology that I completely oppose. Wasn't this pretty much the logic Republicans employed for 2 straight Presidential elections with George W. Bush?

[SW mom]

>>>Because a candidate is easily flustered and speaks with frequent pauses in her prose, does not make her "lacking in substance".<<<

But it does say that she won't do much for you in Richmond. If she can't handle talking to the voters, she'll be squashed by the pols in Richmond. What good is ideology if you can't get anything done?

[SW mom]

One has to wonder why Janet was the best the democrats could do. It doesn't say much about their pool of candidates. Even the Post can't endorse her. How pathetic.

[SW mom]

Jeannemarie will pull it out. Even the Post recognized that and endorsed her.

[the poster formerly known as 147.]

SW Mom,
Post endorsed Miller and Earlich last year - how'd that fare?

Also the notion that the Post is only endorsing predicted winners is very far fetched - Pollard for one remains an underdog given the lean of his district.

[Va Blogger]

Doug, what makes you think that the reason the Post called Oleszek "embarassingly short on substance" is because she can't communicate well? I think if they thought she couldn't communicate well, they would have printed that. Instead, they talked about her substance, which has nothing to do with how well she can speak.

Instead of falsely attributing motive to the WaPo Ed Board, why don't you take an objective, candid look at your choice for Senator and realize that maybe WaPo is onto something, and that she really *doesn't* have anything of substance to say, beyond accusing Cuccinelli of being "extreme". How about you look at her pitiful debate performances where she seemed incapable of giving a straight answer to anything?

[J. Scott]

I am curious as to why it is we need papers that are supposed to be objective and transparent have to "endorse" anyone. I would prefer they do not. We have seen virtually our entire media structure become virtually partisan as it is and it makes you wonder just how objective a paper will be if their endorsement fails to win election and how open will the lected official be with the paper who endorsed his/her opposition in the first place. I would rather have the papers sponsor debates and forum and run objective editorials over partisan endorsements. It makes you wonder why a public traded company would have its entities endorsing candidates. I just have never really been for it at all, it never leads us to the kind of journalism that these people should be providing.

[school board watcher]

Endorsements aren't polls, nor do they claim to predict winners. It's simply their opinions about who are the best candidates.

[Sam]

J. Scott, I've been thinking the same thing for years... Glad to know there are others out there annoyed at the absurdity of newspaper endorsements...

It's even worse in small town elections where the local newspapers tend to just endorse whoever buys the most ad space in their paper....

[blue one]

I have been telling you that Adam Tomer (14th House District) will beat incumbent Danny Marshall & turn the 14th Blue! Glad you finally came aboard! What did it for you?

[Denbigh Don]

The rumor here in the 1st District is that the Virginia Senate Republican Leadership Trust did a poll and Stall lost by a huge margin, which is why she has gone very negative in the past two weeks. But she's gone so negative that even the Daily Press has had to call her on her misrepresentations of editorials. She is falsely accusing Miller of everything from Fort Monroe (which Miller has made no public comment on) to property tax control, which she actually quoted Rerras, not Miller on. The Stall campaign is in a panic and making stupid mistakes. You can put Miller in the "Mandate" column if the Stall people don't calm down.