Here’s all you need to know about Sandhya Somashekhar’s front page story about the Virginia governor’s race.

There is no empirical evidence [emphasis added] at this point in Virginia’s race for governor showing that huge numbers of voters think like Cleland and will respond by sending a message to Washington.

But that didn’t stop the Post reporter from fashioning an entire argument about the dynamics of the governor’s race based on the opinions of two individuals, one of whom was clearly ambivalent.  More likely, the reporter decided the slant she wanted and found two people who confirmed it, even though there is “no empirical evidence.”

This is another example of the lazy journalism increasingly practiced by The Washington Post, especially when it comes to the Virginia governor’s race.  We had another example Monday, when Roz Helderman wasted newsprint on a story that Democrats are still running against Bush.  The story was written for the political insiders but offered no help to general Post readers in deciding who to vote for.  Instead of writing stories about the issues, they write about the political dynamics, much of which they make up.

Regarding today’s story, there is mention that 52 percent of Americans support Obama, but it’s described as “the lowest number of his tenure.”  Indeed, it is also twice the number of his predecessor.  Ah, but that’s not the story she wanted to write.

According to a late July poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, 78% of Americans think it is at least somewhat likely that “Obama will bring real change in the direction of the country.”  A month after his election that figure was at 81%.  The margin of error is 3.1%.  Which is to say, it’s about the same.  Meanwhile, you have 61% of Americans saying they have an unfavorable position of Republicans in Congress.

So why would someone vote Republican in the Virginia’s governor’s race.  I don’t know, but one can argue it has nothing to do with the Obama administration. 

In another waste of newsprint, The Washington Post reports this morning that Creigh Deeds and Bob McDonnell have raised money for the gubernatorial campaigns.  Wow!

Among the insights we get:

The Deeds campaign said a surge in donations was to be expected after a divisive primary as party loyalists came together behind their nominee.

…With just one other governor’s race this year, in New Jersey, Virginia’s election will attract attention and money from both national parties. It will be viewed as a measure of President Obama’s popularity

…"It’s an important race," said Mame Reiley, who was Democrat Brian Moran’s campaign chairwoman in the primary. "It’s an indicator of things to come on the federal level."

…"This race is about Virginia," Deeds spokesman Jared Leopold said. "It’s about how we get to work and how our kids are doing in school."

No news here.  But hey, it was easy to report, easy to fill up the space in the Metro section.

If neither candidate has reported anything unusual about how much money he raised, and we’re still nearly four months out from the election, and money didn’t seem to matter in the Democratic primary, couldn’t this report been made in a small box charting how much was raise and is on hand?

So far, we have had at least three Post reporters – Helderman, Kumar and Gardner — on Virginia’s governor’s race.  So far, none had brought us any insight or elucidated key issues in the race.

If Washington Post executives want to revive their flagging fortunes, they don’t need salons.  They need stories.  So it’s disheartening to see them waster valuable newsprint on a non-story.

Sure Washington is the ultimate politcal insider town.  Many folks here love to read about the politics of campaigns, how they’re waged and stategies employed.  But are there enough such readers to sustain a general interest newspaper, even in Washington, DC?

Apparently, editors at The Post seem to think so.  How else to explain the fornt page, above the fold story about the inaction in the Virginia’s governor’s race.

To a degree rarely seen in state politics, Democrat R. Creigh Deeds and Republican Robert F. McDonnell have spent the early summer hunkered down, amassing resources and plotting strategy for what is expected to be a fierce clash of styles and ideas. They are girding for a campaign that is viewed as a bellwether of President Obama’s sway with voters and a first test of the issues that Republicans hope will revive their party.

And yet, Deeds has held only a handful of events since his June primary victory, and McDonnell is going on vacation. Television and radio airwaves have fallen silent.

There is absolutely no news here except that the campagins are not gneerating news.  So why then write about it, in the middle of the summer when jouirnalists will tell you many people are not paying attention to the race yet?  I’m not even sure the politcal cognescenti care.  As of this morning, the story has generated a paltry 19 comments on the Post’s web site.  And if they don’t care about this story, why should the average voter/newspaper reader care?

I’ve written before about The Post’s obsession with politcal strategy as opposed to issues.  To be fair, The Post (that, my frequent criticism notwithstanding, is still one great newspaper) can give us many stories of substance.  This morning’s A1 story about prisons is one good example.   In fact, it would have been helpful for the reporter of this story to team up with Anita Kumar covering the Virginia gubernatorial or attorney general races to look at the issue from the Commonwealth’s perspective, especially as it seems to not be following the progressive direction of many state prison systems.

Instead of wasting newspaper real estate on something few people care about and offers no news of substance, why not pick an issue, examine it from a voter’s perspective, and write about it.  If The Post doesn’t write about things people care about, it shouldn’t be surprising that they’re losing readers.