Posted on 10/24/2013 9:27:46 PM PDT by Maelstorm
OCTOBER 24, 2013 – A new Wenzel Strategies poll of likely voters in Virginia shows the race for governor is a pretty tight contest, though Democrat Terry McAuliffe continues to enjoy a small lead. It all depends on what the turnout is going to be, and whether Democrats who turned out in big numbers last year for President Obama come out again for McAuliffe.
There is evidence in the new WS survey that that will not be the case, as both McAuliffe and Republican Ken Cuccinelli are not held in high esteem in the minds of voters and more people are discouraged with the general direction of the state than are encouraged. The Wenzel Strategies survey shows McAuliffe leading, 41% to 40%, with the balance of voters either favoring Libertarian Rob Sarvis (10%) or undecided.
The Wenzel Strategies poll, using a turnout model that is closely balanced, includes a sample of 28% Democrats, 26% Republicans, and 46% independent voters. This reflects the swing-state tradition of Virginia that has lately leaned toward Republicans in statewide, non-presidential years, but has tilted to the Democrats in recent presidential elections.
Using a turnout model replicated by Quinnipiac University in its recent survey, weighting the sample to include 33% Democrats, 25% Republicans, and 42% independents or minor party supporters, McAuliffe leads with 43%, compared to 38% Cuccinelli, 10% for Sarvis and 9% yet undecided. This reflects a slight tightening of the race, compared to the Quinnipiac survey that showed McAuliffe with a 7-point lead.
The survey shows there is reason to believe the race may well be tightening going into the final stretch, as a key issue benefitting McAuliffe fades into the rearview mirror – the recent government shutdown, which hit some parts of Virginia hard. As the shutdown fades, another key issue that benefits Cuccinelli – the expanding controversy over the bungled rollout of Obamacare – is bound to grab more attention among voters by the day. It could well be that Cuccinelli has bounced off his low point and is headed up.
Finally, the question of how many conservative voters who say now that they support Sarvis will actually follow through and vote for him is yet unanswered. Voters who are disaffected with the political establishment can say they are supporting a third-party candidate, but actually casting a ballot for a spoiler is quite another matter. Outsiders have won GOP primary elections in recent cycles, but my sense is it is less likely to happen in this instance, when Sarvis supporters know it could well lead directly to the election of someone whose political philosophy is completely opposite of their own.
Uncertainty on this question is further compounded by the fact that 53% of Virginians don’t even know enough about Sarvis to have formed an opinion about him. His support must be considered soft at best. In addition, a significant percentage said they were yet unsure about the race – 9% are yet undecided, yet are likely to vote.
The Wenzel Strategies survey shows voters are split on both McAuliffe and Cuccinelli. While 45% said they have a favorable opinion of McAuliffe, 46% have an unfavorable opinion of him. For Cuccinelli, 47% hold a favorable opinion, while 50% have an unfavorable opinion of him.
McAuliffe has done a better job locking down his political base, perhaps in part to recent campaigning in the state by both Clintons, who are longtime allies of McAuliffe. Among Democrats, McAuliffe wins 81% support. Among Republicans, Cuccinelli wins just 68% support. Among those who consider themselves political independents, Cuccinelli wins 44% support, compared to 33% for McAuliffe and 11% for Sarvis.
If Bush I had won 1992, then Clinton might have been elected in 1996 and been president during 9/11. If there was an incumbent bump in 2004, Gore would’ve been elected. Then the economy crash would have put McCain in in 2008. And Obama might have beat him in 2012. And we’d be right back to where we are today, except with McCainCare instead of Obamacare.
It’s not baloney. You need to have a run-off, a multiple-choice ballot, or a ranked-choice ballot to have any idea what voters’ intent was. If 45% wanted the Dem but 55% would have taken either the libertarian or Republican over the Dem, but split the vote between them, then it’s undemocratic to let the Dem take office. Voting is about what the majority wants.
This is not pro or anti-third party. A run-off could benefit the third party just as easily as the Republican or Democrat. Run-offs arguably help the third party more, because all they have to do is come in second in order to get a chance to go head-to-head against just one of the major candidates. But the real issue is to require a majority of the voters to vote for the winner, not merely a plurality.
Oh, there are as many Republican traitors at the state level, believe me. Bill Bolling, our Romney-loving lieutenant governor, has refused to endorse Cuccinelli.
Also, earlier in the campaign I read that McAuliffe had bought off some Republicans in the Hampton Roads area. Sure enough, the Republican mayor of Virginia Beach pops up in a commercial, saying how proud he is to be endorsing a Democrat for the first time.
The other problem is that not requiring a majority to sign on to the winner opens up the potential for a more and more fringe candidate to win if the race has enough candidates. If a communist candidate can get 21% of the vote in a 5-man race, then he could win the election. Even though the other 79% might never have voted for him. No one should be given office without 50% of the public voting expressing support for them. Democracy doesn’t work otherwise and becomes a mockery or a sham potentially.
Hillary will take VA easily in 2016 without any help from McAwful.
McAuliffe is horrible. Praying that the Old Dominion elects the right man.
That is your version of democracy. It is not the commonly accepted one. Clinton never got 50% of the popular vote. Should we have had a runoff? Is the electoral college democratic? We have a republic not a democracy.
This is not pro or anti-third party. A run-off could benefit the third party just as easily as the Republican or Democrat. Run-offs arguably help the third party more, because all they have to do is come in second in order to get a chance to go head-to-head against just one of the major candidates. But the real issue is to require a majority of the voters to vote for the winner, not merely a plurality.
They have runoffs where the top two vote getters are members of the same party. What happens if the top two vote recipients receive 20% and 15% of the primary vote? When we have low turnout elections, does that represent democracy to you when just a small percentage of the eligible voters show up to the polls?
I have no problem with multiple parties nominating their candidates and the winner decided on the number of votes received even if it is a plurality. And then there is the practical aspect of it that relates to the costs of holding multiple elections to both the taxpayers and the candidates.
And then there is the real world where the vast majority of elections in this country don't have run-offs. That is not going to change because the two major parties don't want it to change nor do their supporters. You can argue about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, but it will have no impact on our electoral system. Maybe you should form a third party and make that your main objective.
The other alternative is to go to a parliamentary form of government and have proportional representation that gives smaller parties some political relevance.
Can you cite some real world examples where this has happened in the US? How many fringe candidates do we have in Congress or in state legislatures?
No one should be given office without 50% of the public voting expressing support for them.
We have numerous examples where this is the case in Congress and state legislatures and yes, the WH even though the President is not elected by popular vote? Do you support direct election of the President and VP?
Thank you for your prayers; indeed he is awful.
Cuccinelli wiped the floor with the greasy liar in last night’s debate. No thinking person could possibly vote for McAuliffe...but therein lies the problem.
I’m not talking about changing popular vs. electoral vote. I’m saying the 50% rule should apply anywhere the popular vote is counted. So in a presidential election, that would occur on the state level in most cases to determine who is awarded the electoral votes. I would have to check in how many states Clinton got the electoral votes without winning 50% of the vote in those states. But absolutely he should not have been the automatic winner in a state if he didn’t get 50% of the vote.
I don’t care what’s commonly accepted. I can point to examples where run-off elections are held. It’s not a fringe idea. And it’s not just my idea of democracy. It is done more in primaries probably because those are often multi-candidate races, where the example I cited is more likely to happen, with a candidate potentially being the winner with a small portion of the vote.
If you want to let the left continue to be two steps ahead on the chess board, you can wait to worry about runoffs until they have firmly planted right-leaning third party candidates in all important races, and they wipe out the Republicans that way. Run-offs protect against this kind of manipulation.
The costs can be handled with a different kind of ballot, an instant runoff or ranked choice ballot. If the ballots asked who your second choice is if the first doesn’t win, those can be counted as an instant run-off without needing to have the voters return to the polls.
A low turnout election is perfectly democratic. That means a lot of voters said they don’t care which one is elected, which is fine. They express their non-preference for either by not showing up.
I like our form of government the way it is. But the voters have to be allowed to express their true intention at the polls. I don’t care if it’s easily going to be done or not. I have no doubt what the most accurate way of voting is and I’ll ask everyone else to get on board. We can either prevent the dishonest Dems figuring out how to game the system ahead of time, or wait until it might be too late.
I had seen links to the debate posted elsewhere but haven’t had the chance to review them yet. And yes, you are quite right in that some elections are indeed decided by the unthinking ...
Bless your efforts and best of luck!
In 1992 Clinton only received 43% of the popular vote. Go state by state and you will see that Clinton didn't receive 50% of the vote in almost all of the states he won including NY. Arkansas was the only exception. And the same holds true for Bush.
American history is replete with such examples. So you are suggesting a runoff in every state where the Presidential candidate did not receive 50% of the vote? You would probably need a constitutional amendment to effect such a change. And that would never happen.
If you want to let the left continue to be two steps ahead on the chess board, you can wait to worry about runoffs until they have firmly planted right-leaning third party candidates in all important races, and they wipe out the Republicans that way. Run-offs protect against this kind of manipulation.
Both parties would support such measures to retain power. The RINOs would certainly support it to prevent a challenge on the right.
I don’t care what’s commonly accepted. I can point to examples where run-off elections are held. It’s not a fringe idea. And it’s not just my idea of democracy. It is done more in primaries probably because those are often multi-candidate races, where the example I cited is more likely to happen, with a candidate potentially being the winner with a small portion of the vote.
It is the exception not the rule. That should tell you something about its popularity. I don't care what is done locally or at the state level. It is the choice of the people. It should be a matter of free choice, not mandated. I don't see any popular movement to do what you want. Let the marketplace decide.
I like our form of government the way it is. But the voters have to be allowed to express their true intention at the polls. I don’t care if it’s easily going to be done or not. I have no doubt what the most accurate way of voting is and I’ll ask everyone else to get on board. We can either prevent the dishonest Dems figuring out how to game the system ahead of time, or wait until it might be too late.
Good luck at tilting at windmills. Why don't you start locally and convince people to follow your suggestion. Let's see how successful you are.
I wouldn’t mandate it or amend it at the federal level. Election law doesn’t normally happen at that level. But I would encourage the parties and localities and states to do it and hope it becomes a trend. It really doesn’t benefit the two party-system more than another party or vice versa. There are scenarios for one or the other where it could help or hurt them. It’s something everyone should support since it means a fairer representation of what the majority of voters want.
When elections are at the federal level, that is where the law is written. Check out Constitution.
It’s something everyone should support since it means a fairer representation of what the majority of voters want.
If the majority of voters want it, they will adopt it. So far, they have not.
Again, do you support the direct election of the President and VP, i.e., by popular vote?
I dunno about that FReeper but my answer would be NO WAY. I'd rather go back to letting state legislatures decide.
I agree with you. It also undermines federalism the same way the 17th amendment did.
One problem is some big money backers of Bob McDonnell and Bill Bolling have sown dissension and withheld money from the campaign. They don’t like that Ken Cuccinelli will not be bought. Its not that he’s socially conservative. Bob McDonnell has the same positions on social issues as Ken which is Ken is solidly prolife and pro traditional family. What McAuliffe has been doing is has been just running ads that are claiming Cuccinelli wants to ban birth control which is a lie. This is one reason for the big women gap in the polling.
Not a good trend IMO.
If cuchinelli loses, the 3rd party is partially to blame.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.