virginia.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Virginia will be closer in 2008 than in the last two presidential elections, however it will still result in victory for Senator McCain come election day. My predictions for the Presidential race in Virginia would be this:

McCain (R): 52%
Obama (D): 47%
Others: (O): 1%

[agcatter]

about right

[bullmoose88]

The state is trending Democratic, it was 5.7% more GOP than the national average in 2004, following that same trend it puts it @ 3% more GOP than the national average.  If anything the trend in Virginia towards the Democrats has picked up even more steam since 2004, so the 04-08 trend against the national average would likely be even heavier than the 00-04 trend.  Top that off with higher black turnout as well with Obama having more appeal than the typical Democrat would in leftward FLYING Northern Virginia.  In VA I would say Hillary could be within 3 points of the national average and possibly 2, Obama looks like he can very well be even with the national average.

My math and econometrics professors always warned against taking trends from the last data point or two and extrapolating forward.

It would be more conservative and wiser to say take the trend back from say 88 or 92 and seeing where that put VA.

 In 96 it was 10.46% more GOP than nationally, 8.54% in 2000 & 5.74% in 04.  So the trend of 2-3 points nationally has been going on since 96.  Just looking at what is going on in Virginia, and Northern VA in particular it looks like the Dem trend has even gained more steam.  A trend doen't mean the trend will continue, but their is no evidence that the trend in VA is reversing itself, slowing down, and if anything it seems like the trend is picking up steam.

Second, I don't know if I totally buy into the idea of using how much more an area was (or less) than the national (or state) average.

Say for instance Candidate X in 1988 in State Y had 55% of the vote when he had 52% nationally, but 4 years later had 55% in state Y but 57% nationally...is the state any more or less favorable to his party than it was 4 years before?

What your doing does have some use and is telling, but like every other statistic, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Smash255]

The state is trending Democratic, it was 5.7% more GOP than the national average in 2004, following that same trend it puts it @ 3% more GOP than the national average.  If anything the trend in Virginia towards the Democrats has picked up even more steam since 2004, so the 04-08 trend against the national average would likely be even heavier than the 00-04 trend.  Top that off with higher black turnout as well with Obama having more appeal than the typical Democrat would in leftward FLYING Northern Virginia.  In VA I would say Hillary could be within 3 points of the national average and possibly 2, Obama looks like he can very well be even with the national average.

My math and econometrics professors always warned against taking trends from the last data point or two and extrapolating forward.

It would be more conservative and wiser to say take the trend back from say 88 or 92 and seeing where that put VA.

 In 96 it was 10.46% more GOP than nationally, 8.54% in 2000 & 5.74% in 04.  So the trend of 2-3 points nationally has been going on since 96.  Just looking at what is going on in Virginia, and Northern VA in particular it looks like the Dem trend has even gained more steam.  A trend doen't mean the trend will continue, but their is no evidence that the trend in VA is reversing itself, slowing down, and if anything it seems like the trend is picking up steam.

Second, I don't know if I totally buy into the idea of using how much more an area was (or less) than the national (or state) average.

Say for instance Candidate X in 1988 in State Y had 55% of the vote when he had 52% nationally, but 4 years later had 55% in state Y but 57% nationally...is the state any more or less favorable to his party than it was 4 years before?

What your doing does have some use and is telling, but like every other statistic, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm not saying its full proof by any means, nothing is, but its probably the best barometer to show where a state actually stands.

[MODU]

Obama definitely has the better chance of winning VA than Killary, but it would take a nation-wide landslide on Obama's side to definitely claim VA.  Killary would have had a better shot at winning the state if she wasn't "Clinton," since she does pander to the moderates much more than any other leftist, since VA is definitely a Blue Dog state.  However, as history shows, the Democrats rarely put forward a Blue Dog candidate, which is why it tends to go GOP, even when the state-level races go to the Democrats.

[MarkWarner08]

Obama definitely has the better chance of winning VA than Killary, but it would take a nation-wide landslide on Obama's side to definitely claim VA.  Killary would have had a better shot at winning the state if she wasn't "Clinton," since she does pander to the moderates much more than any other leftist, since VA is definitely a Blue Dog state.  However, as history shows, the Democrats rarely put forward a Blue Dog candidate, which is why it tends to go GOP, even when the state-level races go to the Democrats.

Which is exactly why Mark Warner would've been the perfect Democratic candidate for VA. If he runs in 2012, he might also be competitive in NC.

[joshc99]

I think it's interesting that virtually every prediction in this thread turned out wrong. Not only did Obama win by 6.3% (only 1.0% worse than nationally), but he actually lost Buchanan County. In fact, he lost quite a few Appalachian counties where Clinton won upwards of 80% of the vote.

[DS0816]

I think it's interesting that virtually every prediction in this thread turned out wrong. Not only did Obama win by 6.3% (only 1.0% worse than nationally), but he actually lost Buchanan County. In fact, he lost quite a few Appalachian counties where Clinton won upwards of 80% of the vote.

Virginia was No. 1 in being closest to reflecting President Obama's national margin. A spread of 0.96%. Look at it and Colorado for spreads, since 1996, and no wonder they were Nos. 1 and 2 (with Colo. at 8.95%, 1.69% above his national 7.26%).