Give Jay O'Brien credit- he knew Faisal Gill would cost him the election.
Listen to this. It's like a political version of Tales from the Crypt.
The Prince William GOP lost the entire State Senate by defying Jay on June 2nd.
Meanwhile, don't forget Ken Cuccinelli endorsed Faisal even when Jay said he didn't want to run with him. I couldn't believe after how close Jay has been with Ken that Ken didn't pull his endorsement when Jay came out so strong- Ken has no precincts that overlap with this district. Make no mistake about it- Ken stuck Jay with a dud, and is in the minority solely because of that decision.
Ben-
That's an interesting theory--can you post the numbers and a more thorough analysis of each precinct and the margins? Jay did win the Prince William portion of his district. It looks like he lost his seat based on the Fairfax returns.
Posted by: anon | November 08, 2007 at 01:13 PM
Barker's Prince William raw votes were way up over Galligan's.
O'Brien's PW raw vote totals were flat relative to '03.
In other words, a sizable chunk of Barker's margin came from PW (I think over 1,000 votes). Without those 1,000+ Democratic votes, we'd have Senator O'Brien (or the margin in Lee or Mt. Vernon or Springfield). Barker pulled more votes across the district.
Posted by: Not Harry F. Byrd, Sr. | November 08, 2007 at 01:18 PM
"Solely" because of that decision? Come on, Ben. Stop being an idiot.
Posted by: Va Blogger | November 08, 2007 at 01:32 PM
Va Blogger --
It's true. I'm a PWC Republican and we knew since this summer that the Gill candidacy was going to spell trouble for Jay O'Brien. I'm all over BVBL for weeks predicting this and those of us who refused to support Gill have the numbers to back up what we had been warning about all along.
Posted by: Clean it up in '07 | November 08, 2007 at 01:38 PM
"Clean it up in '07" is lying. He/she is NOT "a PWC Republican," as he did NOT "support all of the Party's nominees for public office in the ensuing election." All we have is his/her word that he/she is "a PWC Republican."
Some of us take oaths seriously, and, assuming arguendo that the statement has any basis in fact, it is a measure of this individual's fear of the consequences of those who do that he/she is unwilling to attach his/her name to comments such as these.
'Fact is, Faisal was a much stronger candidate than Lucas --- much smarter, and a much better debater. Nichols would have cleaned her clock.
Gill's loss by a very small margin can be attributed to two things: smears by largely anonymous cowards, and sour grapes by the Lucas contingent, who --- assuming they are not merely bigots --- allowed their petite personal grievances to overcome their principles. As a result, we have a Democrat in that office.
Posted by: James Young | November 08, 2007 at 02:05 PM
I give the voters more credit Ben. They can make their mind up on individual races, and they won't "punish" one candidate for being in the same party as another candidate.
Turnout is what it is. It doesn't change based on some candidate or other - maybe marginally - but the idea that some downballot person affects someone else is insane.
Posted by: Chippenham | November 08, 2007 at 02:10 PM
I'm just talking about the idiocy of attributing the Republicans losing the state senate entirely to Cuccinelli's endorsement of Gill. That's really dipshit reasoning.
Posted by: Va Blogger | November 08, 2007 at 02:11 PM
Gill should have gone quietly into the night, and never sought the nomination....
It always came across as an ego thing to me...
Posted by: Spank That Donkey | November 08, 2007 at 02:46 PM
""""Clean it up in '07" is lying. He/she is NOT "a PWC Republican," as he did NOT "support all of the Party's nominees for public office in the ensuing election.""""
PWCRC members were permitted under PWCRC rules to predict that Faisal Gill would lose. The claim that only non-Republicans forecast a Faisal loss is quite bizarre.
"""Some of us take oaths seriously,"""
No one in PWCRC history has ever taken an oath not to predict a Faisal Gill loss. A rational person would have predicted that Gill would lose, and he did.
"""it is a measure of this individual's fear of the consequences of those who do that he/she is unwilling to attach his/her name to comments such as these."""
Common sense holds that minor PWCRC official James Young, and others, intend to "purify" the PWCRC of those who opposed Faisal. Hence this nutbag's persistent demand for names.
"""'Fact is, Faisal was a much stronger candidate than Lucas"""
Julie won the overvoted HOD-51 convention in those precincts which were not overvoted. That makes Julie the stronger candidate in non-overvoted precincts.
Since general elections--unlike Kopko-organized banana republic fiascos--don't have overvotes, all of the HOD-51 precincts were non-overvoted, and Julie is stronger than Faisal in those.
""" --- much smarter,"""
Julie was smart enough never to work for the imprisoned terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi. If Faisal had been equally smart few of us would have heard of him, and he might have become the HOD-51 delegate.
It is Faisal's own stupidity in working for and with Alamoudi and Ghafoor that did Faisal in. But it is so much easier to point the blame for Faisal's defeat on other people besides Fiasal himself.
"""and a much better debater."""
Irrelevant even if true. There were very few debates this time around. This election was not determined based upon debates.
Paul won by 495 votes. Only a few hundred people, tops, attended a few debates, if you can even call some of them debates. More like joint appearances.
"""Nichols would have cleaned her clock."""
Given that Julie beat Faisal in the non-overvoted precincts, and that Faisal relied on overvotes (fraudulent votes) to win, it is likely that Julie would have done better than Faisal.
495 votes better? I cannot say. The public would have been well-served with either Paul or Julie winning, but they were never given that choice, thanks to KOPKO and MCQUIGG and STEWART.
"""Gill's loss by a very small margin"""
Four percent, 495 votes out of 13,000. Not so small a margin. 52-48 elections happen every day. They are borderline close, but the margin is significant.
"""can be attributed to two things: smears"""
Here we go again. Every criticism of Faisal Gill is a "smear" according to James Young.
"""by largely anonymous cowards, and sour grapes by the Lucas contingent, who"""
They ought to have sour grapes. Why were there overvotes at all? How hard is it to restrict ballots so that only delegates can cast them? And only one time apiece?
How hard should that have been? Why couldn't Kopko, McQuigg and Corey "I Put Faisal Gill On The Ballot" have managed that?
"""--- assuming they are not merely bigots ---"""
Here we go again. After James Young decries any criticism of Faisal as a "smear" he then suggests that Faisal's opponents are racists.
Well, 52 percent of HOD-51 voted against Faisal. They wanted Faisal to lose, and Paul to win. Does that make most HOD-51 residents "bigots"?
"""allowed their petite personal grievances"""
petit is the male form of a French adjective. For unknown reasons James Young has introduced a French word into his invective and given it a female form so it would agree with "personal grievances," except that English words are neither male nor female so I have no idea what this foolish man is speaking about.
He should stick to English. Peut-être qu'il veut parler français avec moi.
"""to overcome their principles."""
What principles? It is permitted in the PWCRC to predict that a candidate, including Faisal Gill, will lose. It is also permitted
to claim after the fact that Gill's nomination was a fiasco at every level.
"""As a result, we have a Democrat in that office."""
Indeed. Faisal was unelectable from day one. The decision to nominate Faisal sealed a Dem victory in HOD-51.
Posted by: Jonathan Mark | November 08, 2007 at 03:14 PM
"dipshit reasoning"
Va Blogger - check the url. Did you expect any other kind? That's what brings me back day after day - to see the dipshit's latest expression of his idiocy.
Posted by: I.Publius | November 08, 2007 at 03:14 PM
Lucas would probably have narrowly won the state senate race. Internet polls showed her with far less negatives.
But she was down-ballot, not up-ballot, from Jay O'Brien.
That race probably didn't have much effect on O'Brien's race.
But given how close O'Brien's race was, it is possible, although unlikely, that Gill's nomination affected the outcome of O'Brien's election.
Posted by: Hans Bader | November 08, 2007 at 03:14 PM
Oops.
When I said in my above comment, "probably won the state senate race," what I meant to say was Lucas would have "probably won the delegate race."
Posted by: Hans Bader | November 08, 2007 at 03:16 PM
Oops.
When I said in my above comment, "probably won the state senate race," what I meant to say was Lucas would have "probably won the delegate race."
Posted by: Hans Bader | November 08, 2007 at 03:16 PM
"Gill's loss by a very small margin can be attributed to two things: smears by largely anonymous cowards, and sour grapes by the Lucas contingent, who --- assuming they are not merely bigots --- allowed their petite personal grievances to overcome their principles. As a result, we have a Democrat in that office."
Gill's loss was a result of bigotry, purely and simply. Nichols ran a very poor race and even Democrats were disgusted with the negative ads.
Barker carried only two of nine PWC precincts. Most of those precincts were carried by Kaine and Webb in their respective races.
Nichols won five of eight precincts he shared with Barker. He won three precincts that Barker lost, and he won the two that Barker won.
Posted by: LM | November 08, 2007 at 03:21 PM
Looking at the precinct level, Gill's nomination probably did not affect the outcome of Jay O'Brien's re-election bid, even though that was a very close race.
Posted by: Hans Bader | November 08, 2007 at 03:27 PM
"""Nichols ran a very poor race"""
Paul Nichols ran a very good race. You see, Paul won and his opponent lost.
Any race that a candidate runs and wins is a good race.
Posted by: Jonathan Mark | November 08, 2007 at 03:45 PM
"""But she was down-ballot, not up-ballot, from Jay O'Brien.
That race probably didn't have much effect on O'Brien's race."""
Many people walked into the voting booth knowing that Gill was on the Republican ballot with O'Brien, and they thought less of the Republicans because of it.
Because they thought less of the Republicans, they thought less of O'Brien.
Was that guilt by association? In this case, yes. O'Brien tried to prevent the catastrophe of a Gill nomination, but Kopko and friends didn't care.
Kopko's gang of pirates and brigands happily threw successful incumbent Jay O'Brien overboard in order to temporarily advance Faisal's imaginary political career.
Posted by: Jonathan Mark | November 08, 2007 at 03:50 PM
I am now more convinced that Gill's nomination in the delegate's race didn't affect the outcome of the senate race at all.
Most voters in the Senate race wouldn't have cared.
The only voters who would have changed their votes in the senate race based on Gill being nominated in the unrelated house race were those oddballs who were obsessed with Gill being nominated, and yet were ignorant of the fact that O'Brien preferred Lucas.
That's a very small set of voters.
If I had been in the district, I would have preferred Lucas to Gill, but even if I had mistakenly believed that O'Brien supported Gill, that wouldn't have affected my vote.
It's not as if Gill was defeated in a landslide anyway. He got 48 percent of the vote -- a fairly close race.
So even if people's votes in down-ballot races had much effect on up-ballot races (which they don't), there wouldn't have been much of a margin to carry over into the senate race anyway.
Thus, it is clear that it did not affect the outcome of the senate race.
Posted by: Hans Bader | November 08, 2007 at 04:30 PM
Kopko is the reason Gill was nominated, and thus the reason O'Brien lost. He is taking all the credit for Stewart winning, but he didn't have anything to do with that. The only way Kopko helps people get elected is if they pay him off. Consulting is not the same as a bribe, Gill still needs to amend that on his sbe report.
Posted by: Tom Kopko is a douche | November 08, 2007 at 04:33 PM
"Clean it up in '07" is lying again, implying that all he/she did was "predict a Gill loss." Of course, those who've read his/her rants know better, as he/she actively opposed Gill. I guess if you change the subject you can avoid talk of your own dishonor (presuming, of course, that he/she actually IS a PWC Republican, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding).
The other lies are almost too numerous to address in a sytematic way.
"Common sense holds that minor PWCRC official James Young, and others, intend to 'purify' the PWCRC of those who opposed Faisal. Hence this nutbag's persistent demand for names."
Well, let's see. "Minor." Presently, yes. Of course, that makes me more "major" than any Party post self-proclaimed "Republican" "Clean it up" has ever provably held. "Purify"? Absolutely. I prefer that the GOP remain the party of the honorable. We don't demand much, even ideological conformity. What the Party Plan does demand, however, from those who presume to exercise leadership by becoming Members of an official Party Committee, is "support for all Republican nominees for public office in the ensuing election." Those who can't meet that standard can call themselves whatever they want, but they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves "Members" of an official Party Committee. It's not my rule; it's the Party's rule.
"Julie won the overvoted HOD-51 convention in those precincts which were not overvoted. That makes Julie the stronger candidate in non-overvoted precincts.
Since general elections--unlike Kopko-organized banana republic fiascos--don't have overvotes, all of the HOD-51 precincts were non-overvoted, and Julie is stronger than Faisal in those."
Gill won the Convention. Julie appealed, and it was demonstrated that her appeal lacked merit both procedurally (she hadn't preserved her right to do so, and she sought a remedy --- discarding only the slightly overvoted precincts, which she just coincidentally happened to lose --- unlawful under Robert's Rules) and substantively (the votes, if discarded, made no difference in the outcome) inadequate. But Julie's sour grapes supporters don't let those facts get in the way of their rants.
"Julie was smart enough never to work for the imprisoned terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi. If Faisal had been equally smart few of us would have heard of him, and he might have become the HOD-51 delegate.
It is Faisal's own stupidity in working for and with Alamoudi and Ghafoor that did Faisal in. But it is so much easier to point the blame for Faisal's defeat on other people besides Fiasal himself."
Good for her. Neither did Gill. Gill was, for a short time, a lobbyist for an organization to which someone who was LATER convicted of a crime was involved. He says he met him three times. Now, I suppose that one could assume that this individual shared with people whom he barely knew the details of his criminal activities, but then again, one could assume that a monkey is going to fly out of Ben's ass, too. Neither assumption has any basis in logic or reality.
Of course, some of Faisal's critics are bigots, and plainly admit it. Not all. I have no basis for declaring this commentator one. Methinks he/she doth protesteth too much, however. I do NOT endorse LM's comment that Gill's loss was solely attributable to bigotry. Knowing some of these childish self-styled "Republicans" as I do, I have little doubt that their primary motivation in torpedoing a Republican nominee was their petit(e) personal grievances.
And Kopko may have been one of those voting for Gill, but so were a majority of Republicans in the 51st District. That's the fact ... which is probably the main reason why Julie abandoned her appeal when it was UNANIMOUSLY rejected by the 11th Congressional District Committee.
Posted by: James Young | November 08, 2007 at 05:12 PM
The moral of the story from the Gill/Nichols race is clear: don't nominate candidates who suck. The PWC GOP decided against this simple axiom. The net gain is a good delegate (Paul Nichols) and the sheer entertainment of watching James "Batshit Crazy" Young froth at the mouth like a raving mongoloid. Who doesn't like that outcome?
Posted by: Not Ben | November 08, 2007 at 05:35 PM
"Paul Nichols ran a very good race. You see, Paul won and his opponent lost. "
Paul Nichols should have run away this election, yet he won by only 500 votes. Yes, he won, but his showing was terrible.
Posted by: LM | November 08, 2007 at 05:40 PM
Jim, it's me, your friend Jonathan Mark. I was the one who called you a nutbag, not "Clean It Up In O7."
By the way, Jim, just what minor position is it in the PWCRC that you do hold? I have been reporting that you are the Under-Assistant Refreshments Co-Chair in one of the smaller precincts.
Is that accurate?
Posted by: Jonathan Mark | November 08, 2007 at 05:53 PM
No, Psychotic Racist Jonathan Mark, that is not the position that I hold. Doubtless your source is as reliable as your other sources, i.e., when your position is untenable, belittle.
And once again, while "LM's" heart seems in the right place, I must dissent. IF the Gill-haters' claims had merit, Nichols should have run away with this election. Demographically and historically, it is a Democrat district, and he had some advantage there. But that he won by only 495 votes demonstrates that Gill ran a very good grassroots campaign, and/or that Nichols ran a mediocre campaign. As I have said elsewhere, I know him socially, and like him. However, the manner in which he turned his campaign over to the State Democrat Party and accepted the benefits of the scurrilous smears of PRJM causes me to think less of him.
Posted by: James Young | November 08, 2007 at 08:42 PM
One is a bad republican if speaking out against Faisal Gill.
One is, however, a true republican if speaking out against Sean Connaughton.
Posted by: | November 08, 2007 at 09:14 PM
James Young is such a sanctimonius ass. Since I have criticized Faisal Gill's shady connections, I guess I am a racist as well. Unbelievable.
I agree Nichols was not a great candidate and ran a crummy campaign, but these facts only further strngthen the argument that Gill was a horrible unelectable candidate. With a better Dem candidate Gill would have been fried. As it is he still lost. Get with the prgram, JY and realize that your boy sucked as a candidate.
Posted by: Loudoun Insider | November 08, 2007 at 11:44 PM
At the risk of nit picking...I HAVE been a member of the PWCRC, although I wised up and walked away just as the more facsist factions were begining to rise...but I DO still reside in PWC, and I AM still a Republican (primary voter and all), so I am wondering why Mr. Young takes umbrage with the more accurate "PWC Republican" label and starts railing against the person for falsifying their PWCRC credentials. "Cleaning it up in 07" clearly distanced her/himself from the COMMITTEE with the label...and after that 51st convention, among a host of other activities, who could blame him/her? The last groups to speak about "purity" in the ranks followed up that language with actual bloodshed and purges. Nice company.
Posted by: Mitch's Wife | November 09, 2007 at 12:00 AM
"""With a better Dem candidate Gill would have been fried."""
Isn't Gill fried now anyway?
Posted by: Jonathan Mark | November 09, 2007 at 06:00 AM
The math is irrefutable: Gill's nomination for the delegate seat did not affect the outcome of O'Brien's senate race at all, even though it was not helpful to the GOP's chances of retaining that delegate seat.
Lucas would have performed better than Gill, but only by a few percentage points at most, and little if any of that increase would have carried over into the senate race.
Gill got 48 percent of the vote in a district that is democratic-leaning in some races, and that gave the GOP incumbent delegate, Michele McQuigg, a fairly close race in the last election, even against an opponent with baggage. Gill's own baggage cost him surprisingly few percentage points, although it clearly hurt.
And Gill's delegate district included much less than half of Jay O'Brien's district.
Most voters who had to choose between O'Brien and his opponent didn't even have Gill on their ballot.
And Jay O'Brien did better in Gill's district than in Fairfax, where Gill wasn't on the ballot.
And Gill's race was down-ballot to boot. Most people don't change their votes in an up-ballot race because of a down-ballot race.
Moreover, it's no secret that Jay O'Brien preferred Lucas to Gill, so the small percentage of voters in Gill's district that voted against Gill but would have voted for Lucas did not likely vote against O'Brien anyway.
And while the results of O'Brien's senate race were close, they weren't so close that any little thing would have affected the outcome.
Demographic trends and a bad political climate were enough to take out even a seasoned incumbent like Jay O'Brien, who had good political instincts.
Posted by: Hans Bader | November 09, 2007 at 12:12 PM
"And Jay O'Brien did better in Gill's district than in Fairfax, where Gill wasn't on the ballot."
Of course O'Brien did. The point that some are trying to make is that O'Brien should have done even better than he did in PWC.
PWC turnout is makes or breaks a republican with a district divided between PWC and Fairfax.
Fairfax is quickly becoming a losing proposition for republicans.
Posted by: | November 09, 2007 at 04:16 PM
So "Loudmouthed Inciter" thinks I'm a "sanctimonious ass." Well, I suppose that he/she knows from whence he/she speaks. As for whether he/she is a "racist" or not, I've never commented on that, nor seen anything he/she has posted which would suggest it. Of course, if he/she wants to make an admission on that score, I am not in a position to dispute it.
Gill lost by fewer than 500 votes in an historically Democrat district. The reason that so many are attacking him STILL is the fact that such a showing demonstrates that he should run again in 2009, when buyer's remorse will doubtless set in among the voters. Of course, there is still an element among the GOP that believes that Julie Lucas should run. There is likewise an element among the Democrat Party who would LOOOOVE to see her offered as a sacrificial lamb in what should otherwise be a tough but winnable district.
As for the anonymous comment appearing before "LI's", the writer apparently doesn't understand the difference between criticizing a candidate during a nomination contest (as I did with Connaughton), and for pursuing tax-and-spend policies while in office, and smearing a candidate in a general election contest with contrived fictions and guilt-by-association tactics (which I did NOT do). Indeed, I voted for Connaughton three times (twice in generals, and once in a primary)
As for "Mitch's Wife," his/her comments must be accompanied, as usual, with the implied disclaimer that all we have is his/her word, coupled with his/her carefully maintained anonymity. Not a combination which should lent a great deal of credibility to his/her comments.
Posted by: James Young | November 09, 2007 at 05:05 PM
It is interesting that in James Young's world one is only a true republican in one belongs to the local party.
There are plenty of us out here who are members of state and national, but have decided against joining the band of local lunatics.
Posted by: | November 09, 2007 at 06:30 PM
No, Anonymous 6:30, that's not true. What galls me are those self-styled "Republicans" who try to claim membership in local party committees as a credential to trash fellow Republicans. My favorite claim is that they are "registered Republicans" in Virginia, which simply demonstrates their ignorance: there are no "registered Republicans" in Virginia, thanks largely to the Democrats who controlled the legislature until a short time ago.
You are, of course, correct: not all Republicans are members of their local Republican committees. In fact, no one is realistically a "member" of a "local party." Neither are they, realistically, "members" at the state and local levels. All they really are are "contributors."
Kindly do not misrepresent what I have actually said. And kindly make any presumptions about what I have said based upon knowledge of the structure of the Republican Party of Virginia, lest you sound ignorant of the facts.
Posted by: James Young | November 09, 2007 at 07:26 PM
"""The reason that so many are attacking him STILL is the fact that such a showing demonstrates that he should run again in 2009"""
For several months I ran the GoodbyeFaisal.com website. I now very much like Paul Nichols as a Delegate.
So let me say this. I would LOVE it were Faisal Gill to be the Republican nominee in 2009.
It would guarantee Paul a second term.
Posted by: Jonathan Mark | November 10, 2007 at 01:15 PM
Jim Young has been hitting the hootch again:
"""There is likewise an element among the Democrat Party who would LOOOOVE to see her offered as a sacrificial lamb in what should otherwise be a tough but winnable district."""
Julie Lucas November 2007 winning percentage: 71% in a three-way race.
Faisal Gill November 2007 LOSING percentage: 48% in a two-way race.
Julie Lucas in non-overvoted precincts in the HOD-51 Convention: winner
Faisal Gill in non-overvoted precincts in the HOD-51 Convention: LOSER
Posted by: Jonathan Mark | November 10, 2007 at 02:05 PM
PRJM neglects to mention that, to "win" the Convention, Lucas would have had to disenfranchise whole precints of PWC Republicans. Doubtless something to be desired by a Democrat like PRJM, but not something permissible under Robert's Rules, or Federal law, for that matter.
As for Lucas' winning percentage, she had the advantage of running against two loons. Whatever Nichols is, he ain't that.
Posted by: James Young | November 10, 2007 at 09:21 PM
"""Doubtless something to be desired by a Democrat like PRJM"""
The Democrats WANT the Republicans to nominate Faisal for HOD-51 in 2009. It would be a gimme.
Anyhow, on the absence of any evidence that Faisal wants to run again and receive another beating, this is all hypothetical.
Posted by: Jonathan Mark | November 10, 2007 at 11:01 PM
I meant "In the absence of any evidence that Faisal wants to run again..."
Posted by: Jonathan Mark | November 10, 2007 at 11:02 PM
I meant "In the absence of any evidence that Faisal wants to run again..."
Posted by: Jonathan Mark | November 10, 2007 at 11:03 PM