This says it all:

This year, Webb beat Allen by 116,000 votes and 17 points in the region. About half of that margin came from Fairfax County, the state’s biggest place and an important symbol of the change in the state’s politics.

“Fairfax used to be the bellwether for the state,” Brodnitz said. “Now it’s considered a critical piece of the Democratic map.”

And should the exurbs around Fairfax go decisively for the Democrats in future elections (Webb carried Loudoun 50-49 and Prince William 51-48), the GOP will become less and less competitive. Now is the time for rainbow conservatism and stem the Democratic tide in the exurbs that are growing in money and votes.

Sen. Allen conceded the race to Webb. We can say a lot of things about Allen, that perhaps he has a mean streak or that maybe he harbors racist feelings or that he ran a very poor campaign. But he had the class to concede gracefully:

“I do not wish to cause more litigation that would not alter the results,” Allen said, adding that he saw “no good purpose being served by continuously and needlessly expending money and causing any more personal animosity.”

Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer demanded yesterday that Republicans show decency by conceding gracefully without resorting to legal battles and recount after recount in razor-thin races. Even setting aside the 2000 Florida recount mess (where Gore retracted his concession), does Christine Gregoire ring a bell?

I remember that election. I lived in Seattle, Washington, where the Democrats, after losing two counts, engaged in a selective manual recount in Democrat-dominated King County only and “won” the third recount.

There is a word for Schumer’s demand — hypocrisy. Welcome to the Democrat-contolled Congress.

It turns out, I was optimistic yesterday in my prognostication, but only by a little. It looks likely Sen. Allen will lose to Jim Webb, and Sen. Burns of Montana will lose to Tester. Thus the Democrats will also take control of the Senate in addition to the House.

Clearly, the election was not a victory for leftism in the United States. That leaves two explanations for the result, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. One theory holds that the GOP went too polar to the right and conceded the center (h/t RCP):

“The story line really is that the Democrats are winning the middle,” said Democratic pollster Al Quinlan.

Veteran GOP pollster Bill McInturff said: “Iraq is front and center of this election, and people voted for change. The GOP base held — was motivated and voted — but the margins among independents and moderates [for Democrats] was too much to overcome.”

The other theory is that Republicans were not conservative enough and became like Democrats, a party of establishment power, big government and etc. (h/t RCP):

In assessing last night’s results it is important to note that it was not a defeat for conservatism; it was a defeat for Republicanism, or at least, what Republicanism has come to represent. In the past 12 years, Republicans went from the party that promised “the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money” to the party of the Bridge to Nowhere; it took control of Congress on a pledge to “end its cycle of scandal and disgrace” and went down in defeat as the party of Tom DeLay and Mark Foley.

Having abandoned its core principles, the Republican Party had nothing to run on this year, so its campaign strategy centered on attacking Nancy Pelosi — a questionable tactic given that, according to some polls, more than half of the country had never even heard of her.

Read the rest of this entry »

I thought this was well put:

For national security in general, the Democrats’ plan is so according-to-type that you cringe with embarrassment: It’s mostly about new cash benefits for veterans. Regarding Iraq specifically, the Democrats’ plan has two parts. First, they want Iraqis to take on “primary responsibility for securing and governing their country.” Then they want “responsible redeployment” (great euphemism) of American forces.

Older readers may recognize this formula. It’s Vietnamization — the Nixon-Kissinger plan for extracting us from a previous mistake. But Vietnamization was not a plan for victory. It was a plan for what was called “peace with honor” and is now known as “defeat.” [Boldface mine.]

Right on the money, I’d say. That goes for both Feder and Webb. I hope enough Northern Virginia voters will understand that too. We shall see.

Conservatives are supposedly returning home to the GOP, kicking, screaming and whining. Paul Weyrich captures it best:

“It’ll all come down to conservatives,” he said. “For a long time, I’ve heard nothing but ‘I’m not going to vote for these jerks.’ Now I’m hearing ‘Well, I suppose we’ll have to vote the jerks back in and see what we can do.’ “

I share the sentiment. I have always recognized that politics is frequently about the lesser of two evils. Still, “vote for us, because we are not quite as bad as our opponents” is not exactly inspiring.

Of course, experts say people are several times more motivated by fear than by prospect of gain, so maybe there is something to that strategy. Perhaps that explains why the Democrats have been critizing the Bush administration without offering any concrete, workable alternatives of their own on Iraq.

One view of the Allen-Webb contest has it that perceived racial or sexual insensitivities won’t matter, but Bush’s standing in Virginia and the Allen-Webb fundraising gap will (h/t RCP):

Far more telling in the end, I’d wager, will be two other factors: President Bush’s popularity on Election Day and whether or not Allen maintains his current, enormous fundraising advantage over challenger Jim Webb. That’s where the numbers come in.

If Bush’s popularity and that of the war in Iraq are tanking on Nov. 7, then the combination offers Webb, a former Navy secretary and highly decorated Marine, his best - perhaps only - hope of an upset victory. [Snip]

Webb’s prospects shrink dramatically if Allen maintains anything close to his summer fundraising advantage. At the last accounting a couple of months back, Allen had $6 million in the bank, compared to Webb’s $424,000.

While I agree that these two factors matter a great deal, I disagree that these are the two most important factors in the contest.

Read the rest of this entry »

Readers’ attention is invited to Scott Johnson’s analysis today of Larry Sabato’s charges against senator George Allen.

Johnson yesterday had raised questions about Sabato’s statements.

Powerlineblog, written by three lawyers, ranks among the very best of conservative blogs.

One hopes that Allen can move promptly to get the public’s focus back on national policy issues and the record of his opponent. Continually responding to ad hominem attacks of this nature becomes a mug’s game for the Senator. It is long since time for a scrutiny of Jim Webb’s public record and his views over the years.

“Women can’t fight” vs. “Macaca,” courtesy of RCP Blog.

Or is it cowboy boots vs. combat boots? This much the NY Times is right about:

Some Republicans worry that the growth of Northern Virginia, with its increasingly urban voters and what some pollsters say is discontent with the status quo in Washington, poses a real challenge to their party. Mr. Webb’s allies, for their part, worry he will not have enough money to hold his own against Mr. Allen on television. 

 

The anxieties on both sides point to a central truth: Virginia, at the moment, is a very competitive race.