Comments on: 51st District Analysis

By: Kevin C.

Kevin C. — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:29:02 +0000

As I see it, the ONLY numbers that matter, in the 51st, are:

7934 SMART voters (Voted for the Honest, Medal of Valor recipient)

7664 STUPID voters (What kind of IDIOT votes for a DRUNKEN THUG?)

I hope everyone resists the urge to refer to Rich as, “LANDSLIDE.”

Seriously, WAY TO GO Rich !!!!!

By: James Young

James Young — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 01:47:14 +0000

Uh, “Greg S,” it IS a “part-time gig.” And thank God it is. Full-time legislatures (California; Pennsylvania) inevitably lead to larger government.

By: Robert L. Duecaster

Robert L. Duecaster — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:07:49 +0000

Dave: Unless he was independently wealthy, being a retired Colonel does not put Rich Anderson in the “might not have to work” category. Thirty years of service in the nation’s military does not result in a pension that will fund a leisurely life style. A legislator who has a real job and must prioritize his legislative duties below his vocational and familial duties probably has a more realistic and selfless perspective than a career legislator (Colgan comes to mind). But retired service officers are usually well-educated, well-traveled, wise in the ways of bureaucracies, and may have gained a degree of “street sense” that will hold them in good stead when considering the needs of their constituents. They are a good resource from which to draw candidates.

On the other hand, there’s John Bell … .

By: Dave Core

Dave Core — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:14:53 +0000

I don’t know if Rich Anderson after he retired took a full-time job as many military retirees do. If so, then READ NO FURTHER.

If not: the only concern I have is that it helped that Rich Anderson did not have a job to go to. I worry about what’s happening in our citizen legislature when more and more retired, self-employed or otherwise wealthy individuals who might not have to work become our legislators. Jackson Miller really epitomizes the kind of person we’d like to see represent us — a family man with a job who struggles to balance legislating with family and work — and gives him a valuable perspective.

But all in all a great win for Republicans in the 51st.

By: Greg S

Greg S — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:56:38 +0000

Face it. Anderson wanted the job and I think he’ll do it well. Nichols just wanted the title and it was nothing more than a part time gig for him. I don’t think he cares one way or another.

By: James Young

James Young — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:20:57 +0000

I can’t find anything that I significantly disagree with in this analysis. I particularly agree that the arrest matter was a major negative for the Anderson campaign. I agree with Harry: had McDonnell not had such a strong showing, Nichols would have prevailed, perhaps because of this. At the same time, as a challenger against an incumbent, it’s a decision that’s hard to criticize.

By: Gnarly

Gnarly — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:03:40 +0000

I just don’t want candidates in the future to be squeamish about throwing out an attack mailer, especially if the positive groundwork and foundation are already in place, as was the case with Anderson. He had the good credibility to lay the hit on Nichols when he did. Lopez on the other hand had not done that kind of work to have any sort of credibility to go negative on Torian and have it be effective.

By: Ribeye!

Ribeye! — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:49:08 +0000

“I don’t think Del. Nichols was prepared for a serious challenger.”

I don’t think any NoVA Dem was thinking they would have a serious fight from any Republican. They were still basking in the afterglow of “Hope & Change”. Then the Tea Party movement started. Then the Healthcare debate started. Then the people started to realize that Democrats are actively trying to destroy our freedoms…and the voters simply reacted. The Democrats need to realize that the people that came out on election day, and the people who are down at the Capitol today ARE THE PEOPLE WHO VOTE!

By: Harry

Harry — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:23:15 +0000

Do you think McDonnell destroying Deeds in the 51st had anything to do with Anderson’s slim win? If deeds only lost by 10% Nichols would be the delegate. BTW, the swing was the arrest piece that Anderson did, polling 2 days before that piece went out, Nichols was up by 7%.

By: Greg L

Greg L — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:16:29 +0000

I have barely started looking at the 52nd district, but one thing I noticed was that Anderson was polling on average 10.83% below McDonnell while Raphael Lopez seems to have trailed McDonnell by only about 8.5%.

A number of factors could affect this, such as:

1. no incumbent on the ballot in the 52nd

2. Nichols’ extremely low re-elect numbers and freshman status

3. negative reaction to “mailer-gate”

4. Anderson knocked more doors than Lopez and Torian combined

My hypothesis, and I’m open to others, is that the difference between Anderson’s lag behind McDonnel and Lopez’s lag behind McDonnell was the mailer, with just a minor effect coming from incumbency. The gap would have been larger without Anderson’s door knocking campaign which made up enough ground to weather this.

By: Gnarly

Gnarly — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:32:39 +0000

You are exactly right that Anderson’s success was based on his foundation of an early start and all that shoe leather. That is effort that Nichols could never have the time back to match.

However, I read these raw votes to mean that Nichols was getting substantial crossover support. I think he had the race won until his over-reaction to the Anderson “arrest” mailer…..not the other away around. Everything was a wash on the exchange of attacks until Nichols just wouldn’t let it go, thereby not letting the focus go off of his arrest. If I had been Nichols’ consultant, I would have advised him to issue one statement to explain his side and then do one interview with a friendly reporter, then LET THAT DOG LIE and move on to a positive issue-oriented campaign.

I’m convinced the attack/counter-attack left Nichols on the short end, not Anderson.

By: NotTimothyGeithner

NotTimothyGeithner — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:41:22 +0000

Lynn and Kilby both had close to a thousand votes for Gerry Connolly and Nichols came away 567 combined. Those are Democratic strong holds if someone bothered to canvass there. It sounds like Nichols walked away from a lot of votes.

On another note 27,000 doors by Anderson and staff is impressive.

By: Austin

Austin — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:24:26 +0000

I agree with your assessment Greg. Rich Anderson got started early and went from 0 name recognition to winning through shear effort. Really a model campaign in many ways. I don’t think Del. Nichols was prepared for a serious challenger.