Elephant Ears

This blog is dedicated to the political happenings in the Valley and Southwest Virginia. As the the name implies, this blog will have posts based on what is heard by this elephant's (GOPer's) ears. It is also a great treat to get while at the county fair or a carnival.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Results from the 26th

I would just like to point out that the results for the 26th District Race were close to those from the 2003 election.

Lohr - 8545 (53.62%)
Fulk - 7346 (46.10%)
Margin - 1199 (7.52%)

Weatherholtz - 7108 (54.48%)
Fulk - 5923 (45.40%)
Margin - 1185 (9.08%)

The main difference was that Fulk did much better in Harrisonburg in 2005. Even so, that is probably due in part to Kilgore's weak showing in the city (Kilgore lost HBurg 51-47). Some may say this was reverse coattails from Fulk, but who knows. Either way, this is a solid win for Matt and the Republican party.


  • At 11/09/2005 4:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This is somewhat the proverbial apples and oranges. When Fulk ran in '03, he was running a challenger race against a very longtime incumbent. This time he pretty much was coming off a continuous two year long campaign and was running for an open seat. In '03 there was also no statewide race to bring voters out on either side. In '05, he also spent more than twice what he did in '03, pretty much to zero effect.

  • At 11/09/2005 5:44 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Well you make a good point.
    But technically comparing any 2 races is apples to oranges, so this is the best look you can have.
    It just goes to show that a large majority of the people who voted for Weatherholtz cast their ballot for Matt and did not cross over to Fulk.

  • At 11/10/2005 8:00 AM, Anonymous Valley Centrist said…

    I think I can safely say that most of us rooting for Lowell in this election were shocked that the results and margin of victory were so similar to the '03 race.

    So what happened? We had the better candidate. Money was not a problem. The tea leaves on this race will be examined for some time. But, bottom line, Lowell did not give the electorate sufficient reason to vote against their party. And that's a shame.

  • At 11/10/2005 9:59 AM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Centrist, refer to my above post on beating an incumbent. Fulk had to convince people to oust the incumbent party (which is also the majority party of the district and state). He couldn't do it on attacking Matt's attendence record only. He needed issues, and he didn't have any that resonated with people.
    Thats why Matt basically won the same support Weatherholtz had.

  • At 11/10/2005 1:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The Daily News Record says that Fulk did not turn out Harrisonburg as well as he needed to, and that Lohr did turn out the Rest of County. In an open seat, Fulk should have at least outperformed what he did in '03, if for no other reason that no voters really knew Lohr. I'm going to offer another possible idea, although one that will not be warmly received. It is possible that Fulk was not a good candidate. He ran too much of a "me too" campaign the way some moderate Republicans try to. He did not really distinguish himself from Lohr/GOP but tried to say that he was moderate and independent enough to be almost like a GOP'er. Somebody pointed out on another blog that Byren did very well running as an unabashed liberal...she even had a lenghty public record from the State House and US House. Clearly Fulk could not have run to the left, but his whole message seemed to be that he was pro-gun, pro-'culture of life' and anti-gay marriage.

  • At 11/10/2005 1:15 PM, Anonymous Valley Centrist said…

    I think we agree here, gophokie. Lowell didn't give the voters sufficient reason to leave the Republican tent. Not enough of them anyway. And his attempt to expose Matt as a programmed, partisan, lightweight slacker didn't stick.

    And it wasn't that Matt ran a great campaign, but he didn't make any fatal mistakes either. In the end, that was enough. He stayed on message, broadcast lot of pics of him and adoring family, and attacked Lowell (dishonestly, in my opinion) for being soft on gays, guns, abortion, and illegal immigrants. Hmm... wasn't this Kilgore's campaign strategy? Lucky for Matt, this message resonated better here in the Valley than it did statewide.

  • At 11/10/2005 1:23 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Anon, I would remind you that Lowell Fulk got 45% in an area that most GOPs pull 65-70%.
    He can be accused of alot of things, but a weak candidate probably isnt one of them.


Post a Comment

<< Home