The top line of yesterday's analysis:
43 Seats Safe Republican
7 Seats Likely Republican
(Bob Marshall, Bill Howell, Tim Hugo. Scott Lingamfelter, Clarke Hogan, Dave Nutter, Ben Cline)
3 Seats Leans Republican
(Danny Marshall, Tom Rust, Phil Hamilton)
5 Seats Toss Up
(Joe Bouchard, David Poisson, Paul Nichols, Jeff Frederick (Open), Dave Albo)
4 Seats Leans Democratic
(Steve Shannon (Open), Chuck Caputo, Bobby Matheison, Paula Miller)
7 Seats Likely Democratic
(Margi Vanderhye, David Bulova, Ward Armstrong, Joe Johnson, Dave Marsden, Dan Bowling, Shannon Valentine)
31 Seats Safe Democratic
So, in order for the Dems to take the House, they need to run the table with all of their seats, pick up every toss-up, win all three GOP Leaners and win one Likely Republican.
If Obama is in the White House, that will be a nearly impossible task.
Of course, a lot will change in the next year.
Posted by: | June 13, 2008 at 11:50 AM
As of right now it looks uphill. But you take one open Safe GOP seat, recruit the right candidate to make it a tossup, and it becomes a lot more possible, although still tough.
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | June 13, 2008 at 11:53 AM
You're crazy downgrading Bob Marshall's seat. He's as safe as anyone, especially if they put up that wacko Bruce Roemmelt again.
Posted by: Loudoun Insider | June 13, 2008 at 12:21 PM
No one is ever safe when the growth in their district is so large that this election could bring 40-50% of the voters having never seen their name on the ballot before.
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | June 13, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Phil Hamilton' seat may be "Lean GOP" on paper, but his constituent services are second to none. People in that district love him. When he retires, who knows.
If RPV holds Frederick's seat, it will be because they recruited a top-notch candidate, which we know they usually suck at. Frederck will no doubt make this a priority hold.
Albo may be the only incumbent to lose in 2009. The only problem will be that mid-term elections have low turnoutand dems will have a better shot in 2011.
Posted by: | June 13, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Nice analysis. Couple of thoughts:
-- Bouchard is definitely a toss-up since his district voted red in 2005-2006 by a very slim margin. And of course, his margin was only 150 or so votes. Candidate recruitment will make the difference.
-- Mathieson's district voted blue by a very slim margin in 2005 and 2006 but he won by a substantial margin. Then again, Welch was a very poor candidate/incumbent. In light of that, it's a bit of a stretch to say that it's even a "leans" Democratic district. Mathieson needs to work as if it's a total toss-up.
Posted by: Pete in Williamsburg | June 13, 2008 at 12:57 PM
You can move Nichols to a lean Democrat. The Republicans won't get a top contender there.
Frederick's seat should be moved to a lean Democrat as well. Royse or Amy aren't going to cut it.
Posted by: | June 13, 2008 at 01:16 PM
Why is Vanderhye as likely? In a Democratic sweep year, a cash advantage and six month head start, she barely won by only 453 votes. She seems more like a lean at the very least
Posted by: Derek Jones | June 13, 2008 at 01:16 PM
It's way too early
Some of these hinge on whehter Deeds or Moran are running
It's way too early
Posted by: novamiddleman | June 13, 2008 at 01:58 PM
2009 will be the beginning of the R comeback in VA. 2008 will be ugly (Senate seat and 11th going D) but the Rs will have a better top to bottom statewide ticket and will have good enough slate of House candidates to hold the House and possibly pick up a seat or 2.
After 2009 the Rs will have won for McCain, hold the House, statewide offices and still have a congressional majority. The Ds will have both Senate seats, shrunk the Congressional majority by 1 and will hold the Senate.
Posted by: | June 13, 2008 at 02:22 PM
Miller belongs in Likely Democratic, as does Mathieson.
His current possible opponent might give a good fight, but he is in the most Democratic of districts in Virginia Beach and he beat Welch by 15 points. By the way, the district has only grown more urban since Nov. of 2007.
Also, if Democrats find a good opponent for Glenn Oder, who is not even popular among his own caucus, he is a Lean Republican. Although a more Republican district than Hamilton's, he doesn't have the same cash, power or popularity that Phil does. He should start off as Likely Republican.
Also--Armstrong, Bowling and Vanderhye are nowhere near being in trouble. Couldn't find an candidate against Armstrong last year and he sits on a ton of cash. Bowling is in "old deomcrat" district and the only one to run against him was another democrat in the primary. The write-in against him in the general was 1.17% of the vote. And Vanderhye--seriously?
Posted by: Sean Holihan | June 13, 2008 at 02:33 PM
Albo handed a beat down to Rex Simmons last fall, when the abuser fees were highlighted to voters. They have since been repealed.
Posted by: | June 13, 2008 at 02:41 PM
That's Hugo, actually.
Albo went unchallenged. Rust was challenged with the abuser fees and won a close one. They'll both be targeted in 09.
Posted by: Sean Holihan | June 13, 2008 at 02:46 PM
Sean
Rip Sullivan came within 149 votes of knocking her off in the primary, despite the establishment supporting her. Then, with a favorable environment, a head start and ending with a 100,000 advantage over Dave Hunt, she won by 453 votes. She is not that strong of a candidate and her district is a moderate one.
Posted by: Derek Jones | June 13, 2008 at 02:47 PM
That district went for every democrat on the ballot for the last four years, while also voting no on the Marshall/Newman Amendment.
It's not a moderate district. She'll have two years to be their delegate and she already has done a great job constituent service wise. She'll grow into the job and her margin of victory will be better than 07.
She is not in trouble. I guarantee it.
Posted by: Sean Holihan | June 13, 2008 at 02:50 PM
I question considering HD58 a safe Republican seat. The Democratic performance is currently 47.3, and it is trending away from Bell. The right Democratic candidate might take this seat.
HD33 (47.1) may end up in play as well.
Both of these look "likely" but not "safe" from this perspective.
Posted by: Not Bill Bosher | June 13, 2008 at 03:05 PM
2:46
woops you are right.
Posted by: | June 13, 2008 at 03:09 PM
Vince Callahan was a McLean Republican moderate and won not only most of McLean, but everything north of 123. The new Supervisor John Foust was a moderate and viewed as more conservative than the incumbent supervisor and won in McLean but also did well north of 123, winning by 6. By contrast Margi did well in McLean, but otherwise did poorly outside that area. The fact that she couldn’t run up the score in 2007 is a cause for concern, especially considering at the time she had strong ticketmates in Foust, Petersen and Connolly who all performed far better than she did in that House District
Posted by: Derek Jones | June 13, 2008 at 03:12 PM
May as well change the 23rd (Valentine) to safe Democratic. She can raise $100,000 at the drop of a hat, the big guys fall over themselves supporting her, and she has led campaigns before. Lynchburg is not what it used to be - the conservatives ran for the counties when they tired of the city being run by the elite of Ward I and what she calls her "Ace in the Hole" - the African American community of Ward II. She is being groomed for higher office.
Posted by: | June 13, 2008 at 03:12 PM
With her second-rate work ethic in Richmond, there will no higher office any time soon for Shannon Valentine. Maybe she could start by putting forward some meaningful original legislation. Her legislative productivity in Richmond is among the lowest for any member Republican or Democrat. She may win in Lynchburg, but she is a waste of space in the General Assembly. Hell, she may be less of a player than Bill Barlow and most House members do not even realize Barlow is there after all these years.
The Shannon Valentine cheerleading squad fascinates me. They clearly have no clue how inconsequential she is in Richmond. Maybe Shannon has the locals in Lynchburg fooled into believing she is a player, but they are getting snowed. Shannon is a VERY junior back bencher with next-to-no legislative accomplishments, little influence and little stature in Richmond. Maybe she fools the people in Lynchburg, but ask those who work around the Assembly in Richmond and most of them will tell you that she is a pretty lazy rookie league legislator who's biggest concern is getting out of Richmond as fast as possible each week. Just because the GOP in Lynchburg is too inept to recruit a challenger should in no way be taken as a sign that Shannon is some sort of star.
Posted by: | June 13, 2008 at 04:56 PM
Shannon Valentine is a devoted wife and mother of 3 school aged children - what do you want her to do on Friday afternoons - have one for the road with the "guys"? There have been many late nights for her doing legislative work in Richmond during session, not to mention what she does while in Lynchburg.
Much of work has been done behind the scenes without attracting the overt attention of those arrayed against her. Ask someone in the CVTC adminstration who's responsible for their bread getting buttered so well. She is also in the forefront of the Trans Dominion Express effort.
Backbencher? She sits next to Armstrong and Moran in the Assembly. They consult with her often. Talk to someone in the caucus and pay closer attention to the Assembly proceedings.
If she were to be challenged in 2009 her campaign would be have active support from Warner, Kaine, Moran, Armstrong, among several others. Jeff Fredrick - bring them on.
Posted by: | June 13, 2008 at 05:51 PM
Wait. This is great. You tell me to pay more attention to Assembly when you clearly do not even know how the place is organized. Her seating on the floor is assigned by the Clerk of the House, not by the Democratic minority. It is not any indication of power or prestige.
And I am overwhelmed by the stunning revelation that if she received a challenge, she would receive the strong support from her fellow Democrats. So would every other member of the Democrat caucus except for maybe Johnny Joannou. That is how the system works. If you are challenged, your fellow party leaders come to your aid. This is Politics 101 and is FAR from exclusive to Shannon.
She may be at the forefront of the TDX effort, but that thing is as dead as a doornail right now. We may see it happen in the next 50 years, but I am not holding my breath.
As for that money for CVTC, well again, if they think she butters their bread, they are sadly mistaken. The Governor put $22 million in bond money in the budget for CVTC and it was stripped out before the final budget was passed. $43 million was later put in the bond bill by THE SENATE since the initial bill in the House had ZERO money for CVTC. So unless Shannon has somehow become a Senator, she had next to nothing to do with it. Certainly her colleagues in the House could have cared less if she expressed her interest in the issue. That's some influence to not be able to get your key bonding need in your own chamber's package. With influence like that, Lynchburg is totally screwed.
She is a nobody. Deal with it. Not everyone in Richmond is a star. She may become one but she has a long long long long way to go. She is a lazy backbencher in the minority who has very little to show for her time in Richmond beyond attending some lobbyist receptions and busting out of town as soon as possible each week. She has nowhere near the influence and power you seem to think she has. If you had to make a chart of the power and influence of the 100 Delegates, she would rank no higher than #90 and probably that is charitable. There are some legislative aides who have more power and influence than she does.
Posted by: | June 13, 2008 at 06:21 PM
I believe you will find that this election will not be so popular for the democrat party. The obama camp has already managed to continue a pattern of “friendly” relationships with those of ill repute. From crooks in charge of his VP vetting, to terrorist neighbors and friends (not to mention the racist underpinnings of his entire entourage). This type of activity will not play well in the Commonwealth of VA and should assist the republicans in what would otherwise be a dismal election year.
Also, the public is starting to catch on to the fact that our energy “crisis” is the result of years of liberal policies hindering the USA from extracting the vital resources necessary to insure our safe and adequate supply. This will become more apparent as pressure mounts and policy changes from the few centrist dems left. People have “suffered while the evils were sufferable” and will now demand that our government produce. They realize that opposite pelosi’s promise to decrease the price of gas if elected the majority the price has doubled since the dem’s took over.
These and other ssues will become more important and empty rhetoric useless. “Words” will mean less and “actions” will mean more.
(the dems really missed their best chance with Hillary)
Posted by: | June 13, 2008 at 07:37 PM
I think who the Democratic gubernatorial nominee is will impacct these racecs more than who the President is.
That, and how well the RPVA can get their shit together at long last.
Posted by: | June 13, 2008 at 08:38 PM
7:37 don't hold back. Tell us how you REALLY feel about Obama. I can't tell.
Posted by: | June 13, 2008 at 08:50 PM
I think, as always, that the 6th House of Delegates seat remains in play. Not just becuase we've got three good candidates waiting in the wings (one with campaign expertise and an unrivaled number of contacts with activists, one capable of self-funding, and another who will be able to swing Farm Bureau and VEA endorsements away from Crockett-Stark.
You talked about recruiting the right candidate in a safe Republican seat... I think we shouldn't have any trouble with that down in SWVA.
Posted by: Isaac Sarver | June 13, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Well...we're talking about 2009 here...so does anyone wonder if the Obama campaign's focus on Virginia as a swing state bring out more Democrats and more CONSISTENT Democrats to vote in '09???
Posted by: Matt | June 13, 2008 at 10:19 PM
When Reagan had a record approval rating, Virginia elected Democrats.
When Bush the Greater was elected, Virginia elected Wilder.
When Clinton was popular, we elected Allen and Gilmore.
Bush the Lesser comes, and even at the height of his popularity we elect Mark Warner.
National politics doesn't seem to have much bearing on this state.
Posted by: | June 13, 2008 at 10:28 PM
I agree with 8:38, if the Gov. runs away from the dem. party he could be successful.
maybe the dem's could hire allen. he's available and could stand up to michelle obama...
Picture this:
she could call him whitey and he could call her macacca
back and forth
back and forth
while obama sits back like peewee herman pretending to protect his girl...lol...
then obama puts on that bicycle helment from the photo last week jumps on the bar and does the bar dance.....
dork written all over him, I would lmao
Posted by: | June 13, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Virginia has been the opposite party since nixon when matching the gov vs the pres.
Posted by: | June 13, 2008 at 10:55 PM
10:53 wtf are you talking about? You think the Dems will lose the Presidency. Alright, then Obama is a non issue in 2009.
So, which is it? Is he doomed and thus will be non-issue in 2009, or is he (in contradiction to your other rants) going to win and impact the race?
At least be consistent!
Posted by: | June 13, 2008 at 11:08 PM
I wonder if the people foaming at the mouth over Obama are even from Virginia, because at least two of them (one if they are the same person) doesn't seem to realize we have off-year elections for state office.
Posted by: | June 13, 2008 at 11:18 PM
11:18 - You're right. These are sound bites going all over email, listserves, blogs, etc. Nothing original here except for the fractured grammer.
Posted by: dems4dems | June 13, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Well if someone suggests that national politics has much effect on Virginia state office, they sure as shit failed the Turing Test.
Posted by: | June 13, 2008 at 11:33 PM
I was talking about the Supreme Court, yes. It was firmly tongue-in-cheek, however.
In all seriousness, I think she has a shot at Attorney General. But I'd rather see her as Senate Majority Leader. Between she and Harry Reid, she certainly is the greater man. Reid is a wimp.
Posted by: RichmondDem | June 13, 2008 at 11:39 PM
Richmond Dem - Those in the know say "no way". This isn't inside baseball, it's out there.
Posted by: dems4dems | June 14, 2008 at 03:56 PM
Pete, yes Bouchard won a squeaker, but it was only because the minority precincts had terrible turnout. That won't happen with the statewides running at the top of the ticket. Bouchard beat Stolle in Leo Wardrup's home precinct. Joe performed 7-8 points better than Webb and Kellam in many precincts. This district will get more Democratic. The growth in the district is in the SW part, the most Democratic part of the 83rd. It will be close but the retired vets love the guy and he's pretty moderate.
Posted by: asmith | June 14, 2008 at 05:29 PM
NLS- why do you consider Poisson so vulnerable? I thought he was well liked in Loudoun.
Posted by: Sibyl Says | June 14, 2008 at 09:29 PM
Poison and Valentine are no-account backbenchers. They have been poor substitutes for Richard Black and Preston Bryant respectively.
The only way Moran or Deeds wins the Governorship is if McCain wins the Presidency.
Virginia ALWAYS flips parties - at least for the past 30 years.
Posted by: t | June 15, 2008 at 01:25 AM
While I was aware that there many incumbents running unopposed the last time around I was stunned to see that something on the order of only 35 of 100 Delegate seats were truly contested and only 17 of the 40 the Senate seats were. In all the other races either the incumbent ran unopposed or had an unknown, unfunded independent type running against them.
Is it just me or does anyone else think that having less than 40% of our elected representaives running in opposed races is bad for our democracy?
Posted by: Ted | June 15, 2008 at 09:02 PM