Changes Since 1992: Virginia

So far, I’ve looked at changes in voter trends over time in three states, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. All three have, over the last twenty years, moved toward Republicans to some degree—Arkansas and West Virginia dramatically so, and Wisconsin at a much slower rate, voting Republican this year for the first time in a presidential election since 1984. But analyses of these three states don’t paint an accurate picture of the nation as a whole, because just as the white working class votes increasingly Republican, so too proceeds the solidification of minority voters behind the Democratic Party.

This opposite phenomenon, coupled with the Democrats’ increased reliance on urban professionals can be seen in Virginia, which has now broken with the rest of the South in voting Democrat in the last three presidential elections. Virginia was actually, decades ago, a trendsetter in voting Republican when much of the South was still avowedly true. Now, the opposite is occurring.

This shift began quite recently; though the Democratic ticket performed quite well in 1992 and 1996, its status as an all-Southern ticket (Clinton from Arkansas, and Gore from Tennessee) undoubtedly helped matters. And still, both George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole managed to carry the state even while losing convincingly across the country.

1992	1996	2000	2004	2008	2012	2016
Bush +4.4	Dole +1.9	Bush +8.1	Bush +8.2	Obama +6.3	Obama +3.0	Clinton +4.9

Obama’s margins in 2008 and 2012 closely mirrored his national margin of victory. But Hillary Clinton won the state by five points this year, even as she lost the Electoral College nationally and won the national popular vote by a little under two points.

Obviously, there is a huge caveat to the 2016 results—Clinton’s selection of Virginia Senator, and former Governor, Tim Kaine as her running mate. Nearly all national elections work this way—the home state results of the presidential and vice-presidential nominees can be skewed for an election cycle, and then return to a regular pattern the following cycle when home-state advantages disappear. But it should also be noted that Clinton was leading Trump in Virginia state polls by a substantial margin even before the announcement of her VP pick, and Obama also won the last two elections in the state by solid margins, despite having no similar advantage.

Meanwhile, election results from other state races are somewhat of a mixed bag. Control of the Congressional delegation has seesawed back and forth since 1992, with Republicans currently holding a 7-4 majority. Democrats control both U.S. Senate seats, although Mark Warner barely retained his seat in 2014 by a much closer than expected 0.8%. Gubernatorial results have also varied wildly, from  back-to-back, double-digit Republican wins in the 1990’s, to five-point Democratic victories during the Bush years, to Bob McDonnell’s 17-point margin, his subsequent fall following an ethics investigation, and Democrat Terry McAuliffe’s 2013 win. And in the state legislature, the state Senate is almost evenly split, though Republicans have a commanding advantage in the House of Representatives.

Overall, Virginia, like Wisconsin, is narrowly balanced. Neither party can yet afford to take the state for granted on any level. But while Wisconsin might now be considered a red-leaning purple state (to strain the political color metaphors), Virginia could now be classified as a blue-leaning purple state. A state where Republicans can still excel, especially at the state level, but Democrats, even liberals, are slowly in ascendance. Where the white working class of the Appalachians and center-state area is still a political force to be reckoned with, but are slowly being outnumbered by the urban and liberal suburban voters of Richmond and the D.C. outskirts. And Virginia Republicans will be forced to reckon with that fact even more in future elections, if the state is to remain competitive in the long run.

Expectations for the Vice-Presidential Debate

Tonight, Mike Pence and Tim Kaine will face off for their only debate of the general election. Historically, and for obvious reasons, the VP debates have earned fewer headlines and lower ratings than the main presidential debates, and this year the same should be doubly true. With such big names as Trump and Clinton choosing such low-key and, frankly, boring running mates, tonight’s debate will feel almost likely a disappointment sandwiched between the main events.

Still, the debate will be important in other ways. The Vice President has two constitutional duties—presiding over the Senate (which usually only entails voting to break a tie) and being prepared to take over the country upon the death, resignation, or impairment of the President. Compared to Clinton and Trump, who are known commodities to even the most low-information of low-information voters, Pence and Kaine might as well be “stereotypical Midwestern politician” and “that guy with the eyebrow”. Voters will need to know both of them can handle the Presidency, during what would undoubtedly be a turbulent time for the nation (even more so than it is now).

Neither Pence nor Kaine should have any problem doing that. Both are experienced politicians with executive experience who have been preparing for this moment for weeks. Elaine Quijano will likely throw out several Trump and Clinton-specific questions, asking Pence and Kaine to defend various remarks and explain various scandals, but the focus of the debate should be on the two men actually on stage.

For it to be a successful debate, she will need to get the candidates to prove that they are prepared to be President, and discuss what other roles, formal or informal, they would have in a Trump or Clinton administration. Save the questions on Trump University or the Clinton Foundation for Sunday night.

Comparing The Nominees for Vice President

For all their perceived differences, Hillary Clinton and her donor-turned-general election opponent have shown similarity on a wide range of issues and personality traits. Now that comparison extends to their choice of running mates as well. Both have chosen boring, timid men afraid to overshadow or second-guess their arrogant running mates.

Tim Kaine is a prime example of a politician who stays popular only by avoiding a strong position on any controversial issue. He supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership two weeks ago, but came out strongly against it the day Clinton named him running mate. He claims to personally oppose abortion, but also opposes defunding Planned Parenthood, banning late-term abortions, and basically every other federal pro-life measure.

In short, he has made little meaningful impact in the Senate and has been a loyal foot soldier for the Democratic Party, silently supporting every major liberal proposal without taking firm, principled stances on anything.

Mike Pence, meanwhile, pledges allegiance to conservative doctrine but, similar to Kaine, has displayed no willingness to aggressively fight for his beliefs and values, instead showing a tendency to cave under pressure. The minute he was selected as Trump’s running mate he attempted to disavow his long record of support for free trade agreements and the Iraq War, as well as past criticism of Trump himself, in order to gain the VP nomination and extract himself from a difficult reelection fight.

In the House, when Pence had the ability to vote for conservative proposals but no occasion to face extreme outside pressure, his voting record was solidly on the Right. But as governor, he became less reliable, caving on Medicaid expansion and the state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, among other issues. And during the presidential primary he infamously gave Ted Cruz one of the weakest endorsements in history, while praising Trump and making it clear to everyone that, once again, he placed popularity above principle.

Neither Mike Pence nor Tim Kaine have shown much inclination over their careers to be principled leaders, but rather have placed a quest for popularity above all else. Neither has demonstrated a willingness to stand up to their respective running mates in the name of doing the right thing. Both are content to be trophy wives and see to it that their running mates’ every desire is carried out without question. The ideological integrity and resoluteness of Ted Cruz or Elizabeth Warren, or even Paul Ryan or Joe Biden, is sorely lacking in both Pence and Kaine.

To be clear: Were the roles reversed, I would happily vote for Mike Pence over nearly any Democrat. For all his flaws, he would be infinitely better than a Democratic candidate. But Pence as Trump’s sidekick does not make the latter any more fit for the Presidency, nor does Kaine as a potential Vice President make Hillary Clinton more palatable to conservative Republicans alienated by Trump.