• Join Virtucon on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow us now on

  • 2012 Presidential Election Gallup Daily Tracking Poll

    Based on continuous five-day rolling averages. The initial report on 4/16 is based on interviews with 2,265 registered voters.

    Gallup Daily Tracking Poll

  • The Virtucon Poll

  • Nov. 6, 2012

    Virtucon Endorsed Candidates:

    U.S. Senate

    U.S. House

    1st Dist.

    2nd Dist.

    4th Dist.

    5th Dist. 6th Dist.

    7th Dist.

    9th Dist.

    10th Dist.

    11th Dist.

  • Nov. 5, 2013

    Virtucon Endorsed Candidates:

    Virginia Lt. Governor

  • VV RINO Watch List

    The following "Republicans" have been added to Virtucon's RINO Watch List based upon their votes and statements on a variety of issues ranging from economic to social to government reform:

    Virginia Senators:

    Harry Blevins

    Tommy Norment

    Walter Stosch

    Frank Wagner

    John Watkins

  • Virtucon Supports the Following Legislation:

    HB 1 Unborn children; construing the word "person" under Virginia law to include.

    H.B. 1 WAS KILLED IN THE SENATE BY THE FOLLOWING RINOS: Harry Blevins

    Tommy Norment

    Frank Ruff

    Walter Stosch

    Frank Wagner

    John Watkins

    SB 244 Primary elections; voter registration by political party.

    S.B. 244 WAS DEFEATED BY THE FOLLOWING RINOS: Harry Blevins

    Walter Stosch

    Frank Wagner

    John Watkins

    SB 56 Elections; party identification on ballots in local elections.

    SB 55 Voter identification requirements; revises list of items a voter may show to prove identification.

    HB 1060 Citizenship of arrestee; if accused is not committed to jail, arresting officer to ascertain.

    H.B. 1060 WAS KILLED IN COMMITTEE BY THE FOLLOWING RINO: Tommy Norment

  • Advertise here

    Visit Our Sponsors

    Paid Advertisement


    SeaWorld & Busch Gardens Conservation Fund


  • Poll Accuracy Based Results

    Election 2009 actual results: Bob McDonnell 58.6 percent for a 17.4 percent margin of victory. Virtucon rankings are based upon total amount the two numbers deviate from the actual numbers.

    1. Survey USA (10/30-11/1) – 58% / 18% (deviation 1.2%)

    2. VCU (10/21-25) – 54% / 18% (deviation 5.2%)

    3. (TIE) PPP (10/31-11/1) – 56% / 14% (deviation 6%)

    3. (TIE) Roanoke College (10/21-27) – 53% / 17% (deviation 6%)

    5. Suffolk Univ. (10/26-28) – 54% / 14% (deviation 8%)

    6. Rasmussen (10/27) – 54% / 13% (deviation 9%)

    7. Washington Post (10/22-25) – 55% / 11% (deviation 10%)

    8. Times Dispatch / Mason Dixon (10/28-29) – 53% / 12% (deviation 11%)

    9. Daily Kos / Research 2000 (10/26-28) – 54% / 10% (deviation 12%)

    10. Virginia Pilot / CNU (10/8-13) – 45% / 14% (deviation 17%)

    11. Clarus (10/18-19) – 49% / 8% (deviation 19%)


    Next time you see a poll, judge it by its past performance. Here is how they rank in terms of accuracy based upon the 2008 presidential election:

    MOST ACCURATE:

    1T. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**

    1T. Pew (10/29-11/1)**

    3. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)

    4. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)

    5. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*

    6T. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*

    6T. ARG (10/25-27)*

    8T. CNN (10/30-11/1)

    8T. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)

    POLL REVEALED TO BE FRAUDULENT AND REPUDIATED BY DAILYKOS:

    10. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)

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

    (If you're below DailyKos, you don't deserve to be taken seriously for another four years. Better luck in 2012.)

    POLLS THAT WERE WORSE THAN A FRAUDULENT POLL:

    11. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)

    12. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)

    13. FOX (11/1-2)

    14. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)

    15. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)

    16. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)

    17. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)

    18. Marist College (11/3)

    19. CBS (10/31-11/2)

    20. Gallup (10/31-11/2)

    21. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)

    22. CBS/Times (10/25-29)

    23. Newsweak (10/22-23)

UPDATED: What the heck is the First Congressional District Republican Committee smoking?

UPDATE: Chairman Tom Foley of the First Congressional District Republican Committee had this to say in an e-mail:

Dear Mr. Watson,

At its June meeting the committee authorized $1,500.00 to each of the three challengers running  either against an incumbent or for an open seat in the district.

The 3,000.00 you cite is not correct.  I looked up the SBE report, and upon inquiry have been told that campaign staff filed that report with SBE in person and were instructed to show the single contribution in two places. It is now being corrected.

Okay, but this raises an even bigger issue: If Catherine Crabill received only $1,500 from the committee and not $3,000, that means her campaign committee currently has a balanced of -$480.61, which isn’t possible either logically (since she discloses no debts) or under state law.

CORRECTION: The math actually works out correctly with the removal of the second $1,500 contribution from the committee.

The campaign finance disclosure reports covering July 1 through August 31 for most candidates were released today by the State Board of Elections and there were some surprises in Catherine Crabill’s report.

On July 13, 2009, the First Congressional District Committee contributed $1,500 to Crabill’s campaign. On August 24, 2009, ten days after Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling, Ken Cuccinelli, and Pat Mullins publicly repudiated Crabill and her campaign, the First Congressional District Republican Committee contributed another $1,500 to her campaign.

There are so many things wrong with this I don’t know where to start: First, the committee contributed money to a candidacy of someone that’s obviously insane and believes that the United States government was responsible for, inter alia, the murder of 168 people, including 19 children, in the Oklahoma City bombing. Do I need to stay more? Do the values expressed by Crabill match those held by members and chairman of the First District Committee?

Second, why is the committee contributing money to the candidacy of someone that doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning? As a sidenote on point two, doesn’t incumbent Rob Wittman have two Democratic challengers running against him in 2010? Am I the only person that thinks they could find a better use for this money they’re blowing on Crabill’s campaign?

Third, why is the committee supporting this Crabill which serves to hurt the candidacy of McDonnell et al.? Are they blind to that fact or do they just not care?

All told, Crabill raised $4,538.95 during the reporting period and has $1,019.39 on-hand. Meanwhile, Delegate Albert Pollard raised $14,101 and has $16,301.36 on-hand.

Cross-posted at “I’m Surrounded By Idiots”.

2 Responses

  1. “A fool and his money”?

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 59 other followers