This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Virginia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I call attention to the last two paragraphs- in particular:

• Republicans took control around the turn of the 21st century and promptly redistricted to protect their incumbents
• The electorate's reaction to Allen's gaffe further demonstrated the changing sensibilities of the region's citizens; prior to that, Allen had a double-digit lead in the polls.

69.221.122.46 ( talk) 04:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I'd like to hear your explanation of how "changing sensibilities" indicates a bias or POV. "To protect their incumbents" also seems neutral and normal; it is common knowledge that this how the political establishment operates. Redistricting is as common to politics as elections. But "changing sensibilities" as a POV statement needs your elaboration. - Laikalynx ( talk) 00:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

It should be noted that Republicans have fought proposals to shift redistricting to an independent commission. Racepacket ( talk) 13:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

There does seem to me to be a slight Democratic-POV bias in some of the statements. For example in the "changing sensibilities" being discussed, the statement above the citation leads simply to a Webb campaign posted YouTube video of the Allen incident, not to anything supporting the assertion that electoral reaction to the incident reflects a structural shift in sentiment on the part of Virginia voters or what that shift might be from or towards. In several places inter-party contrasts are drawn using slightly loaded language like "Despite support of Republican candidates..." or "In addition Democratic representatives maintained..." always seeming to tend to put a positive spin on Democratic political achievements while portraying similar Republican outcomes as unremarkable or anomalous. The statements in the voting rights section also seem to be more aimed toward painting Kaine in a positive light and Republicans negatively than providing a useful picture of the political climate in Virginia overall.

In adding two statements about the recent Republican wins I've attempted to avoid speculation about the causes or implications of the electoral decisions based on any biases I may have or speculation even by the sources cited. Perhaps others can improve upon it. I do think it would improve the rest of the article if it were edited with a similar eye to statements of fact, removing speculation and using balanced language. Phil ( talk) 00:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply

It seems like there's undue weight to Democratic victories in 2006 and 2007, while the recent Republican victories appear like blurbs with no back story. The state is dominated by Republicans at almost every level, but the wordage given to the image of a state leaning Democrat would make it hard to realize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.61.62 ( talk) 05:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC) reply

It is not clear what this article is supposed to cover in comparison with the more robust Republican Party of Virginia and Democratic Party of Virginia articles. Racepacket ( talk) 13:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Another year has gone by and I still have not had a response to my inquiry. The articles Republican Party of Virginia and Democratic Party of Virginia seem to cover these matters more comprehensively than this one. Although some material has been moved here from the main Virginia article, it is not clear what is the appropriate scope of this article vis a vis the other three. Could we please have a discussion here? Racepacket ( talk) 17:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I see this article mainly as subarticle of a few things: Primarily the Politics section on the article Virginia, but also of Politics of the United States and Politics of the Southern United States. Those should be the primary vehicles of information, and this should supplement those with more specific information. Still, I would love this to work better as a standalone page.-- Patrick { _oѺ^∞} 19:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Not sure it's so Republican Leaning, perhaps this should be taken out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.81.35 ( talk) 01:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Virginia Tech supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT ( talk) on 16:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply