What percent of RK traffic comes from districts near Brian Moran's vs. districts near Creigh Deeds'? If the same poll were run on Cobalt 6 (for example) I suspect the results would be inverted.

the extremely low percentage who want this to go to a primary.  I doubt that would be inverted, but certainly it would be interesting to run this on a blog based in Hampton Roads, Richmond, SWVA, or wherever.

And if Cobalt6 got Raising Kaine's level of traffic, I might test your theory! :)

because at this point Steve Shannon has pretty well decided that he is in the race for AG to stay . . .  

between the two of them that would avoid a primary, i think that would be best. the republicans pretty much have their nominee in mcdonnell. with the republicans united, we need to keep it clean if we want to hold on to the governor's mansion in 09.  

... and I'm guessing that there were alot of newly registered users yesterday :)

At 100 votes (the regular readers of RK) and before there were magically 75 votes in one day- Creigh led 2-1...

false.  The poll results have basically been running about like this for a few days now.  Also, there has been no surge of "newly registered users," I just checked.  Perhaps Eric has some other thoughts...

and Creigh was ahead, with about 37% to 29% for Moran -- exactly opposite to what you have there. Last time I remember looking this afternoon, there were 166 votes (the number just stuck in my head).

I was actually surprised that Deeds was ahead, just because I thought there were many people from NoVa here and they naturally would be supporting Moran at this point on the grounds of knowing him better.

Lowell, I don't know about newly registered users or manipulating online polls, and perhaps my browser is messed up, or perhaps I was simply misreading the results, but contrary to what you say, I could swear Deeds has been in the lead throughout and was ahead earlier today when I looked.

This isn't an accusation or anything, but it is odd.

Okay, I'm off for my daily hit of acid now,

This is a job for Eric the super-techie, not for me.

A tick under 20% in favor of a primary?  That's pretty low.

My best guess is that a large number of people, especially in the Virginia political blogosphere, are already familiar with the candidates and have already made up their mind.  Therefore, why vote for a primary - they already know who they want (and they voted that way).

I have to wonder if people might have been influenced by who they are supporting in the race as of now. The reason I say this is because a person might have actually been in favor of a primary, but voted for a particular candidate hoping that he would win the poll.

You might get different results if the question was purely primary vs. "it's time for a deal."

....essentially got to the same point I was making.

is that the vast majority of respondents don't seem to want a primary.

Here's the deal with the voting - it appears there was a conspiracy involved.  And we're perfectly cool with that.  I'll explain in a moment, but first, here's the vote tally at every 25 increment.

Vote Count	Moran	Deeds
25	6	6
50	13	14
75	18	26
100	24	37
125	33	44
150	53	47
175	65	53
200	74	59

note: I didn't include the other two choices so if you add the individual votes they will not match the total vote count.

You'll note that Deeds was slowly pulling out a lead until the 125 to 150 votes - where Moran got almost all the votes.  After that, Moran pulled slightly more but not a lot.

So it's clear that there was a concentrated effort by Moran supporters at one point.  You know, the old poll freeping trick.  

It appears there were some new registrations mixed in with old, so it wasn't just a flood of new votes.

Why are we ok with this?  Because, as long as it's not one person (and that does NOT appear to be the case), it shows organization within the candidates camp.  They were able to muster a lot of online votes with a focused effort.  Is that as good as real world votes?  Of course not.  Does it mean they'll be that effective in a real election?  Who knows.   But given that Deeds had the same opportunity and Deeds supporters were connected to the same tubes, they should have been able to encourage voting as much as the Moran camp.

A bit unfair?  Perhaps.  Maybe the Deeds supporters played it straight (as a poll to gauge whether RK readers want a primary) and the Moran supporters saw it as a head-to-head contest.

Well, as Lowell said at the beginning - Big Grain of Salt.

I remembered Deeds leading last week, then Moran catching up around Thursday or Friday, then staying in the lead and pulling even further ahead the past few days.  I had decided at the beginning to cut this off at 200 votes, so that was it.  That's one reason this isn't scientific; if I had let it go to 300 votes, Moran could have pulled even further ahead, or Deeds could have surged, who knows.  What I find interesting is how intensely people are reacting to an unscientific blog poll, and also that the Moran people would apparently really try to win it.  Maybe that's why 80%+ don't want a primary?

I hope I didn't come off like a conspiracy theorist about it.

And, to tell you the truth, I don't mind a candidates supporters getting on a website and voting for their candidate, although maybe the people that actually run the place feel different about that. In my mind, such organization is arguably indicative of something.

Right now, I am concerned about why the results I saw were so at odds with the actual results. I mean, obviously I was joking about the acid, but the hallucinations were real.  

read RK every day -- only as time permits. Happened to stumble on the poll, voted for Deeds, because I know, like and trust him -- he's from my area (more or less. I'm in Lexington). So yes, I think it's a matter of regional recognition; I know very little about Moran.

As for not wanting a primary...

In part it is, of course, the current (and distasteful) war between our presidential candidates, conducted precisely when someone -- like, our presumed nominee -- ought to be keeping a beady eye on McCain, who's getting away with murder, because MSM loves his BBQs and because watching Dems fight it out is so much more fun than checking McSame on his trip-ups and outright lies. (G)Obama is doing his best but, having to fight on two fronts has to be exhausting.

But, there's also the matter of money... Don't single-party primaries have to be paid for by the party? And couldn't the party money be put to a better use -- promoting the candidate -- than organising a primary? I like Deeds, but I'm not dead-set on him and will vote for Moran if the two can get this decided -- between themselves and behind the scenes.

Just my personal -- and long-winded -- explanation to Lowell's puzzle...  

Primaries are good for parties and candidates, especially in statewide races -- it makes various coalitions within parties organize to support their candidate/position/platform, and it makes the candidate travel and network and connect with voters and work up a political sweat.

Especially in a Va Dem party that's in ascendancy, with a number of apparently qualified candidates, it's imperative that we, the party members, get straight answers to tough questions. "Creigh/Brian, what would you do as Governor with respect to the issue of new coal-fired power plants? How do you balance energy security in the commonwealth versus pollution and global warming and environmental degradation and mountain destruction?", "How would you raise enough revenue to fund a major transportation funding overhaul that comports with the recent Supreme Court ruling?", etc., etc. If one of these guys is annointed then the odds are, frankly, that we'll get less than truthful or candid answers to these questions.

I want a substantive, issue-oriented politics. I want a vigorous and respectful primary election to choose our best candidate for governor.

As much as I like Mark Warner, because there is/was no primary, he doesn't have to go out and answer tough questions about balancing security and liberty (FISA, retroactive telecom indemnification/amnesty), or about what his views are on ending the war. Especially in Governor and US Senate races, where there are so few people holding so much power, I believe primaries are necessary for holding politicians accountable for what they say versus what they do -- if they don't have a primary, they won't say anything controversial, won't get pinned down on these questions.

My $.02 -- I have absolutely no preference at the moment between Creigh and Brian, and plan frankly on not even thinking about it until a few weeks after the federal elections in the fall.

I agree 100%.   And I'll add one of my favorites about primaries - it gives Progressive/Democratic voters a chance to choose.  In the general election there is rarely a choice - either vote for the Democrat or you're helping the Republican.  Which means if you don't agree with the Democrat on key issues you're really stuck.   A primary allows other Democrats to enter and gives us a real voting choice.

poll respondents don't want a primary?

Let's save the money, and the energy, for the GE.
We have two fine men here. Rather not watch them go after each other. This race is ours to lose.

but the issue I have with that is exactly what I was just saying above.  This approach is all about getting a Democrat elected (which is a good thing!) but it fails to address the question of which Democrat.  Not all Democrats are created equal and the primary gives all of us a chance to say who they agree with more.  

Saving it all for the general may (or may not) help in November, but it only gives us a chance to vote for the Democrat whether we agree with them or not.  I don't just want Democrats elected, I want Democrats I agree with elected.  And a primary at least gives me an opportunity.

I suspect that many poll responders have already decided for themselves, and therefore don't feel the need to go through with a primary - just put their guy at the top and be done with it.  But that doesn't address the question for everyone else who hasn't decided.

So, if anything, I think this poll tells us that about two-thirds of RK poll responders have already decided.  Of the other two undecided choices, the "Want a primary" is leading.

Raising Kaine is more focused on NoVa issues in general. You have posts about things like school board races in Northern Virginia that leave the rest of the state yawning.

Ain't nothing wrong with that. Write about what you know and about what's important to you. You can't possibly cover the rest of Virginia with the same kind of knowledge and experience that you can NoVa. But understand that this probably means that your readership leans NoVa and thus will be disproportionately inclined to support NoVa candidates than the VA party in general, or perhaps than VA grassroots Dems in general.

A geographical poll of readership could prove interesting and useful.

I've been meaning to do that, thanks for the reminder.

I have no objection to a primary at all - but selected an option other that "Let a Primary Decide" because I have personally already decided for myself...

Primary is cool with me, and I like both candidates mentioned.

the Democrats have two outstanding candidates, another embarrassment of riches. What happens to the one who loses the primary--- is it assumed that he has given up his seat in the House or Senate to run, and so now he is out of office completely? I suspect some voters in your poll had this thought in the back of their minds.

Whether he is then out of office or not, I want to develop a deeper bench for Democratic candidates in the future, and not run two of our rising stars against each other so one knocks off the other for future contests, which is most likely exactly what will happen to the man losing the primary for Gov. (Democrats rarely seem to run a name more than once for the same high office: lose once, don't come back and bother us again, you loser).

Rather than waste a rising star in this way, I personally would prefer to run one of these individuals now in this cycle, running the other for a different state-wide office (Atty. Gen., Lt. Gov.) to get more seasoning, and then run that individual in the next cycle for Gov. Seems more prudent to me, conserving energy and money, thus growing a stable of suitable future candidates. On that note, I believe Deeds is a better choice   at this time for Governor, considering his heritage, downstate location, and past run for Atty Gen (which, remember, he lost narrowly in an odd and surreal "recount").