Pundits Say Gun Reform Cost Democrats a Key Virginia Race. This Voting Data Tells a Different Story.

[SecularMotion]

Not twelve hours after Virginia Democrat Dan Gecker fell short in his pivotal Richmond-area race by fewer than 1,500 votes, a familiar narrative emerged: He lost because he pushed “the gun issue” too hard. The local newspaper opined that Gecker “made a massive mistake” by backing tougher firearm regulation, in the process costing his party its chance of flipping the state Senate. Both Republican and Democratic state figures told reporters they believed that the effort by the Gecker, the Virginia Democratic party, and out-of-state gun violence prevention groups to prove that candidates could win with a gun reform message had backfired. “The gun thing — I would have done it differently,” Democratic state Senator Chap Petersen of Fairfax told the Washington Post. “It’s speculation at this point, but I feel the Gecker seat was one we thought we were going to win.”

Speculation is the operative word. An analysis by The Trace of voting results from the race reveals a more nuanced picture that can only be clarified if more data on pre-election polling and get-out-the-vote efforts is made public. But breaking the district into three distinct parts, what the numbers show is this: In the rural, conservative segment of the district located in Powhatan County, turnout was indeed unusually high — but absent proof that single-issue pro gun residents voted in droves, there’s evidence to suggest that a different local variable was responsible for the increase in Republican ballots. And in suburban Chesterfield County, Gecker outperformed the relevant past Democratic candidate by a significant margin.

Here’s the rundown:[ul style="list-style-type:square"]

In a four-way race, Gecker lost with 47 percent to Glen Sturtevant’s 49.7 percent. In 2011, the Democratic Candidate, David Bernard, lost to then-incumbent GOP Sen. John Watkins by 13 points. (The 2011 election provides the best comparison, because there was also no governor’s race then to naturally increase turnout.)

Gecker’s share of the Powhatan vote was 22.1 percent — virtually the same as the 22.3 percent Bernard received in 2011. What’s more, despite its increased turnout, Powhatan delivered a smaller slice of the district’s overall votes than it did four years ago. In 2011, the county accounted for 22 percent of the ballots cast in the district. In 2015, that fell to 18 percent.

In the city of Richmond, turnout rose significantly from 2011 levels — but Gecker’s 67.5 percent of the vote was again virtually the same as the 67.1 notched by the Democratic candidate four years ago.

Gecker did much better in the third geographic portion of the district, suburban Chesterfield County. There he took 41.7 percent of the vote, compared to the 30 percent recorded by Bernard in 2011.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/11/dan-gecker-virginia-senate-race-gun-control/

[OakCliffDem]

1. Thank you for pointing out we will continue to lose at the ballot box because of gun control

All this article does is armchair quarterback some statists to demonstrate supporting gun control is a 'good thing'. Occam's Razor tells us it is a matter of turnout. Our people came out to vote for the Democrat and his policies. There were 1500 more people who turned out to vote against gun control and we lost.

All the super smart mathematical analysis in the world will not win a single seat if we force voters to the other side.

[SecularMotion]

2. Politicians are discussing guns and regulations because the voters are raising the issue.

It's over. The NRA myth has died. Gun control is no longer a "third rail".

[OakCliffDem]

3. I am sure Dan Gecker agrees with you. n/t

[SecularMotion]

4. He does

“I don’t see the gun issue as one motivating a lot of people to come out,” Gecker said. “I think that’s a misread.”

http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/article_71d5eace-3cd0-55fa-8d05-76f4bda2032b.html

[OakCliffDem]

5. Dan misread the voter base and will not be in the Virginia Senate next term.

We sit smugly knowing we are 'correct' while the Republicans run the show. We will not survive as a party if this continues.

[SecularMotion]

6. LOL, they'll have to pry that NRA myth from your cold dead keyboard.

[OakCliffDem]

8. When you are losing the argument, introduce the NRA

No good Democrat will defend the NRA which gives you a victory by default.

[Fred Sanders]

9. No good Democrat will defend the NRA? But a "bad" Democrat will, obliquely, as we can all see!

The passive-aggressive "advice" for Democrats not to run on gun control was hatched in the propaganda bunkers of the NRA long ago...we at DU know that!

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. What would *you* know about being a Democrat, not being a US citizen?

You are, at best, a kibitzer...

[GGJohn]

10. There it is!!!!

I was wondering how long before you referenced the NRA.
That's a sure sign that you've lost the debate and it's time to throw out the NRA meme.

[DonP]

11. Makes me wonder, what if the results were the opposite?

Does anyone have any doubt that if the Bloomberg supported gun control supporters had won, would we be hearing how it's a proven winning strategy and how the Evil NRA outspent them, for the next 6 months?

[GGJohn]

12. There is no doubt in my mind that that is exactly what would happen.

The spin on this is astounding, gun control orgs just can't bring themselves to admit that gun control, oops, meant to say gun safety orgs. , is a smoking wreck in this country.

[DonP]

13. Lots of threads about not believing your lieing eyes

Pay no attention to the obvious results of hyping gun control in purple states.

Instead, let's all listen to the polling companies paid for by Bloomberg and other people with a real agenda driven ax to grind on the issue.

Ideological purity at its finest.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. As another poster put it: They doth protest too much

[ileus]

7. politicians are discussing gun control thanks to bloomies millions, voters are saying F off.

Don't give an inch to the regressives...

[mwrguy]

14. Gun Control is going to help Hillary take the white house

[GGJohn]

21. LOL.

That's the funniesgt thing I've heard all day.

[mwrguy]

22. laugh all you want, it's a major weakness of Sanders

and is one of many that will lose him the primary

[GGJohn]

23. I'm laughing at your statement that gun control will win her the WH. eom.

[DonP]

25. That's the same egocentric (everybody thinks like I do) thinking that cost us ...

... 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governorships, 69 House seats and 13 Senate seats ... so far.

Are you a consultant for DWS? She seems to be following your "sage" advice.

[EL34x4]

24. Hillary Clinton will never breathe a word about gun control

Once she secures the nomination.

I fully expect photo-ops of her shooting clay pigeons and talking about duck hunting with her grandpa when she was a little girl.

[gejohnston]

15. of course Bloomberg's version of Pravda would say

that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. This is at least the second OP from that poster touting the Bloomberg spin on the VA elections

While it's very nice of them to post these case studies on media literacy for us,
I don't think they're having quite the effect desired...

[virginia mountainman]

19. The Trace's Mission Statement has this line ...

We bring an admitted bias to our beat

That is all that is needed to be known, at least your not posting from World Nut Daily today...

[Kang Colby]

20. The Trace is owned by Michael Bloomberg.

What else do I need to say? You think he is going to publish an article acknowledging his own failure?

Another thing to keep in mind is that while Bloomberg funded McPike and Gecker (who lost), there were other candidates who foolishly acknowledged support for gun control and lost. If gun control is something that the populace wants, why do gun control supporters have such a hard time being elected? I think the answer is that support for gun control is a radical fringe position that has no business being associated with the democratic party.

[Eleanors38]

26. Yeah, but da Trace "anal-izes"