Mediaboss Marketing

Industry experts remain optimistic theres still time for Democrats to do something meaningful on infrastructure, especially considering Whitmers past interest. They insist, though, that the only way to make gains on road repair is coming up with new, ongoing funding.

We certainly will never give up hope, said Lance Binoniemi, vice president of government affairs for the Michigan Infrastructure and Transportation Association, which represents road and water infrastructure construction companies across the state.

But make no mistake, it will take political courage to find a long-term, sustainable road funding solution, he continued. It's as simple as that.

A March study commissioned by the Michigan Infrastructure and Transportation Association found that Michigan needs up to $3.9 billion more per year to fully fund road repairs, up from the $2.2 billion annual gap projected in a 2016 study of needs commissioned by the Snyder administration.

The new estimate is higher even though it takes into account the additional state and federal funds invested in infrastructure. The report concludes that failing to fix and maintain existing roads before they deteriorate further will continue to significantly increase road funding potentially up to $11 billion annually.

Michigans infrastructure is primarily funded by a 27.2 cents-per-gallon tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. The state has the seventh-highest per-gallon tax in the country, in part because the 6 percent sales tax applies to fuel.

Currently, 33 percent of Michigan state-operated roads eligible for federal aid are in poor condition, according to the states Transportation Asset Management Council. Local roads funded by cities and counties are in worse shape, with 45 percent in poor condition.

"The cost of inaction is not just imagined here it's real," Brad Williams of the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce said at a March 7 press conference on road funding. "If we don't do something soon, you know these costs are only going to go through the roof.

Efforts to come up with a better long-term funding mechanism for Michigans infrastructure have largely fallen flat.

A 2015 ballot initiative to raise new revenue for roads was rejected at the ballot box. The subsequent legislative deal signed by Snyder designed to devote another $1.2 annually to roads through an increase in vehicle registration fees and fuel taxes didnt fully kick in until 2021 and also pulled from the states general fund.

Getting that deal through took years of negotiations and was still politically controversial and subsequent efforts by Whitmer to fix the damn roads and reopen discussions about gas tax hikes were rebuffed by a then-Republican-majority Legislature.

Whitmers suggestion when she took office in 2019 was to raise the gas tax by 45 cents per gallon, an idea that was dismissed as ludicrous by Republicans and even made many Democrats wary.

Addressing the states road funding needs now would be no less politically difficult. The MITA-commissioned study explored several options that would make up the difference, including:

Michigan Democrats now control the Legislature and the governors office and so could, in theory, make headway on road funding. But their slim majorities in both chambers, which includes lawmakers in politically competitive districts, means any serious effort would need at least some Republican buy-in, said Adrian Hemond, a Democratic strategist and CEO of the firm Grassroots Midwest.

A road funding package means raising new revenues that means raising somebody's taxes, he said. Nobody in a vulnerable seat wants to vote for that. Nobody in leadership wants people in vulnerable seats to vote for that. There's really not a way to make that happen in a politically responsible way without it being bipartisan.

Whitmer told Bridge Michigan in December she wont pursue another major gas tax hike. In her February budget proposal, Whitmer didnt propose any major infrastructure funding overhauls, instead focusing on past bonding investments and proposing setting aside funds to match federal government infrastructure grants that could become available.

She has expressed some interest in alternative ideas, including a fee on vehicle miles, pointing to states like Oregon that reimburse motorists for fuel taxes if they instead pay a tax based on how many miles they drive.

Industry insiders say its imperative the state consider such options as electric vehicles which dont rely on gas, but will still cause wear and tear on Michigan roads become more prevalent.

A report conducted by Anderson Economic Group for the County Road Association of Michigan found that, because Michigans main source of road funding comes from fuel taxes, the state missed out on an estimated $50 million from 2019 to 2021 from electric vehicle drivers. That shortfall will only grow as more drivers make the switch to electric vehicles.

See original here:
Michigan Democrats in no rush to prioritize fixing the damn roads - Bridge Michigan

WASHINGTON House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Thursday night that a Democratic prosecutors criminal charges against former President Donald Trump represent nothing less than an assault on the United States of America.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has irreparably damaged our country in an effort to tilt the 2024 presidential election in favor of Democrats, according to the most powerful Republican on Capitol Hill.

As he routinely frees violent criminals to terrorize the public, he weaponized our sacred system of justice against President Donald Trump, McCarthy said in a prepared statement. The American people will not tolerate this injustice, and the House of Representatives will hold Alvin Bragg and his unprecedented abuse of power to account.

McCarthy was one of several Republicans not just criticizing Braggs charges, which remain under seal, but suggesting that Trump should not be prosecuted by a Democrat for violating the law under any circumstances. Their statements dont specify any possible charges or explain why they might be bogus, implying instead that the case is fundamentally flawed simply because Bragg is a Democrat.

The sham New York indictment of President Donald Trump is one of the clearest examples of extremist Democrats weaponizing government to attack their political opponents, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the No. 2 House Republican, said in a tweet.

Even Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, widely expected to be Trumps top rival for the GOP presidential nomination, called the indictment a purely political attack. The weaponization of the legal system to advance a political agenda turns the rule of law on its head, DeSantis said. It is un-American.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has already endorsed Trumps 2024 candidacy, called the case legal voodoo and political persecution. (Meanwhile, the top two Republicans in the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Minority Whip John Thune of South Dakota, have said nothing.)

Story continues

Braggs case relates to hush money payments Trump made to former adult film star Stormy Daniels to prevent her publicizing an alleged tryst just days before the 2016 election. Trumps former attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to making unlawful campaign contributions for his role in the scheme, since the $130,000 payoff to Daniels amounted to a campaign expense and greatly exceeded legal contribution limits.

The following year, Cohen provided Congress with documents reflecting the series of checks Trump wrote to reimburse him for the initial payment to Daniels.

So picture this scene, Cohen told lawmakers during a hearing. In February 2017, one month into his presidency, Im visiting President Trump in the Oval Office for the first time, and its truthfully awe-inspiring. Hes showing me all around and pointing to different paintings. And he says to me something to the effect of, Dont worry, Michael. Your January and February reimbursement checks are coming. They were FedExd from New York, and it takes a while for that to get through the White House system.

Cohen is likely a main witness in Braggs case, and Republicans say hes not credible because hes a convicted criminal who repeatedly lied on Trumps behalf when he worked as the former presidents lawyer. Republicans have also noted that federal prosecutors declined to press charges against Trump over the campaign finance violation, which, they argue, indicates a weak case.

Bragg is not a federal prosecutor, so his charges could relate to state business records laws, since the payments to Cohen were labeled as legal expenses. But we dont know yet, because the charges remain under seal.

Trump may also face charges in Georgia related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, plus federal charges related to the 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol and his refusal to turn over official documents at the end of his term.

Some prominent Republicans have acknowledged the uncertainty of the situation and even gone so far as to note that former presidents of the United States are, in fact, subject to the same laws as everyone else.

No one is above the law, including former presidents, former Vice President Mike Pence said on CNN Thursday, before adding that a controversy over campaign finance shouldnt be the basis of such an unprecedented prosecution.

Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a Republican who opposes Trumps 2024 presidential bid, even suggested people should wait to see the facts of the case.

While the grand jury found credible facts to support the charges, it is important that the presumption of innocence follows Mr. Trump, Hutchinson said. We need to wait on the facts and for our American system of justice to work like it does for thousands of Americans every day.

But Hutchinson and Pence are outliers. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), for one, called the indictment devastating to the rule of law.

Cruz told HuffPost earlier this month that even if Trump did violate state law by creating fraudulent business expenses, that would only be a trifling offense.

It may be that you committed a crime this morning if you sped a mile an hour over the speed limit, but our justice system doesnt target someone you dont like and go searching for a needle in a haystack to bring a partisan prosecution, Cruz said.

Continued here:
Republicans Suggest Democrats Are Simply Not Allowed To Prosecute Trump - Yahoo News

A plurality of Democrats say they want President Biden to step aside and not seek a second term in the White House next year, according to a new national survey

Forty-four percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters questioned in a Monmouth University Poll released on Monday said the president should step aside and allow someone else to run as the Democratic Partys standard-bearer in 2024. A quarter of respondents said Biden should seek re-election next year, with 30% saying they had no preference.

The polls release comes as the president gears up to run for re-election.Biden has repeatedly said he intends to seek a second term in the White House, but he has yet to make any formal announcements. However, the president hinted toward a re-election campaign during a speech early last month to party leaders and activists at the DNCs winter meeting, which was held this year in Philadelphia.

BIDEN HAULS IN BIG BUCKS FOR DEMOCRATS AHEAD OF LIKELY 2024 RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN

President Joe Biden speaks at the Democratic National Committee winter meeting, Feb. 3, 2023, in Philadelphia. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

"Were just getting started," Biden told a boisterous crowd. "I intend to get more done."

"Let me ask you a simple question are you with me?" the president asked the crowd. The question instantly elicited cheers and loud chants of "four more years."

HINTING AT 2024 RE-ELECTION, BIDEN TELLS DEMOCRATS WERE JUST GETTING STARTED'

While no major Democrats are expected to primary challenge the president, best-selling author and spiritual adviser Marianne Williamson earlier this month launched her second straight long-shot bid for the partys presidential nomination.

President Biden shakes hands with supporters after addressing the crowd at the Democratic National Committee's meeting in Philadelphia on Feb. 3, 2023. (Fox News)

But if the president surprises the political word and decides not to seek another term, the Monmouth poll indicates that Democrats have no clear idea on whom theyd like to see as their partys 2024 nominee.

BIDEN APPROVAL RATING REMAINS UNDERWATER, BELOW MOST OF HIS RECENT PREDECESSORS

Just over half of those questioned (51%) couldnt offer a name when asked who they would like to see as the Democrats standard-bearer next year if the president declined to run again.

Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at the Democratic National Committee meeting, on Feb. 3, 2023, in Philadelphia. (Fox News)

Vice President Kamala Harris grabbed the backing of 13%, with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont the runner-up in the 2016 and 2020 Democratic nomination races and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg who ran in 2020 both at 6% support. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts another 2020 Democratic presidential contender was at 4%, with California Gov. Gavin Newsom at 3%. No one else topped 1% in the survey.

While only a quarter of those questioned said they wanted Biden to run for re-election, the president enjoyed a favorable rating of 74% in the poll.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Democrats appear to be saying they like the job Biden has done, but maybe its time for him to move on when his term is up. However, no top tier of candidates emerges when these voters are asked to name a preferred alternative. Part of that could simply be the holding pattern that Democrats are in because Biden has signaled that he will, in fact, run," Monmouth University Polling Institute director Patrick Murray said.

The Monmouth University poll was conducted March 16-20, with 542 Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters nationwide. The surveys sampling error for results in the release was plus or minus 6.3 percentage points.

See the original post here:
Only a quarter of Democrats want President Biden to run for re-election in 2024: poll - Fox News

Once upon a time, the roles were reversed.

Democrats were, if anything, skeptical of foreign intervention. Many, especially in the liberal and progressive wings of the party, saw war as inhumane, policing the world as folly and the Pentagon as bloated. Humbled by failure in Vietnam, the party that gave us Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern and Jimmy Carter pursued cooperation rather than conflict as the order of the day.

Republicans, on the other hand, were more unabashedly hawkish willing to flex U.S. military muscle and project power in support of an American-led world order. For the most part, they believed that if you gave the Soviets, the Chinese or Islamic State so much as an inch in Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East or elsewhere, dominoes would begin to tumble. Peace through strength was the mantra.

Opinion Columnist

Nicholas Goldberg

Nicholas Goldberg served 11 years as editor of the editorial page and is a former editor of the Op-Ed page and Sunday Opinion section.

But today, that paradigm is being flipped on its head.

Earlier this month, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is expected to announce his candidacy for president, said that further support for Ukraine is not a vital interest of the United States. He brushed off the war between Russia and Ukraine as a mere territorial dispute. Last week he clarified that Russia was in the wrong, but reiterated that he would oppose an escalation of American involvement.

His comments align DeSantis, to one degree or another, with former President Trump, whose isolationist, America first impulses are well known. About Ukraine, Trump has said, That war has to stop, and it has to stop now.

DeSantis also lines up with Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), the new House speaker, who has vowed that Republicans wont agree to a blank check for aid to Ukraine.

And he lines up with plenty of other conservative Republicans, such as Kari Lake (the loser in last years race for Arizona governor), who sounded in a recent speech more like Tom Hayden than Ronald Reagan: We are living on Planet Crazy, where we have hundreds of billions of dollars of our hard-earned American money being sent overseas to start World War III.

Yes, theres been pushback from the Republican establishment. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and former United Nations Ambassador and 2024 presidential candidate Nikki Haley, for example, are among those who support robust aid for Ukraine.

But the reality is that the America-first approach is gaining traction because it has significant backing from Republican voters, 40% of whom believe the U.S. is giving too much aid to Ukraine, compared with only 15% of Democrats who agree, according to the Pew Research Center.

While those changes are rippling through the GOP, President Biden and the Democrats are swinging the other way: Well stick with our Ukrainian allies as long as it takes, Biden says, as he gives them more howitzers, rocket systems and armored vehicles, because nothing less than the American-led international order is at stake.

Biden channeling Ronald Reagan, not Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama describes Ukraine as just one front in a global battle between autocracy versus democracy. Do you want to live in a repressive world led by Russias Vladimir Putin, Chinas Xi Jinping and their allies or in an enlightened liberal democracy of the sort we have in the U.S. and Europe?

As Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, put it: Today it is Russia and Ukraine. Tomorrow it will be other nations.

Its true that the U.S. is not actually fighting a war, just arming its allies in Ukraine. But according to a survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, liberal Democratic voters now support putting boots on the ground around the world more than independents, moderate Democrats or Republicans. More than half of liberal Democrats would support sending U.S. troops to intervene if Russia invaded a NATO ally, or if North Korea invaded South Korea or if China invaded Taiwan.

So whats going on here? Are we witnessing a true ideological realignment that will endure? Or is this merely situational, the result of some combination of Putins invasion, the upcoming presidential election and the Trump phenomenon?

Several experts told me I shouldnt assume a long-term shift is underway. They suggested there was a lot of political posturing and jockeying going on, especially because of Trumps disruptive presence in the 2024 race.

The pendulum is swinging, but Im not sure we have clarity on how far its swinging or exactly in what direction, said Andrew Bacevich, chairman of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

Bacevichs position is that theres not that much difference between the parties in any case. He argues that the party in power whichever it is tends to emphasize the importance of strong American leadership and the minority party generally shows more sensitivity to risks, costs and tradeoffs.

Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, doubts were seeing a true realignment. He argues that plenty of progressive Democrats are unenthusiastic about our involvement in Ukraine. And while its true that GOP voters are growing more skeptical of a muscular foreign policy, hes not sure itll last.

Their leaders are saying what they think they have to say to get the nomination, he said. The interesting question is whether Trumpism, with its isolationist impulse, will dominate in Republican circles after Trump is off the scene. Or will there be a return to 41ism and 43ism?

Haass was referring to the more internationalist policies of President George H.W. Bush and his son. (Remember Iraq?)

For my part, Id like to see less ideology, less rhetoric, less jockeying over 2024 and more pragmatism. In a sane world, Republicans and Democrats would come together in search of a coherent policy that would help the people of Ukraine in their fight against Putins unjustifiable aggression, without letting us drift into a new Cold War or get dragged into an escalating quagmire.

Thats too much to hope for, though, given the sorry state of American politics.

@Nick_Goldberg

The rest is here:
Opinion: Democrats flip red, Republicans flip blue on one major issue. Is it permanent? - Los Angeles Times

Keep up with our political coverage by signing up forour free daily email newsletterand our new weekly political newsletter, West of the Capital.

One of the most contested state Senate races this year is going to be in the Roanoke Valley and part of the New River Valley.

This will be in the newly drawn Senate District 4, a district where mapmakers drew two incumbents Democrat John Edwards of Roanoke and Republican Dave Suetterlein of Roanoke County into the same district. Edwards has since retired, and now theres a lively contest for the Democratic nomination to succeed him. So far there are three candidates: Roanoke council members Luke Priddy and Trish White-Boyd, and community activist DeAnthony DA Pierce.

I have written before about the history of this district how Democrats wanted to unite Democratic-voting Roanoke with Democratic-voting Blacksburg, but the mapmakers opted for a more compact district that put Democratic-voting Roanoke in with Republican-voting Roanoke County, Republican-voting Salem and the Republican-voting part of Montgomery County, not the Democratic-voting part. You can read my previous column for more about that, but for those not inclined, heres the short version: This isnt gerrymandering, this is the opposite of gerrymandering. This is simply what you get when you try to draw more compact districts without regard for where incumbents live.

With the two court-appointed special masters who drew the lines (one Democratic, one Republican) submitted their maps to the Virginia Supreme Court, they also included a report that has served as a go-to guide for the politics of each district. Based on the 2017 election returns, which is what the special masters used, they estimated that this new district is 52% to 54% Republican. In the 2021 governors race, this district voted 54.7% for Republican Glenn Youngkin. Based on that, the Virginia Public Access Project a nonpartisan site that tracks Virginia politics has shaded this district pink, for one that leans Republican.

That said, its close enough that its still considered competitive, so today lets take a deeper dive into just how competitive this district might be. This is a matter of concern beyond voters in that district; this is a district that will help determine whether the next state Senate is controlled by Democrats or Republicans, so this is a rare instance where something that happens in the Roanoke and New River valleys has statewide implications.

One of the Democratic candidates, White-Boyd, said something that caught my eye. Heres what Cardinals Markus Schmidt wrote when he reported on her entry into the race:

White-Boyd said that she isnt worried about the slight Republican advantage in the recently redrawn district.

The majority of the votes come out of the city, and the last city council election was a Democratic sweep, so he has the uphill battle, she said, referring to Suetterlein, the Republican incumbent. We have a very big base here, and he will have the same challenges that I will have in other areas. But I am very confident in my connections in Salem city, and if it wasnt tenable I wouldnt have done it yet.

Now, its not my intention to nitpick everything candidates say, but White-Boyd is wrong on one point. The majority of the votes in that district dont come out of the city the city in Roanoke Valley parlance being Roanoke. A plurality do, but not a majority. Thats an important difference, one that disadvantages Democrats.

Lets look at the numbers.

VPAP has already crunched some of them for us. Heres where the voters in that district are:

Roanoke: 42.6%

Roanoke County (partial): 27.68%

Montgomery County (partial): 18.2%

Salem: 11.5%

Those numbers would seem helpful to Democrats the biggest jurisdiction in the district is strongly Democratic but are they?

Heres one way to look at a campaign, through the margins that each party is able to take out of each locality. In the 2021 governors race, Democrats came out of Roanoke with a 4,713-vote margin. That got quickly wiped out in Roanoke County, where just the portion of Roanoke County thats in this district produced a GOP margin of 6,805 votes. There may be fewer Roanoke County voters than Roanoke voters in this district but they vote overwhelmingly Republican, which accounts for the big margin. After that, Salem produced a Republican margin of 2,700 votes, while the Montgomery County portion of this district had a Republican margin of 3,188 votes. Put another way, the districts sole Democratic locality produced a 4,713-vote margin while the three Republican ones produced a Republican margin of 12,693. We dont have to finish the math to see how that works out but well do it anyway: Overall in the district, Youngkin posted a margin of 8,080 votes over Democrat Terry McAuliffe.

If youre a Democrat looking at this district, the challenge is how do you change that? In some ways, the answer is easy: A Democrat needs a bigger margin out of Roanoke and, ideally, cuts into those Republican margins elsewhere.

How likely is that? Lets try to find out. Are there other elections in recent years where Democrats have produced a bigger margin out of Roanoke? Thats really the threshold question. Turning out your own base ought to be easier than reducing the margins in communities that historically vote against your party, so if Democrats cant generate a bigger margin in Roanoke, nothing else really matters.

So what does history tell us? Here are the Democratic margins in Roanoke over the past five years:

2022 U.S. House: 4,702

2021 governor: 4,713

2020 president: 11,166

2020 U.S. Senate: 13,846

2018 U.S. Senate: 9,640

Youll see the biggest margins came in 2020, when the presidential election drove up voter participation. Turnout in a state legislative election wont come anywhere close to that, so we need to discount those 2020 numbers. That leaves us with the 2022 House election, the 2021 governors race and the 2018 Senate race. Of those, the 2018 Senate race, which pitted Democrat Tim Kaine against Republican Corey Stewart, offers the most hope to Democrats. So, yes, its possible for Democrats to squeeze a 9,640-vote margin out of the city. The problem is that may still not be enough; it wouldnt have been against Youngkins margins in 2021. Kaine also had the advantage of one of the weakest statewide candidates that Republicans have fielded in recent years. Thought experiment: Is Suetterlein as weak as Stewart was? Suetterleins previous electoral performance would suggest otherwise.

These also arent the most applicable turnout numbers. Turnout in an off-year state election will be lower than in a midterm national election. The only true apples-to-apples comparison is to look at previous state legislative elections in the precincts that make up this district.

Heres where we run into our first analytical challenge: In the last state Senate race here, in 2019, Edwards didnt have a Republican challenger, only an independent. Thats not a good comparison. To get a more accurate reading, we need to go back to 2015, when Uptown Funk by Mark Ronson and Bruno Mars was tearing up the pop charts and Edwards faced a strong Republican challenge from Nancy Dye. Even 2015 isnt a perfect comparison because that was actually a three-way race: Don Caldwell, Roanokes Democratic commonwealths attorney, ran as an independent. He took just 6.4% of the vote districtwide, but whose hide did he take it out of? Edwards, because Caldwell had previously run as a Democrat? Or Dyes, because they were both challenging the incumbent? Caldwell was running distinctly to the right of Edwards, so Im inclined to think he hurt Dye more than Edwards, but its possible to argue that one either way.

In any case, if we discount that race, we have to go back to 2011, when Edwards faced just a single Republican challenger, David Nutter. Thats a dozen years ago, though, and a lot of things can change in that time. In 2011, Donald Trump was still just some rich celebrity in New York, not a political phenomenon who has helped remake the Republican Party (or at least certain parts of it).

Just to be on the safe side, though, lets look at both years.

In 2015, Edwards squeezed a 3,590-vote margin out of Roanoke.

In 2011, Edwards pulled a 4,311-vote margin out of Roanoke.

Given what a Democratic candidate would need in the 2023 election, neither of those numbers seems particularly hopeful (well, from a Democratic point of view; Republicans would consider these quite hopeful numbers). These margins are roughly equivalent to what McAuliffe did in 2021 in Roanoke and that wasnt enough to win the district not even close. For comparison, Sutterlein ran up a 6,607-vote margin out of the Roanoke County part of his district four years ago. All but three of those precincts are in this years district; that would have reduced his margin to 5,949; still more than the Democratic margins out of Roanoke in 2015 and 2011. In 2011, Suetterleins margin in Roanoke County was 4,401, which, with those three precincts removed, would be 3,876, still more than Edwards margin in 2015 although lower than 2011. Thats more encouraging for Democrats but we havent taken into account yet the Republican margins in Salem and Montgomery County, which would more than make up the difference.

To satisfy my curiosity, I went back even further. In 1999, Edwards rolled up a 5,625-vote margin in the city. In 1995, he had a 5,361-vote margin. Those margins are better but still would get wiped out by the standard Republican margins in Roanoke County, Salem and Montgomery County. The fact remains: These other localities are a lot more Republican than Roanoke is Democratic.

Case in point, and for this Ill switch to percentages to make it easier. In 2021, the Democratic vote in Roanoke was 57.7%; the Republican vote in Roanoke County was 65.7%, in Salem 64.3%. Montgomery County is harder to compute because not only is it split between districts but some precincts are, too, but some of the precincts fully in the district gave Republicans 81.5% of the vote.

To win, a Democrat first needs to really crank up the margin in Roanoke, and I cant find any historical examples that match what a Democrat would need here. The best Democratic performance in a state Senate race that I can find came 36 years ago when Democrat Granger Macfarlane rolled up a 7,221-vote margin in the city over Republican William Ham Flannagan. Four years later, though, Macfarlane managed just a 532-vote margin in the city against Brandon Bell.

The Democratic candidate in 2023 will need a 1987-style margin out of the city (or better) and then need to figure out how to cut into Republican margins in the rest of the district. Is that possible? Sure. Lots of things are possible. But is it likely?

The problem is that while its theoretically possible for Democrats to rev up that kind of margin out of the city, the trend lines in Roanoke County, Salem and that part of Montgomery County are running against them. The Republican vote share in those districts has been increasing as voting patterns become more polarized, which means the margins often are, too. Is there a Democrat in 2023 who can both mobilize the partys base in the city and win back voters who have been drifting more and more into the Republican column? Thats the strategic challenge for Democrats.

Parties out of power often have more incentive to vote than the parties in power. While Democrats control the state Senate, they are in many ways the party out of power they dont control the governorship. That might help Democrats some in 2023. However, another challenge: Democrats may be unhappy with the governor, but the general public doesnt seem to be. The most recent Roanoke College poll put his favorable rating at 57%. Running against Youngkin may help Democrats increase turnout among their voters, but it seems unlikely to be persuasive with other voters, who generally seem to think Youngkin is an alright guy. True, voters seem to like Youngkin a lot better than they like some of his policies, so that will be the likely Democratic line of attack: If Republicans win control of the state Senate, look at all the terrible things they would be able to do. Can Democrats sufficiently scare voters? Well see.

One more consideration: Theres an open House seat in a district that overlaps part of this Senate district and its considered competitive. Lily Franklin will be the Democratic candidate in House District 41; Chris Obenshain and Lowell Bowman are seeking the Republican nomination. The problem for Democrats is that the Democratic part of that House district (Blacksburg) isnt in this Senate district but the most Republican parts (eastern Montgomery County and western Roanoke County) are. That means in those Republican precincts there will be two legislative candidates working to increase turnout (Suetterlein and whoever the House nominee is). There are also constitutional races on the ballot in Montgomery County and Roanoke County. Again, more candidates working to increase turnout in Republican-voting areas. There are no comparable elections in Democratic-voting Roanoke. That gives another slight structural advantage to the Republicans.

Im not trying to discourage Democrats here, just pointing out the challenging math. Ultimately, though, the math that matters is who votes and who doesnt. Upsets do happen. Nobody expected Bell to win back in 1991 but he did. If you ask me to predict who will win this race, Ill be happy to tell you on election night after the votes have been counted.

Here is the original post:
If Democrats want to win the Roanoke Valley's state Senate seat, here's what they need to do - Cardinal News