Comments on: Virginia Governor Primary: Deeds Trounces McAuliffe and Moran

By: charles austin

charles austin — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:35:20 +0000

Mr. Ruffini seems to be drawing some awfully questionable conclusions from one data point, as well as potentially committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc kind of error. Would Mr. McAuliffe had been more successful with less money? Or is it possible that the populace of Virginia knew enough about him without having to rely on his purchased propoganda and rejected him utterly?

By: Eric Florack

Eric Florack — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:10:02 +0000

It's interesting that Patrick puts so little weight on money, given the last I heard ... just a few days ago, now... McDonnel had around a 10 to 1 advatage on money over Deeds.

OTOH I should also point out that every poll I've seen shows McDonnel with a handy lead over all comers, inclduing Deeds, who has some pretty high negatives.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:32:29 +0000

It seems to me that being well funded in a campaign is a necessity...until you are so over funded or you outspend your opponent by large enough margins that it becomes an issue. I wonder if that happened?.

To some extent. Rich candidates always get the "trying to buy the office" argument and McAuliffe gave opponents fuel for that fire. Major thoroughfares had hundreds of his signs, for example, crowding out his opponents'. That was rather annoying.

By: markm

markm — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:11:21 +0000

While McAuliffe had been the favorite, simply because he had so much money, he alienated a lot of folks with his heavyhanded campaigning.

It seems to me that being well funded in a campaign is a necessity...until you are so over funded or you outspend your opponent by large enough margins that it becomes an issue. I wonder if that happened?.

By: Boyd

Boyd — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:10:15 +0000

I'm sure his accent, evident in his TV ads, didn't do McAuliffe any favors, either.