Virginia Senate race in 2012 looking to be very close (again)

By Richard K. Barry

A Washington Post poll came out a few days ago, which would make the 2012 race for the Virginia senate seat about as tight as possible. The presumptive front runners for their parties, George Allen (R) and Tim Kaine (D), find themselves with 46% support each if the election were held today. You will recall that Allen was a senator as well as governor of the state, while Kaine also served as governor and was on President Obama's veep shortlist.

In one of the more interesting races of 2006, Democrat Jim Webb beat Allen, who was at that time the incumbent. Despite Allen's early lead in the polls, Webb closed the gap and won by a mere 49.59% to 49.20% margin (or just 9,329 votes). Most observers have attributed Allen's use of an ethnic slur in reference to a Webb campaign worker as contributing to his loss.

Now Webb has decided that he won't seek reelection, which has thrown things wide open likely making Virginia, once again, one of the most interesting races of 2012.

While Allen's behaviour in the 2006 race may continue to be a problem for him, it has been pointed out that Tim Kaine's close relationship to the Obama White House could be an issue for him especially among independents. Look for the Republicans to be airing ads using the cheerleader motif to describe that relationship. I can almost see the pom poms now.

As The Washington Post points out, Virginia has changed dramatically in recent years, noting that:

Kaine draws support in portions of northern Virginia, which has rapidly gained in population, wealth and clout. Allen, the ex-governor and senator, remains strong in the remainder of the state.

Other details of poll as reported by the Richmond Times-Dispatch are that:

• 58 percent of voters approve of the way Kaine handled his job as governor; 55 percent approve of Allen's performance as a U.S. Senator.
• 57 percent of voters have a favourable impression of Kaine; 52 percent of Allen.
• Kaine leads in northern Virginia but trails among independents in the outer suburbs; Allen struggles with female and minority voters.
• Allen is far outpacing his GOP rivals. He had the support of 57 percent of Republicans. Tea Party Candidate Jamie Radke has just 2 percent.
• Kaine would, at this point, also make short work of other Democratic challengers.

As we've commented, it is going to be tough slogging for the Democrats to hold onto the Senate in 2012 as they must defend 23 seats to the Republicans' 10. Virginia would clearly be an essential "keep" if they were to have a chance of doing that.

In the 2008 presidential election, Obama beat McCain in Virginia by a margin of 53% to 47%, but Bush beat Kerry by roughly 54% to 45% in 2004.

Virginia has 11 members of the House. In the 2010 mid-term elections, the Republican picked up 3 seats now holding an 8 to 3 margin over the Dems. In 2008, as a part of the Obama surge, the Democrats took 6 seats to the Republican 5 and prior to that in 2006 the Republican were ahead with an 8 to 3 seat margin.

This one certainly seems to be shaping up to be as close as the polls suggest. Perhaps as much as any place in the country, we'll see what kind of coattails President Obama has.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

We Kaine do it! (Yes, we Kaine!)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(Sorry, that's a pretty lame post title. I feel wiped out after watching the Steelers squeak by the Dolphins, 23-22.)

DNC Chair (and former Virginia governor) Tim Kaine told Christiane Amanpour on ABC's This Week this morning that Democrats will retain control of the House on November 2. Is he insane?

Yesterday, suggesting that Republicans have already peaked (and noting that the "enthusiasm gap" appears to be closing), I predicted that Democrats will do better than expected in the midterm elections. But, while I hold out hope, I certainly did not go so far as to predict that they would hold onto the House, which seems to be a lost cause at this point.

Now, of course, Kaine has to remain optimistic. It's his job to raise money and rally the troops, and no one wants a glum party chair predicting failure. But he did hedge his bets a bit. After responding "I do. I do." to Amanpour's direct question, he shuffled back into uncertainty: "I think it's going to be close," he said. "These races are very close, but from this point forward, it's all about turnout and ground game. And we're seeing good early voting trends and we've got work to do, but we think we can do it."

To his credit, though, he's not resorting to manic cheerleading. He's right that "it's all about turnout and ground game" (a lot of it is, anyway), and, well, you never know: "Almost all the polls have been moving for us. Now we still have work to do, but what Democrats tend to specialize in is the ground game – the turnout – and the more people turn out, the better we do."

It won't be enough, but I think Kaine's onto something here. No, he doesn't have some inside scoop. No, he isn't delusional. He just knows that the race is narrowing and that a Democratic surge in the final days of the campaign could at least make it close.

Your new DNC chairman

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine.

A fine pick, if you ask me, not least because of his close relationship to the soon-to-be president and because of his popularity in a key swing state.

Then again, as MyDD's Bob Brigham points out, he's hardly an ideal party chair. DWT notes that it's yet another sign that Obama is "putting all the levers of power in the hands of conservative Democrats."

As has often been the case during the transition, though, I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. I just wouldn't want the DNC to become nothing more than Obama '12, that is, for the party apparatus to devote itself almost exclusively to Obama's political ambitions, however much I may support those ambitions. Democrats need to secure and hopefully expand their majorities in Congress, after all, as well as to make gains at the state level. I just don't know if Obama's man at the DNC is the right man for that job.

Veepstakes: Not Bayh, not Kaine, likely Biden

By Michael J.W. Stickings

According to NBC's Andrea Mitchell, both Bayh and Kaine have been "told they're not it."

Meanwhile, according to ABC's Political Punch, the Secret Service has been sent "to assume the immediate protection" of Biden.

According to CNN's Political Ticker, there's been "a flurry of activity" at Biden's Delaware home.

Also according to CNN, the pick will be announced tomorrow morning.

And, apparently, it won't be Hillary.

**********

UPDATE: You know how crazy this has gotten? Using FlightAware, Ambinder has discovered a mysterious charter flight from Chicago Midway to New Castle, Delaware.

There are "[n]o other flights from anywhere in and around Chicago to anywhere in and around Delaware... or vice versa. Just this charter."

Quite the impressive investigative work, but is it overkill? Yes, maybe. But I must admit, I'm really into this. The suspense is what's crazy, but I suppose we'll know soon enough, though perhaps we do already, that it's Biden.

Veepstakes: Biden on the move?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

According to the Chicago Sun-Times's Lynn Sweet, Biden is "moving up on the list of potential running mates" for Obama.

It seems to be coming down to Biden, Bayh, and Kaine -- unless Obama has a major surprise up his sleeve. As I've said before, Biden is my clear preference among the leading contenders.

Steve Clemons thinks that Bayh is "the favored candidate" to be Obama's running mate. As I've said before, I don't much care for Bayh. He's generally too "centrist" for my liking, too much the slick careerist politician, too willing to abandon Democratic principles in order to make nice with the other side. And it doesn't help that, as Taylor Marsh points out (via Steve), "he was the co-chair of the neocon pro-war Committee for the Liberation of Iraq," a group that included McCain, Lieberman, former CIA Director James Woolsey, and PNAC founder and neocon extraordinaire Krazy Bill Kristol. To me, that's enough, more than enough, to disqualify him.

I'd be fine with Kaine -- he's the governor of a key purple state (Virginia), and he and Obama apparently get along really well, but he lacks the extensive foreign policy and national security experience I think Obama needs on the ticket -- but, of these three, let it be Biden.

Chris Bowers, a solid progressive Democrat, makes a good case for him as the least bad of a fairly unappealing lot:

[A]t least Biden is in the center of the Democratic Party, rather it's right flank. Also, he is seasoned as a national campaigner, and an effective surrogate on national media. He excelled in all of the debates back in 2007, and would do well in the VP debate against anyone McCain selects. Also, given his age, he would not be an heir apparent to the nomination in 2012 or 2016. In short, he is competent, not right-wing, and would not have a stanglehold on the party once Obama is gone. I can live with that.

Biden might be the only non-terrible choice on the short list who also appears convincingly "presidential." (Even though I hate using that word, do people here really believe Sebelius as the President of the United States?) If he ends up as Vice-President, I won't be excited, but I will be relieved.

At this point, I'll take relief over excitement. Biden's the right pick.

Veepstakes: Obama's choice

By Michael J.W. Stickings

According to Marc Ambinder, Obama's veep vetters are focusing on four condenders:

• Even Bayh;
• Joe Biden;
• Tim Kaine; and
• Kathleen Sebelius.

"Based on discussions with high-level Obama aides, I do not get the impression that Obama has made up his mind yet. These aides do say that Obama is narrowing his choices."

According to Ambinder, Kaine and Sebelius are about governing, not campaigning, while Bayh and Biden are about legislating. The first two are outsiders, the second two are insiders. The first two are young and relatively unknown. The second two have loads of experience in Washington and "would be expected to do heavy lifting with allies and adversaries." (For more on Kaine, and the enthusiasm in Kaine-land, see WaPo. For a cogent critique of Ambinder's analysis, see Publius at Obsidian Wings: Given their lack of experience in Washington, Kaine and Sebelius can't be about governing. Instead, they are about campaigning, and about Obama winning certain key states: "They’re Red State pragmatic governors and the media would love the narrative." (Maybe the media would, at least at first, but I'm not sure they'd remain media darlings for long.) By contast, Biden "would be an excellent governing choice.")

But they are all, in Democratic terms, centrist. Kaine and Sebelius are red-state governors. Kaine, in particular, could help Obama win a key emerging swing state, Virginia. Each one would be a risky pick. I'm not sure how either would do on the national stage, but, given recent performances (say, giving the Democratic response to a State of the Union address), I'm not confident that either one would do all that well. At best, solid and unexciting. At worst, too obviously inexperienced, in way over their heads, criticized by the media and the Republicans alike, which could reinforce Obama's general lack of experience.

(Still, a relatively unknown governor could match up well against a relatively unknown governor on the other side -- say, if McCain were to pick Jindal or Pawlenty. The experience factor wouldn't matter quite as much, though McCain will still play the experience card against Obama no matter what.)

Bayh and Biden, by contrast, would be safer picks, I think, though Biden has an unpleasant knack for getting his foot stuck in his mouth and Bayh is immensely dull, too much the consummate career politician. Bayh could help with Indiana, another key emerging swing state, as well as with Hillary supporters (he was one of her prominent backers during the primary campaign), but I'm not sure this is a good year to be a Washington insider. Biden, on the other hand, would be riskier but also more dynamic out on the campaign trail. He also has extensive foreign policy experience. There is the risk that he could overshadow Obama in this area, also reinforcing Obama's lack of experience, but Obama has become a superstar statesman and would not easily be overshadowed. As well, I suspect that Biden would be kept in check by the campaign (or, at least, the Obama people would try to ensure that he doesn't dominate, or try to dominate, the ticket). Biden also comes with a lot of baggage, having run for president in the past and having been around for so long, but it's not like any of the others is without baggage, and, what's more, the Obama campaign has proven extremely capable at dealing with the media and the GOP smear machine.

(Biden or Bayh would match up well against Jindal or Pawlenty or Thune, in terms of experience, but, of course, experience in Washington can leave a nasty mark. If McCain were to go with someone with more experience, like Portman, Obama would do well to have even more experience on the ticket. And if it's Romney, well, both Biden and Bayh are strong enough not just to stand their ground against his attacks but to overwhelm him both on domestic and foreign policy.)

But... what about Hillary? I asked "why not" a while back, and some of her supporters are still pushing her name, but I doubt she'll get the nod. (Unless the Obama campaign is keeping her vetting secret and leaking other names to deflect media attention. Imagine what a story it would be were she to be picked, say, right after the Olympics. Imagine an Obama-Clinton ticket at the convention in Denver -- united, not divided. Imagine the momentum for Obama. I'm not saying I'm for it, but it makes sense, eh?)

For further analysis, see my recent Veepstakes posts here and here.

I made some predictions in those posts, and I predicted Biden in the second. He's not my prediction here -- I'll go with Kaine, who seems to be on the rise (though perhaps propelled more by the enthusiasm of his supporters than by anything else) -- but, of the four, he's my clear and overwhelming preference.