Gillespie really will win this

[TheSaint250]

He's very underrated in NoVa, and that Monmouth poll confirms my suspicions.

Lean R at worst.

[Dr. Arch]

One poll ~okay

[GlobeSoc]

I have to say that I sadly agree. This is a tilt R race. His Ms13 ads have done an effective job at rallying the base, and he's gonna get the numbers he needs from NoVa. His image of a moderate in NoVa seems to be unshakable, unfortunately.

[TheSaint250]

The race is virtually done.

[McGovernForPrez]

I think beating Corey Stewart in the primary really makes him look like an upstanding moderate Virginian. Gillepsie +3

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

It's a good thing Northam keeps saying he's a doctor in every ad, because that's the only job he's going to have come November.

[McGovernForPrez]

I can't tell if this thread is making a mockery of the ridiculous reactions to the Monmouth poll or is serious.

Yes.

[Dr. Arch]

I can't tell if this thread is making a mockery of the ridiculous reactions to the Monmouth poll or is serious.

It's actually serious.

[Frodo]

I can't tell if this thread is making a mockery of the ridiculous reactions to the Monmouth poll or is serious.

It's actually serious.

I refuse to believe that -The Saint is (usually) one of the saner, more reasonable Republicans here. 

[_]

This is ironic, relax.

Seriously though this race is Tossup/Tilt D, and it won't be like a 7 point blowout.

[_]

This is ironic, relax.

Seriously though this race is Tossup/Tilt D, and it won't be like a 7 point blowout.

I mean, that's not out of the question at all unless you assume that it's only Republicans who outperform RCP averages. It will almost certainly not be double digits though.

Northam certainly could outperform the average, but I don't think he'll outperform it by 4 points.

Note:  Was using the average BEFORE the Quinnipiac "poll", it was 3.5 Northam then.

[Gass3268]

Northam really will win this

He's very underrated in outside of NoVA, and that Quinnipiac poll confirms my suspicions.

Likely D at worst.

[Virginiá]

Well if you take out Quinnipiac you should take out Monmouth too since both polls diverge about equally from the others (7 points in each direction). That would still be a roughly 5.5 RCP lead for Northam. I'm not a believer in doing that though, because as we saw in 2016, outliers can be right.

Interestingly enough, the final Virginia election results (looking at RCP's final result #) in 2013 and 2016 turned out to be almost exactly %0.42 of Quinnipiac's last poll in those races. A few points off in 2014, though Q's last poll in 2014 was in mid September as opposed to late October in '13/'16.

If that held true this time, it would put Northam's "adjusted" Q result at around 5.8%.

[Rookie Yinzer]

I predict Northam 50-46.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

TITANUM R due to sexually frustrated men.

[mvd10]

I love it how right-wingers (including myself) always seem to be much more confident about their side winning for some reason

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I love it how right-wingers (including myself) always seem to be much more confident about their side winning for some reason

Three of the past four major election cycles have been Republican waves (2012 was a moderately Democratic-leaning neutral cycle), so it's not surprising, honestly. 

[Virginiá]

Three of the past four major election cycles have been Republican waves (2012 was a moderately Democratic-leaning neutral cycle), so it's not surprising, honestly. 

I assume you meant 2016 as part of the 3 Republican waves? I have to disagree. Republicans only barely won the House PV (an inverse of 2012), actually lost seats in the House and Senate, and gains across the country were not too spectacular. Even Trump's electoral college win was at best a comfortable win, and perhaps less so when you look at his razor thin pluralities in the states that carried him to the finish line.

In my opinion, it was just a modest Republican-leaning year, but by no means a wave.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I love it how right-wingers (including myself) always seem to be much more confident about their side winning for some reason

This is meant as an honest observation, not a knock.  I think it's a reflection of a trend that in general, right-wingers seem to be much more convinced in their own correctness and are less flexible in considering that the other viewpoint may contain some validity.  This is certainly not universal; there are some left-wingers who are convinced of their own infallibility, while some right-wingers are open-minded.  But in general, belief that one's side has a monopoly on correctness has been more a right-wing trait than a left-wing one, at least in the past couple of decades.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Three of the past four major election cycles have been Republican waves (2012 was a moderately Democratic-leaning neutral cycle), so it's not surprising, honestly. 

I assume you meant 2016 as part of the 3 Republican waves? I have to disagree. Republicans only barely won the House PV (an inverse of 2012), actually lost seats in the House and Senate, and gains across the country were not too spectacular. Even Trump's electoral college win was at best a comfortable win, and perhaps less so when you look at his razor thin pluralities in the states that carried him to the finish line.

In my opinion, it was just a modest Republican-leaning year, but by no means a wave.

There was almost nothing left for them to win by then in the House; it was inevitable some of the lowest hanging fruit would flip back.  In the Senate they had essentially the reverse of the Democrats' map situation this year and only lost one seat.  And Donald Trump won the Presidency.  It was a small wave, but a wave all the same.

[Deblano]

Bernie can still win this.

We just need to phonebank more.

[Virginiá]

There was almost nothing left for them to win by then in the House; it was inevitable some of the lowest hanging fruit would flip back.  In the Senate they had essentially the reverse of the Democrats' map situation this year and only lost one seat.  And Donald Trump won the Presidency.  It was a small wave, but a wave all the same.

Isn't that the idea of a wave, though? You win seats that might normally be a hard lift. Historically-speaking, 235 - 247-seat majorities are not that big, either, so in a wave environment they should have at least been able to maintain their existing majority, if not pad it a little. I just don't see how it can be classified as a wave when you're not only losing seats out of a majority of 245 - 247-ish, but barely eking out a plurality in the House PV. In 2010 and 2014, Republicans won clear, comfortable majorities of the House PV, and in 2016 it was like a 1% plurality.

I just don't see it, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[GeorgiaModerate]

There was almost nothing left for them to win by then in the House; it was inevitable some of the lowest hanging fruit would flip back.  In the Senate they had essentially the reverse of the Democrats' map situation this year and only lost one seat.  And Donald Trump won the Presidency.  It was a small wave, but a wave all the same.

Isn't that the idea of a wave, though? You win seats that might normally be a hard lift. Historically-speaking, 235 - 247-seat majorities are not that big, either, so in a wave environment they should have at least been able to maintain their existing majority, if not pad it a little. I just don't see how it can be classified as a wave when you're not only losing seats out of a majority of 245 - 247-ish, but barely eking out a plurality in the House PV. In 2010 and 2014, Republicans won clear, comfortable majorities of the House PV, and in 2016 it was like a 1% plurality.

I just don't see it, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

It was a microwave.

[Virginiá]

It was a microwave.

[IceSpear]

Yeah I agree with Virginia here. I think 2016 was about as close to a neutral year as we've had in a long time. Hillary won the popular vote, and Trump won all 3 decisive electoral college states by <1%. Trump's absolute electoral vote number may have looked decent on paper, but the reality of the margins is the election was far more similar to 2000 than any other recent one, particularly with Hillary's PV win.  Dems gained a couple Senate seats and a few House seats. The Senate map wasn't as bad for the Republicans in 2016 as 2014/2018 was/will be for Dems since they only had 1 seat in a deep blue state (IL) whereas Dems in 2014/2018 had/have a handful of seats in deep red states (WV/SD/MT/AR/LA/AK, WV/IN/MO/MT/ND). Most vulnerable territory for the Republicans in 2016 were in swing states that ended up going for Trump.