Talk Elections

https://blumenthalresearchdaily.weebly.com/

Ralph Northam (D):  48%
Ed Gillespie (R):  42%
Cliff Hyra (L):  4%
Undecided:  6%

Great Poll for Northam, especially considering the sample is only D+1.

The poll says that they found a supermajority of voters to oppose the confederate monuments being allowed to stand. Isn't that at odds with other polls? Why the swing on this issue / is it even possible for support to go from 60% to 30% on an issue like this?

These polls are everywhere.

This poll is good for Gillespie most if not all undecideds break gop like they always do he will win.

With what happens this morning I doubt Gillespie wins all undecided.
 

Is this even a real poll?

That poll is trash.

He means the Mueller indictments could have a reverse Comey Letter effect with last minute swing away from GOP.

Ed Gillespie is his own person Hillary’s emails is different then Russia.

Is this your first election? This isn't really a Democrat or Republican thing. Presidential politics and national events/issues can bleed substantially downballot, particularly in lesser known partisan races. Whether it's a demoralized base that doesn't end up voting, or people get so fed up with their party due to one or more issues that they vote against them all, or use it as a proxy to punish the president, it's not exactly a new thing.

In this case, the effect is more likely to be a widened enthusiasm gap and perhaps some undecideds being pushed by national politics. Virginia doesn't have no-excuse / in-person early voting, so it's not like the effect can be mitigated somewhat due to votes already being cast.

I don't know if the VA race will see such effects or to what degree but this stuff does happen often to the president's party.

Yep. Ken Cuccinelli vastly over performed the polls. No wonder they are sweating.

It's really getting hard to come up with ways to claim that Gillespie will win.

Yep right now if the average swings 4 points like last time Gillespie will win by slightly less then 1 point.

Because the media went ballistic over a website crashing. What's happening a week before this election? Something tells me it won't be helping Gillespie.

While I don't see Gillespie winning I doubt today's indictments will end up having a major factor on the race. For one they don't really show anything that people don't really know about #russiagate (I suspect most people have already made up their minds on the investigation and nothing short of a smoking gun is going to change peoples minds and no today's developments do not constitute a smoking gun.) Secondly in a week this will be old news and likely not have as much of an impact on the race (for individuals that this is a big deal for are probably voting Northam anyway. Most of those voters are strongly partisan dems. ). Thirdly today's news will probably not do a lot to hurt the reputation of the Republican party as a whole as the individuals indicted were either fairly obscure or completely unrelated to the current goverment and #Russiagate. I also take exception to the notion that Governors races are low profile; millions are still spend on advertising as well as loads of local TV coverage of the election   to the point that I would expect by now most voters have at least some idea of what they think of both candidates. I also doubt that Republicans are honestly going to stay home just because Manfort was indicted. That is not to say I don't expect that Northam isn't going to win but don't just expect a major over performance of the polls; of course Republicans shouldn't count on the revere from happening either. 

Election night is going to be filled with veiled racial slurs about how "those people" cheated to rob Gillespie.

Lol, nah. Gillespie closed a 10 point gap in the 2014 election too.

You do realize that your political party basically has the support of nearly the entirety of that media, right? And yet you keep losing.

lol

Uh huh. If that was the case, they would've kept talking about the government shutdown for an entire year. Instead they went ballistic over a website crashing and focused on Ebola hysteria. They also wouldn't have given Hillary's emails more coverage than all of Trump's scandals combined.

()

I wasn't trying to suggest that the Governors race is low-profile. I was just saying that people's views dominate choices in partisan races the lower you go downballot. There are even studies for this. When people don't know who the candidates are, or don't know what they've been up to, they let their default opinions guide them, and those are pretty much what they think of the president these days.

As for the Russiagate stuff, I disagree with a few of your points, for instance, I think actual indictments like this represents a new step and there are still plenty of soft supporters out there who might be more malleable now that the investigation is more than just leaks on various things, BUT there is also no real way to argue for or against the idea that it will depress turnout, except to pay attention to Trump's approval ratings. If they see a sustained drop that is not within his normal polling numbers, then it is probably having a negative effect. That and maybe having some relevant exit poll questions on election day.

You know this constant accusation that liberals "own" or "dominate" the media would be easier for me to work with if it was more nuanced in its description from people who insist on parroting that line. Fox News and the constellation of conservative blogs and smaller outlets are certainly not owned by liberals, and they cater to a wide conservative audience. But even aside from that, I watched THE LIBERAL MEDIA a lot in 2016 and boy, for a totally liberal-dominated industry, they sure talked about Clinton a whole lot. They were obsessed with the email story and they frequently prioritized it over almost any of Trump's individual scandals, even at times when Clinton desperately needed the focus elsewhere. If liberals really had the kind of kung-fu grip on them as conservatives frequently say, I would expect it to get the "Fox News treatment," like Russia/Mueller is getting now, where instead of talking about Trump's campaign manager literally getting indicted, you just redirect to hamburger emojis, how Millennials hate Halloween, and why Hillary Clinton Mittens Romney is the real problem. The biggest cable news outlet is basically pretending all is fine in Trump land and that he and former admin./campaign officials aren't under investigation by a special counsel.

Perhaps just try "a decent bit of the news is influenced by liberal thinking."

Anyway, will Republican Clear Politics be adding this great poll by BRTD Polling to their average? I guess Kellyanne Conway's poll was more worthy.

What I meant by high profile race is that voters are more likely to be accustom to the candidates and have an increased chance at viewing the candidates as separate from their parties.  Most voters whom are voting based largely on partisan affiliation would have mostly voted that way regardless of conditions simply because they are loyal to their party.

I don't really think today's indictments are really that significant to that many voters because they are figures that are largely figures unknown to voters (I doubt that many voters even remember who Manafort is and voters simply aren't going to change their opinion on the investigation absent a smoking gun.) While I respect the point about the indictment those individuals are fairly obscure to most voters and the charges are not things that have voters link the charges to Trump.

It's hilarious that multiple studies have statistically proven that Hillary got the most negative coverage of any candidate in the 2016 race, yet they still believe this. Not that you even needed studies. It was blatantly obvious even if you just casually tuned in.

Mhm. You confuse competence with motivation.

Motivation can be discerned by, say, the political affiliation of DC political reporters (about 7% Republican) or alternatively the distribution of newspaper endorsements for the loser party of the 2016 election. The most straightforward indicator of what one believes is the binary choice of how they vote.

At best you make a case that the leftist media is merely bad at their job of shilling for the loser party of the 2016 election. Which is expected, right? The loser candidate of the 2016 election did a rather bad job at shilling for the loser party of the 2016 election.

If you spend all your time tearing down a candidate only to do an about face and endorse them later, it just shows you're far more concerned with your ratings and ad revenue than you are with any partisan or ideological affiliation you have. As opposed to FOX, which carries the GOP's water more reliably than North Korean state media does for Kim Jong Un.