Virginia House of Delegates 2005 Elections

Keeping You up to date on the status of Virginia's 2005 Delegate races!

Sunday, June 19, 2005

Women in Northern Virginia

Northern Virginia was the leader in the 1980s and 1990s on putting women (mostly Democrats) in the General Assembly. But recently the rest of Virginia has been catching up while Northern Virginia has gone back the other way.

Northern Virginia

In Marian Van Landingham's 45th district voters rejected outright appeals on the basis of sex to give the seat to David Englin. That's minus one for women next year right off the top.

In the four competitive districts in Fairfax County that we have covered from the start (35th, 37th, 41st, 42nd) only two incumbents (Shannon and Albo) are on the ballot, yet all 6 other nominees are men. Only one district, the 37th even fielded a female candidate in the primary.

The two other Fairfax County seats on the board are the 39th (Likely Democratic) where the Republican candidate is a man, against female incumbent Vivian Watts meaning at best a hold for women, and both the Democratic and Republican nominees for Gary Reese's recently opened seat are men.

This is on top of Adam Ebbin replacing a woman in 2003, and Bob Brink replacing a woman in 1999. As well of course to the 35th mentioned above where Steve Shannon replaced JeanneMarie Devolities-Davis.

Meanwhile in the outer suburbs women have the advantage for a hold in the 51st with Michelle McQuigg (Currently Likely Republican), and have a shot for one pickup in the 52nd with Hilda Barg. So at best, if all races with women go for the female candidate in Northern Virginia, the net will be the same.

Rest of Virginia

Elsewhere women have holding their own and beginning to pick up ground. In last years special election Paula Miller replaced incoming Congresswoman Thelma Drake. Jennifer McClellan was elected to replace Viola Baskerville this year. There also appears to be a likely pickup with the primary win of Roslyn Tyler to replace Paul Councill.

Women incumbents like Beverly Sherwood, Kathy Byron, Jeion Ward, Mamye Bacote and others are mostly safe.

Possible longshot female pickups include Supriya Christopher and Linda Crandell.

Also interesting is that none of VCAP's challengers were women.

-----------------

So what gives? Is this a trend or is it just coincidence? It's especially interesting in Northern Virginia where so many of the competitive seats are, given that when all else is equal women have tended to defeat men in general elections. If it is a trend who's fault is it?

48 Comments:

At 12:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very interesting....

 
At 1:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Bulova victory fits into your observation, but not the 45th, where a six way free-for-all with a plurality win makes it impossible to know who the real choice of the majority of voters was.

Many people I have spoken to since Tuesday have said there should have been a runoff, and that Englin's victory by a mere 30% is not really kosher. But that's the way it goes in the current system, which is less than perfect in a lot of ways.

It's very likely, as I've said before on this site, that had there been a runoff, Garvey would have won as much as 60% of the vote. No disrespect to David Englin, but women voters are not happy about what happened.

 
At 9:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Give it up. You could maybe make that case in Arlington, and maybe even in Fairfax, though it would be tough. But in Alexandria, Englin won with more votes than Garvey and Mosqueda combined. Not a lot of unhappy women voters there.

Laura (and I'm pretty sure that's you) get over it. You were rejected. Resoundingly. Now move back home to the 46th and do something else.

 
At 10:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

C-c-c-c-c-c-at fight!

 
At 10:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I were you I would take a closer look at Hilda's Barg campaign and move this one to leans Republican.

Despite being in the race for several months her website still is not updated . It was last updated in 2003! On top of that her fundraising totals would be horrible if it were not for Warner and his support. She does not have strong support from the local Democrats and she has alienated hispanics with her actions has board supervisor.

Plus no Democratic challenger has won in Prince William since 1995. This race is Frederick's to lose.

 
At 11:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Many women in the 45th are upset about David Englin winning. Here is a list of some:
1. Laura
2. Laura's Mom
3. Laura's Aunt Sally
4. Laura's Cousin Mary
5. Laura's Sister in Law Carol
6. The woman who designed Laura's yellow t-shirts
7. The woman who is married to the guy who made Laura's gawdy yard signs
8. The woman who owns the robo-call machine Laura used to send 10 robo-calls to houses in the 45th district
9. Edward Spoden's mom
10. Libby Garvey
11. The woman who made the stick that Libby Garvey has shoved up her ass
12. The woman Laura beat out for Bitch of the Year because since she lost the race Laura will be able to continue defending her title

 
At 12:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

MEOW!

 
At 1:02 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Got to agree with the 10th Chapter of Anon., verse 38. Prince William trends are for the GOP.

Further, while "Adam Ebbin replacing a woman in 2003" is "going the other way" in Northern Virginia, does it really qualify as "replacing a woman" with a man?

 
At 1:06 PM, Blogger Not Larry Sabato said...

I was waiting for the first person to take that cheap shot....

 
At 1:17 PM, Blogger James Young said...

It was a tough job, but someone had to do it....

And BTW, I wasn't the one who talked about "going the other way." Freudian slip?

To turn a flip comment into seriousness, though, I guess I question the whole notion of sexual politics, i.e., men advancing the interests of men and women advancing the interests of women.

 
At 1:32 PM, Blogger Not Larry Sabato said...

No I said "on top of Adam Ebbin", a different kind of slip. Anyway, I had to mention him as he is a man who won a woman's seat, but I had a feeling I was throwing up a softball.

 
At 1:44 PM, Blogger James Young said...

OK, You get the last word. Not gonna touch that one. Not even with Level 4 protection.

 
At 2:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James Young: You show your true colors every day. God you're crazy.

 
At 2:34 PM, Blogger James Young said...

And Anon 2:08, you're ... what? A coward? Obviously. A cowardly lion: all roar, no courage. Arrogantly slanderous? Obviously, too.

And what "true colors" are you talking about?

And don't call me "God."

 
At 2:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That you're a raving homophobe. Who somehow conceived a child despite being latently homosexual.

 
At 2:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I continue to see Republican's posting that the 52nd district (Frederick v. Barg) is a district that either leans or is strongly Republican.

How so? Kerry won it. Warner won it. Kaine won it.

Who won the district previously? I don't have that data. Was the district the same as it is now?

Are you making the statement that it is Republican because of the higher priced new homes that have been built in the district, perhaps offsetting the effects of places like Williamstown (the ghetto)? Then how did Kerry win the district just last year?

I realize that Jeff won this district 2 years ago, but he ran against a democrat nobody then.

Looking strictly at the voting patterns of this district I don't know how one can conclude that the district *leans* Republican. (That is not to say that the Republican cannot do a better job of campaigning or have better issues and win the district.)

 
At 3:04 PM, Anonymous Mr. Pink said...

Cowardly lion, good one. Are there other characters from Judy Garland movies you want to lable people as? That will stop people from saying you are a closet case.

 
At 3:45 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Mr. Pink and Anon 2:56:

Wow! You must really be a couple of flaming queers to proceed from the perverse assumptions that apparently drive you (and I really don't want to hear about anything else that drives you, or which one of you pitches and which catches, etc.).

Here's a little education from someone who understands what you're up to.

"Homophobe," derived from "phobia," meaning "irrational fear of": a word used by homophiliacs to belittle -- by equating the unattractive attribute of fear to -- those opposing the radical homosexual agenda.

Bold talk -- attributing to someone else fear -- from someone who cowers in anonymity.

"Latent homosexual": an accusation usually leveled by homosexuals themselves at those opposing the radical homosexual agenda to belittle them and call into question their true motives.

But thanks. My wife of nearly 16 years got a good laugh from that comment.

And BTW, please don't confuse cultural literacy (e.g., reference a character in one of the highest-grossing and most beloved children's movies of all time) with sexual perversion simply because the actress portraying the lead character has -- for reasons that I've never dwelt on, but which have never been explained to me -- become iconographic to the lavender lobby.

I can use "gay" in a sentence without referring to sodomites, too.

 
At 3:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually I posted at 10:38 and I am a die hard Dem. Hilda is running a horrible campaign. I've seen kids out of high school run better campaigns then the one she is running now. Her campign kickoff was a bona fide disaster and Warner's folks are worried she will lose.

Frederick's campaign however is run by professionals who actually know what they are doing. Something I am afraid that Hilda's staff has yet to show.

FYI this has been a Republican held seat since 1986 at least. I don't know before that. The demographics will make this one a toss up on paper. However Hilda does not have the traditional Democratic base behind her in this race. In the end she will not work hard enough to win and underestimate Frederick like Taylor did in 03.

 
At 4:02 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Anon 3:45 is correct about the history of the seat. It was (and may remain) the least Republican district (demographically) held by a Republican in the Commonwealth. That's how Jack Rollison scared off a lot of potential challengers and justified his squishy record. It may also be the only good reason (aside from Warner's money) to keep this seat as potentially in play.

However, I endorse the comments of Anon 3:45 about the campaign and their relative strengths on purely objective standards. Jeff's campaign is very professional, while Hilda's seems almost nonexistent.

 
At 4:25 PM, Anonymous Pete Doherty said...

What is the radical homosexual agenda? I hear that term alot from right wingers, and I am sure that as the campaign heats up it will be thrown around more, but what is it? Is there some document, some gay battle plan, lying around? Is it held in some secret gay command center?

As far as I am concerned people are born gay and denying them things you allow straight people to do just seems pretty narrow minded. If giving gay people access to things enjoyed by hetrosexuals (ability to marry, adopt children, not get fired for being gay, openly serve in the military) is some kind of agenda, then it is pretty sad that it is being opposed.

 
At 4:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Many right-wingers (like James Young) think that the real goal of the homosexual agenda is to try to legalize man-boy love. Of course, this was tried in the 2004 legislative session by Republicans, but I digress.

The fact that James Young uses the term "sodomites" leads me to believe that he spends his weekends on a street corner in Washington, DC with ear muffs on screaming at tourists about the "sodomites" coming for our children.

 
At 4:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Notice how he gets so angry when you call him gay. It's because he thinks gay people are less than human.

 
At 4:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous 3:45PM - yeah right, we believe you.

 
At 4:44 PM, Anonymous Pete Doherty said...

Wasn't that Dave Albo who had some man-boy love bill? Albo is a kook, I hope Greg Werkheiser can beat him like a drum in November.

 
At 5:13 PM, Anonymous Genevieve said...

Honestly, I don't think the gender or sexual orientation of a leader matters as long as they

a. Know what they're doing
b. are intelligent
c. Are able to clearly and effectivly state and fight for thier goals.
d. Not be extraordinarily arrogant- y'know, someone who actually cares about people.
e. Oh, and it's always nice if I agree with them. ;)


ie- be the best person for the job. Like, if a man and a woman are going against each other in an election, first off, it is so unlikely that they will be perfect equals in all things. One, in each voter's opinion, will be the better candidate. So, if the woman is a dumb-ass who's big issue is something that I don't care about, like...dog rights.... or appears not to really care about her constituents enough to spell thier names right on lit left at doors, or place robo-calls instead of actually talking to them, or uses absurd similes that noone understands, then I'm gonna vote for the guy. Yeah, this female voter is happy about what happened, and I bet I can name a whole buncha others who are as well. Seeing as, y'know, I actually went out and talked to a few. Every Sunday and a few weeknights.

 
At 5:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"noone"

is two words

 
At 5:43 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Pete,
Radical homosexual agenda:
Equating perverse sexual relationships with normal relationships.
Decriminalizing perverse and destructive sexual activity.
Redefining marriage as something it's not, nor has it ever been.
Creating special legal protections for homosexuals (hate crimes laws; prohibiting employers from discriminating based upon behavior).

Or, you could just read the parenthetical contained in the second sentence of your second paragraph.

BTW, you hear a "radical homosexual agenda" from a lot of left-wingers, too; they just don't call it that.

And those were interesting belittling comments that you used ("gay battle plan," "secret gay command center"). I'm used to hearing it from people whose idea of maturity is "If it feels good, do it!"

As for being "born gay," I was under the impression that one could control one's sexual behavior. Isn't that why we criminalize rape, and pedophilia. Or are 50-year-old men entitled to seduce the next 13-year-old hottie to come along?

Besides, no one is talking about "denying them things you allow straight people to do." Just like normal peole, homos can marry any member of the opposite sex who will have them. They can get any job they want, as long as they, like most normal people I know, keep their sexual activities to themselves.

Of course, if you consider defense of the fundamental foundations of civilized society and the standards held by virtually every civilized society in human history to be "pretty sad," then I guess you're just a nihilist.

As for Anon 4:38, I do agree that legalization of homosexual pedophilia is the ultimate result of the homosexual agenda. Of course, it's nonsense to suggest that "this was tried in the 2004 legislative session by Republicans."

As for use of the term "sodomites," I fail to see why that would lead you to any belief about my activities, since its use by me was in reference to someone else, not to me. But as someone who clearly endorses the homo agenda, I know that you don't even understand the word "marriage," so I guess I shouldn't be surprised at your error. But if it will set your mind at ease, I've never spent weekends or any other days on any street corner in Washington, DC." Not even to tell Algore to get out of Cheney's house.

Anon 4:40 -- Notice nothing, as I didn't get angry. In fact, what apparently perturbs you is the fact that I identified what the two homophiliacs were up to, outed their tactics, and debunked them. And I don't thing homos are less than human, any more than I think that Charles Manson or John Wayne Gacy are less than human. Perverse, yes. But not less than human.

And genevieve, people don't have "gender." It's a term of language. People have sex. And as Ricky Silberman's button said, "Sex is better than gender."

 
At 8:46 PM, Anonymous genevieve said...

Me'h, I tried. My use of "no one" as one word is a result of being stupid. My use of the word "gender" is...um... *tries to think of witty comeback and fails* another result of being stupid.

Seriously, semantics don't matter that much to me at this exact moment in time, although they are very important, I'm sure, but if you really want to argue it, dictionary.com has informed me that gender is

"Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture.
Condition of being female or male; sex.
Females or males considered as a group: expressions used by one gender."

That one word is bolded 'cause it is important. So. In order to be truly right grammatically, I should have said, "I don't believe that the sexual identity of a leader matters"

Which is, according to line one of dictionary.com, just a long way of saying, "gender." I could have said, "sex" as well, but I didn't. I have never claimed to speak perfect English. (Or write it, for that matter!)

However, if the best you can come up with to try and make me feel bad/stupid/wrong/make yourself seem way smarter than I am is some stupid semantics deal, then I am flattered. Thank you, Anonymous and James Young. But please, no flash photography.

 
At 10:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok, ok, ok. Let's all agree to disagree. And agree that James Young is the most disgusting person that has shown up on this blog so far.

 
At 8:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 4:42. Trust me you should. Her campaign is being run by political novices but that is what I have come to expect from her over these years. I would die for a candidate like Englin in the 52nd.

Hilda has publicly stated that she is not a Democrat but that she is a Republicrat. She does not believe in the progressive values that are the core of the Democratic party values and should not receive the vote of any good progressive Democrat.

That being said I won't be voting for Frederick either. And as I stated before Frederick should be rated as likely to win this race.

 
At 9:35 AM, Anonymous Pete Doherty said...

James,

I really feel sorry for you. It must suck to have that much hatred in your heart.

Personally I think if Barg got off her ass she could beat Frederick. Unfortuantely I doubt she will. But on the positive side their are guys like David Englin and Greg Werkheiser who are getting off their asses and fighting these right wing kooks.

 
At 9:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're damn right Pete!

 
At 10:11 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Pete, as is typical among those endorsing the radical homosexual agenda, you attempt to equate disagreement with "hatred," once again conflating belittlement with rational debate. So save your "pity" for someone who actually needs it... like those who endorse the pathetically misguided radical homosexual agenda. I suppose you could have thrown in the nuclear bomb of political debate, too -- "racism" -- but anyone who knows me would laugh in your face at that one. Sooo, you characterize opposition to your agenda as "hatred," and call it a day. I suspect I'll hear it from my sons in a few years, when they decide that any discipline for wrongdoing is rooted in "hate," rather than the abiding love in which it is actually rooted.

What is truly amazing is the fact that you are the one who attributes to some the inability control their behavior and to conform it to societal norms. Instead, you advocate the abandonment of time-tested norms. That's generally known as narcissism.

 
At 10:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The underlying subtext of James Young's comment of 5:43 in which he is dismayed that the radical homosexuals want to prohibit employment discrimination against gays-

Can Jim Young just come right out and tell all the world in straight-forward language -

EMPLOYERS SHOULD BE LEGALLY ABLE TO DENY JOBS TO GAYS BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY.

 
At 10:41 AM, Anonymous Pete Doherty said...

Ok, you don't want my pity fine. As for calling it a day, I just figured it was time to move on and talk about the Virginia House of Delegates 2005 Elections not about gay people. I mean I think it is clear where we both stand on the issue.

 
At 11:04 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Anon 10:34 -- Yes, I agree that employers should be able to make choices (i.e., "discriminate") about people based upon their behavior. I don't think employers should be forced to hire Klansmen, either. Or child abusers. Or convicted felons. Or people who are incompetent. Or even people who believe that you should discriminate against homosexuals, if they so choose. Of course, those who buy into the radical homosexual agenda have, in homo-friendly companies, launched campaigns against employees who hold to traditional moral values rooted in their Christian faith and teaching.

You see, it's about freedom to make choices. The difference between my agenda and the radical homosexual agenda is that I am not seeking to have the government mandate acceptance of mine.

And pete, it might surprise you to learn that I agree. This was a whole lot of sound and fury over what was a flip and humorous comment to tweak our host. My, oh, my, aren't the homos sensitive? Defensive?

 
At 11:28 AM, Anonymous TLM said...

Dear NLS

Is it just me or does every blog seem to fall into gay bashing at some point? For a country that is so straight and normal, we do seem to have gay on the mind A LOT! lol lol.

Gee, let's get back to the election issues...starting to sound like that radio show, the Sports Junkies around here.

 
At 12:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm, seems like the Englin droids, most of them about 15 years old by the looks of it, have an inability to count or understand the boundaries of the 45th District.

This "2 to 1" result they keep referring to in Alexandria is still no more than 32% of the Alexandria vote, which is not too far from the percentage won in the entire district. It's also interesting that the response offered by the Engloids on this site is that the totals for Garvey and Mosqueda combined are not enough to beat Englin in Alexandria, as if Alexandria was the only part of the district.

First of all, I said runoff, not "Garvey and Mosqueda combined", but since you mention it, if we take that result and spread it throughout the district, um... you lose that way too, because Garvey would have gotten at least half of those votes, and then you're done. Take out Mandala, and it would have been a romp for Garvey.

You can resort to insults and childish comments all you want, but the facts are the facts. Englin won not because of any particular skill, but because of the sheer luck of finding himself in such a fractured field. I know you Engloids need to believe you won some great victory, but 30% is 30%.

One more thing you might want to think about. Candidates who slip into office with a mere 30% of the vote are often challenged the next time around, because they don't truly represent the voters' will. They only represent a statistical outcome.

Englin had better do a damn fine job in Richmond, because if not, in two years time it won't be about replacing Van Landingham, but getting rid of him. That would be a much more unified effort, and 30% would not be good enough.

 
At 12:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shut up, Laura. Go home to the 46th and cry to your rich boyfriend. Maybe he can buy you a state senate seat.

 
At 1:07 PM, Anonymous anyone but Mandala said...

Laura, hurry up and move back to the 46th. Then when Brian Moran runs for his big brother's seat you can run in the primary there and get your butt whupped. Then, you can move into the 49th for when Adam Ebbin runs for a state senate seat, and get your butt whupped in a primary there, too. You can get rejected in three districts in just three years! Really, it's not fair to allow just those of us in the 45th district that privilege. So long as your boyfriend has checks left to write, you should let voters all over Northern Virginia vote against you.

 
At 1:20 PM, Anonymous Sign Maker in NOVA said...

Everyone stop bashing Laura. She had the biggest signs in the race and that is what counts. Because of the over priced nature of her signs Laura (and her boyfriend) helped me put my kids through their Freshmen and Junior years at UVA and JMU respectively.

This Englin guy seems focused on serving the constituents and building the party. What good is that? We need someone who wants big yard signs, and lots of them.

 
At 1:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just as I thought. Engloids can't argue the numbers, so they resort to insulting one of the candidates. Sounds a lot like "politics as usual" to me. I guess their 30% isn't that different from the other 70 after all.

 
At 1:45 PM, Anonymous The Colonel said...

Anon 1:23,

Am I at a sports bar? I have not heard this kind of "what if-ing" since I last saw the Redskins lose. The reality is that David Englin won and if he wins in the fall (which I think will happen) he will have two years to serve the people of the 45th district. In 2007 if someone does not think he is doing a good job they can run against him and then the voters can decide if they want to keep him or not.

This is the way that it is.

Rather than spending your time on "what ifs" why don't you devote your time, passion, and ability to getting good people around the state (like Greg Werkheiser and Helga Barg) elected.

 
At 2:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are a few sore losers up in Northern Virginia, it looks like.

 
At 3:54 PM, Anonymous Genevieve said...

Yes indeed! I've got an idea, folks. Let us try to act like the mature, responsible adults we pretend to be and give David a chance. He won. End of story. Science has not invented a time machine, so you can't do anything about it for 2 years.

If you think he did a bad job, then you may vote against him. If you think he did a good job then vote for him.

If you think he's doing a poor job at any time, he's a very reachable sort of guy. See, there's this new invention out, pretty cool actually. It's called "email" You can use it to communicate with other people. So, like, if you think he's making a mistake at any point, you clearly and politely email/mail/fax/call him and explain your problem. The end.

See? Is that hard?

PS to Ms. Mandala- I am neither a droid (being able to think -or at least, I attempt to think- and make choices), nor am I 15. I am 17. Also, I do understand numbers, having taken and passed calculus, and am more than capable of reading a map. And, I do feel that David has won a "great victory" although that's not really my style of writing. Anybody who's able to put together a grassroots campaign, develop a clear plan for the present and future and actually wins the election is absolutely amazing in my book.

Tell your legal consultant (I can't remember how to spell her first name and don't want to offend her) I said hi. Because, I really liked her. She's awesome!! (and I truly mean that, no sarcasm, cynicism or any negative stuff.)

PPS- I'm a bit too tired to work it out, but it's damn near impossible to win by an overwhelming majority with 6 candidates in a race. I mean, it's just hard, especially in a primary in the summer time (techinically spring- happy first day of summer!) with low voter turnout. And... you would have lost anyways. And... you just hate David, so stop arguing for the sake of arguing. That's my job, as anyone who knows me knows. :)

 
At 4:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: the 45th, I worked for Libby Garvey. David ran a very well organised campaign, and he won. End of story, congratulations. But it would behoove his supporters to understand (as someone said here somewhere) that not winning a majority means you should also have a bit of humility.

The good news is that Libby and David were the two most progressive candidates in the race, and together they got 56%. That's a victory for progressive politics in the district; David just got the winning share of that, which allows him to go to Richmond. In my book, when you have to fight over which progressive candidate wins the race, it's something for everyone to celebrate.

Yes, 30% is indeed only 30%, but that becomes 100% against a GOP opponent. Remember that. It would have been no different for us had we won.

 
At 4:54 PM, Blogger Not Larry Sabato said...

Let's not bash the Englin's. Maybe he won because he blogged here and we control the outcomes. Ever consider that?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home