weather icon 54° Mostly Cloudy
The Latest:

Home > General Discussion > Why did Terry McAuliffe Win Narrowly?

Why did Terry McAuliffe Win Narrowly?
  • AKB November 6, 2013 - 6:47 pm #93327 Reply

    Folks — I got into a heated argument with a co-worker at the Courthouse metro stop. Why he asked did I vote for Sarvis? If I and 2000 other voters had voted for Ken, then Terry would not be in the Governor-elect. My co-worker – in a contract company – said that Ken is a dinosaur. His views cannot hurt us for long. We can do what we want even if he had power. But, not so with Terry. We will be now cheer-leaders for Hillary! in 2016. We will just be a fund-raising state. He will harm us if we do not support the Clintons. We cannot ignore him. So, my co-worker said: in my vanity to support an independent candidate, I lost. Who is right?

    nom de guerre November 6, 2013 - 7:15 pm #93332 Reply

    This person is (R)ight.

    Hank November 6, 2013 - 8:57 pm #93340 Reply

    Where did you get the figure of you plus 2,000 votes swinging the election to Cuccinelli?

    And VA will be just a fundraising state and McAuliffe will harm us if we do not support the Clintons?

    nom de guerre November 6, 2013 - 9:27 pm #93341 Reply

    AKB

    He  has been imbibing this. . .

    Quoth the Raven November 7, 2013 - 9:07 am #93355 Reply

    If Cucccinelli was a vegan, he would have won easily.

    newty25 November 7, 2013 - 9:13 am #93356 Reply

    I voted Sarvis instead of McAuliffe because A) It was a show of support for a third political party B) I thought McAuliffe would easily win.

    My roommate didn’t vote at all because he heard McAuliffe would easily win and since he didn’t have much time on Tuesday he didn’t feel like voting was worthwhile.

    So, you can tell coworker that if McAuliffe hadn’t commanded such a large lead in the polls, that more people would have come out to support him and he probably would have won by a larger margin. Cooch is lucky that people became complacent because of those polls.

    John Fontain November 7, 2013 - 9:28 am #93360 Reply

    newty, i’m in the exact same camp as you.

    KalashniKEV November 7, 2013 - 9:56 am #93363 Reply

    We are seeing a lot of pre-written “news” stories this week framing the election results in a certain way that favors their slant- Cooch lost because he’s too conservative, Krusty won because he’s an undercover democrat, DiBlasio won because he’s going to steal from the rich and give to the poor… in the end, every election was decided in the way it was projected.

    The reasons for the slim margin are:

    1) Cooch is incredibly distasteful to the electorate. McAwful is very distasteful- and a Clinton political operative NYer with no experience to boot!  The Republicans could have won easily if they nominated someone who was strong on their platform but not “incredibly distasteful.” Seriously, they could have run their office IT guy, a local cop, or any random dude.

    2) Sarvis siphoned more votes from Cooch than McAwful (as Libertarians always do). This is why McAwful was funding his campaign. It doesn’t take a 3rd degree blackbelt political operative to come up with this one… and it was an excellent strategy.

    3) McAwful outspent Cooch $10:$1. With a huge influx of Bloomberg’s dirty money, the Clinton fundraising machine, and the use of BHO’s campaign network of local subversives, McAwful came with the Sledgehammer Approach (and it was sick and beautiful).  In contrast, the RNC spent $9M towards McDonnell in 2009 because he represents the GOP establishment. This time they spent $3M… because they had to. I’m sure they wish they could have spent $0. Cooch represents the awesome and terrifying power of the TEA party… and that scares them to death. I’m sure the GOP establishment popped bottles Tuesday night right alongside their Democrat “opponents.”

    4) What lead McAwful had going into the election (as a result of the above) was diminished when he failed to denounce the the disaster that is Obamacare. In fact, McAwful even had Obama at an event the day before the election. Obama’s approval rating is now somewhere in the 30% range. He’s radioactive, and if McAwful was truly a smart political operative, he would have avoided him at all costs going into the race. He was blinded by his sycophancy.

    if McAuliffe hadn’t commanded such a large lead in the polls…

    Democrats always lead in the polls- until the Republicans get off work. ;)

    (really it has to do with media bias and spinstering, but it always holds true)

    iiandyiiii November 7, 2013 - 10:53 am #93369 Reply

    KEV- I disagree with your point 4.  VA voters are not any more negative about the ACA than voters in the country at large, and these opinions have not changed despite the poor rollout of the website.  Just like most of the country, a slight majority of VA voters disapprove of the ACA, but far more want to fix it than kill it outright.  Cuccinelli’s boasts about being the first AG to prevent an ACA exchange in his state likely hurt him.  There’s very little reason to believe that opinions on the ACA hurt McAuliffe more than Cuccinelli.

    The electoral lesson is this, I believe- full-on “kill the bill” opposition to the ACA is an electoral loser.  Many people think it’s a flawed bill, but few would rather kill it than fix it.

    Arlington, SSR November 7, 2013 - 10:58 am #93371 Reply

    I agree with the previous folks:  1) (D) People were told it was a landslide so they didn’t bother voting.  2) Some (D) people (including me) voted for Sarvis to show support for a third party, especially since their vote might not be needed for McAwful.  3) Cooch’s (R/TP) people showed en force because they knew they needed all the votes they could get.

    KalashniKEV November 7, 2013 - 11:33 am #93378 Reply

    VA voters are not any more negative about the ACA…

    What I said is unrelated to whether a voter is in favor of ACA or not- you can’t “get” it even if you were in love with it! It’s been a total embarrassment for this administration and has shone light on the incompetence and corruption of the regime. Even Chief White House Propagandist John Stewart has acknowledged this. There’s really no other way to spin it.

    (D) People were told it was a landslide so they didn’t bother voting.

    I personally don’t buy that one, but you’re entitled to your opinion.

    iiandyiiii November 7, 2013 - 1:19 pm #93398 Reply

    KEV- I’m not talking about spin, I’m talking about polling.  Despite the website, the ACA has the same approval, and the same majority who oppose its repeal, as it did before the website rollout.  There’s just no statistical evidence that shows the ACA hurt McAuliffe- quite the opposite, in fact… voters oppose Cuccinelli’s position of keeping the exchanges out of Virginia.  The states that set up their own exchanges, like Kentucky, have actually been doing great.

    newty25 November 7, 2013 - 2:12 pm #93409 Reply

    KEV, the numbers are about 35% of Americans want to delay, defund, or repeal the ACA.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/30/new-poll-only-one-third-of-americans-support-repealing-defunding-or-delaying-obamacare/

    These numbers are directly inline with current polls. True, most Americans oppose the healthcare law. BUT, that’s not the entire story. About 35% of Americans want no government healthcare. Many of those who oppose the ACA, want a far more liberal “single payer” type government healthcare system. In other words, they think that the ACA hasn’t gone far enough.

    So, those who oppose government healthcare should be extremely happy that we have the ACA rather than some government run “single payer”-type system. Ask any Canadian and they’ll tell you it’s the pits.

    CommentBot November 7, 2013 - 2:18 pm #93413 Reply

    @newty25, As a Canadian (formerly, currently all American,) I can tell you that no, it’s not the pits in Ontario, some of those other provinces, maybe.

    newty25 November 7, 2013 - 2:26 pm #93414 Reply

    Comment, I’ve heard good and bad. Here’s a excerpt from a WaPo article about it:

    Canadians certainly view their health care system as crucial to national identity: 85 percent say that eliminating the public plan would “result in a fundamental change to the nature of Canada.”

    That does not, however, mean there isn’t gripping about its shortcomings. A 2007 poll conducted by Queens University in Kingston, Ont. found that, while public opinion had ticked up slightly, “a large majority of Canadians still believe that the system is unsustainable and urgently in need of substantive change.” Most of the concerns had to do with long wait times and difficulty accessing care. The survey also found widespread support for increasing health care spending.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

×

Subscribe to our mailing list