Gillespie really will win this

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

2010 and 2016 were not nearly as big of a wave as 2014 was (if the former 2 even qualify as waves, that is).

[Figueira]

Also 2012 was a Democratic wave. Not as big of one as 2008 obviously, but still a wave.

Anyway back on topic, Virginia is Tilt D.

[Dr. Arch]

I think the last true D wave was 2008, a decade ago by next midterms.

[uti2]

Moderate Republicanism will be revived by the backing of upscale NOVA voters who don’t like paying Bernie taxation.

Gillespie is not an example of Moderate Republicanism, Larry Hogan is.

[uti2]

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.

Of course it was 2000-esque, partially messaged by Hillary's GOP courtship strategy which inflated the GOP downballot a bit, imagine if Al Gore had spent his entire campaign praising Gingrich like Hillary did Paul Ryan, would people suggest that wouldn't have had an impact downballot?

Which also indicates Hillary was poised to win (like Gore) unless the campaign was mis-targeted. Gore wasted time in various states like CA, while ignoring FL, NH, TN, e.g. Bush's religious appeal allowed him to make in-roads into the South. Likewise for Trump with the rustbelt.

We know what the GOP establishment plan was, they were going to try to shun their rural base and focus on courting urban voters (especially Latinos) as per the autospy, so they would've spent all their time in NV,CO,VA reaching out to urban voters/latinos (they spelled this out clearly), while downplaying rural areas and spending less attention to regions that would actually prove to be winnable.. The reverse of 2000.

Instead, Hillary underestimated Trump and focused on AZ, TX, GA (where she succeeded in improving the margins) at the expense of the rustbelt.

The real question is how would a Ted-Cruz esque base turnout + donor friendly strategy have worked out. Gillespie is basically running that type of campaign now.

[TheSaint250]

In all seriousness Northam will win by 3-6 points imo.

[Bidenworth2020]

In all seriousness Northam will win by 3-6 points imo.

plus, this-https://poll.qu.edu/virginia/release-detail?ReleaseID=2493

[progressive85]

I don't think that Ralph Northam is going to win.  I think it will be a shocking, come-from-behind victory for the Republican.  I think Election Day 2017 is going to be yet another massive disappointment for the Party That Can't Win S**t.

Don't be surprised if Trump wins a landslide in 2020.

#RepublicanLandslidesUntil2100

If you're a Democrat in Virginia, start girding your loins for the inevitable defeat.

Where the heck is Barack?  you know that guy that was President for 8 years?  Stop picking out the curtains for the stupid library and start barnstormin the state with Ralphie.

[cvparty]

In all seriousness Northam will win by 3-6 points imo.

JINXING IT

[DrScholl]

You don't win races when you are behind by double digits. Everyone uses "but Trump won" as an excuse to make poor predictions that run counter to polling.

[Oryxslayer]

Where the heck is Barack?  you know that guy that was President for 8 years?  Stop picking out the curtains for the stupid library and start barnstormin the state with Ralphie.

Speaking tomorrow evening in Richmond, alongside all the big D names.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

one poll with Gillespie ahead by 1
Atlas: TITANIUM R LEAN R AT WORST Gillespie WILL BE THE NEXT GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA GUARANTEED NORTHAM WILL LOSE IN A landslide

IKR.

[Figueira]

You don't win races when you are behind by double digits. Everyone uses "but Trump won" as an excuse to make poor predictions that run counter to polling.

He hasn't been behind by double digits in many polls. Northam is favored until we see more polls that favor Gillespie, but he's not a shoo-in.

[JonHawk]

I'd love for Gillespie to win, but i think Northam will take it due to NOVA and Richmond.

I do think it will be closer than what the liberals on here are predicting. 2-4 margin imo

[Mr. Smith]

You don't win races when you are behind by double digits. Everyone uses "but Trump won" as an excuse to make poor predictions that run counter to polling.

Worked for Matt Bevin in 2015

Nearly worked the last time Gillespie ran for anything too.

Try again.

[GeorgiaModerate]

The way some people respond to individual polls on this forum just staggers me sometimes.

Northam is not a lock to win just because one poll showed him with a double-digit lead.  Neither is Gillespie going to win just because one poll showed him with a one-point lead.  All of the polls so far, including those two, are consistent with Northam having a modest lead (see a discussion by Harry Enten at https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/calm-down-about-those-virginia-polls-folks/).  

This does not mean Northam is guaranteed to win, but he has to be considered the favorite.  I'd say he has about a 70% chance to win, which is about what Clinton had last November.  Guess what: 70% means something is likely, but it's not a sure thing.  70% chances come up 7 out of 10 times, but the other 3 times they don't.  THIS IS NOT A SURPRISING OUTCOME.  

When the chance of rain is 70%, does it always rain?  No, but it does more often than not.

Turn it around: when the chance of rain is 30%, does it ever rain?  Sure, sometimes it does, but more often it doesn't.

Or for baseball fans: a .300 hitter gets a hit on 30% of official at-bats.  When a .300 hitter comes up to the plate, can you say that he's definitely going to get a hit?  Of course not.  Is he definitely going to make an out?  Of course not.  The odds are against him getting a hit in any single at-bat -- but he gets enough of them to be considered a pretty good hitter.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I think Gillespie probably has the same chance of winning as Doug Jones in Alabama. Yeah, I could see it being a 2-point race or so, but IMO there just aren't enough votes for him to win. VA is beyond gone for Republicans.

I think it's a much harder reach for Jones; I'd give him no more than a 10% chance to win.  Which is still possible, and a lot better than the chance he'd have had against Strange.

[BuckeyeNut]

Periello would have won.

[MT Treasurer]

I think Gillespie probably has the same chance of winning as Doug Jones in Alabama. Yeah, I could see it being a 2-point race or so, but IMO there just aren't enough votes for him to win. VA is beyond gone for Republicans.

I think it's a much harder reach for Jones; I'd give him no more than a 10% chance to win.  Which is still possible, and a lot better than the chance he'd have had against Strange.

Disagree that Strange would have done better than Moore (the guy would have been attacked for being a corrupt Establishment politician/insider with ties to an unpopular Bentley administration). I think it would have been a 3- to 4-point race with Strange that could have gone either way. Kind of like MO in 2016. Now it's probably more like a 5- to 8-point race IMO, but Jones could certainly win.

The RCP average shows Northam leading by more than Moore, and the electorate in both races is going to be very Democratic-friendly. Sure, Jones winning isn't very likely, but neither is a Gillespie victory. And I wouldn't really consider VA more elastic than AL either, tbh.

[Mr. Smith]

I think Gillespie probably has the same chance of winning as Doug Jones in Alabama. Yeah, I could see it being a 2-point race or so, but IMO there just aren't enough votes for him to win. VA is beyond gone for Republicans.

I think it's a much harder reach for Jones; I'd give him no more than a 10% chance to win.  Which is still possible, and a lot better than the chance he'd have had against Strange.

Disagree that Strange would have done better than Moore (the guy would have been attacked for being a corrupt Establishment politician/insider with ties to an unpopular Bentley administration). I think it would have been a 3- to 4-point race with Strange that could have gone either way. Kind of like MO in 2016. Now it's probably more like a 5- to 8-point race IMO, but Jones could certainly win.

The RCP average shows Northam leading by more than Moore, and the electorate in both races is going to be very Democratic-friendly. Sure, Jones winning isn't very likely, but neither is a Gillespie victory. And I wouldn't really consider VA more elastic than AL either, tbh.

Except that Jones is a newcomer, and Moore's only just started to build after a few weeks from the runoff. Also Jones has mostly run as a run-of-the-mill base taker kind.

Gillespie has already proven what he can do once for himself [not even counting all the successful operations for others], and that was with sleeping giant Mark Warner.

Also by virtue of being D, the chances of snatching defeat from victory's jaws is much higher.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I think Gillespie probably has the same chance of winning as Doug Jones in Alabama. Yeah, I could see it being a 2-point race or so, but IMO there just aren't enough votes for him to win. VA is beyond gone for Republicans.

I think it's a much harder reach for Jones; I'd give him no more than a 10% chance to win.  Which is still possible, and a lot better than the chance he'd have had against Strange.

Disagree that Strange would have done better than Moore (the guy would have been attacked for being a corrupt Establishment politician/insider with ties to an unpopular Bentley administration). I think it would have been a 3- to 4-point race with Strange that could have gone either way. Kind of like MO in 2016. Now it's probably more like a 5- to 8-point race IMO, but Jones could certainly win.

The RCP average shows Northam leading by more than Moore, and the electorate in both races is going to be very Democratic-friendly. Sure, Jones winning isn't very likely, but neither is a Gillespie victory. And I wouldn't really consider VA more elastic than AL either, tbh.

Except that Jones is a newcomer, and Moore's only just started to build after a few weeks from the runoff. Also Jones has mostly run as a run-of-the-mill base taker kind.

Gillespie has already proven what he can do once for himself [not even counting all the successful operations for others], and that was with sleeping giant Mark Warner.

Also by virtue of being D, the chances of snatching defeat from victory's jaws is much higher.

The D's have no monopoly on this (Akin, Mourdock, etc.)

[Deblano]

I think Gillespie probably has the same chance of winning as Doug Jones in Alabama. Yeah, I could see it being a 2-point race or so, but IMO there just aren't enough votes for him to win. VA is beyond gone for Republicans.

I think it's a much harder reach for Jones; I'd give him no more than a 10% chance to win.  Which is still possible, and a lot better than the chance he'd have had against Strange.

Disagree that Strange would have done better than Moore (the guy would have been attacked for being a corrupt Establishment politician/insider with ties to an unpopular Bentley administration). I think it would have been a 3- to 4-point race with Strange that could have gone either way. Kind of like MO in 2016. Now it's probably more like a 5- to 8-point race IMO, but Jones could certainly win.

The RCP average shows Northam leading by more than Moore, and the electorate in both races is going to be very Democratic-friendly. Sure, Jones winning isn't very likely, but neither is a Gillespie victory. And I wouldn't really consider VA more elastic than AL either, tbh.

Except that Jones is a newcomer, and Moore's only just started to build after a few weeks from the runoff. Also Jones has mostly run as a run-of-the-mill base taker kind.

Gillespie has already proven what he can do once for himself [not even counting all the successful operations for others], and that was with sleeping giant Mark Warner.

Also by virtue of being D, the chances of snatching defeat from victory's jaws is much higher.

The D's have no monopoly on this (Akin, Mourdock, etc.)

Don't forget in 2010 (Delaware election) when Mike Castle (who was expected to win by a comfortable margin) got primaried out by Christine O'Donnell (who ended up losing by a comfortable margin).

[IceSpear]

I think Gillespie probably has the same chance of winning as Doug Jones in Alabama.

I wish. That would mean he has a 0% chance.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I think Gillespie probably has the same chance of winning as Doug Jones in Alabama.

I wish. That would mean he has a 0% chance.

Moore's recent electoral history suggests he's FAR weaker than Generic R in Alabama. In his race to return to the Supreme Court, he won by the embarrassingly silm margin of 52-48 over the democratic candidate Bob Vance. And yes, party affiliations were listed on the ballot. And that was with presidential-year turnout. If the republican strongholds like Shelby County and Baldwin County don't turn out, while the democratic strongholds like Jefferson and Montgomery counties do, Jones can win. Remember, people said that no matter how big the republican wave of 2014 was, Larry Hogan could never win in Maryland because he couldn't possibly outvote Prince George's County. But on election day, that county effectively took a collective nap and Hogan coasted in. No reason the reverse can't happen with Jones, assuming we are heading for a D wave in '18, as most of Atlas and most of the non-Trumplican Pundits believe.

[Mr. Smith]

I think Gillespie probably has the same chance of winning as Doug Jones in Alabama. Yeah, I could see it being a 2-point race or so, but IMO there just aren't enough votes for him to win. VA is beyond gone for Republicans.

I think it's a much harder reach for Jones; I'd give him no more than a 10% chance to win.  Which is still possible, and a lot better than the chance he'd have had against Strange.

Disagree that Strange would have done better than Moore (the guy would have been attacked for being a corrupt Establishment politician/insider with ties to an unpopular Bentley administration). I think it would have been a 3- to 4-point race with Strange that could have gone either way. Kind of like MO in 2016. Now it's probably more like a 5- to 8-point race IMO, but Jones could certainly win.

The RCP average shows Northam leading by more than Moore, and the electorate in both races is going to be very Democratic-friendly. Sure, Jones winning isn't very likely, but neither is a Gillespie victory. And I wouldn't really consider VA more elastic than AL either, tbh.

Except that Jones is a newcomer, and Moore's only just started to build after a few weeks from the runoff. Also Jones has mostly run as a run-of-the-mill base taker kind.

Gillespie has already proven what he can do once for himself [not even counting all the successful operations for others], and that was with sleeping giant Mark Warner.

Also by virtue of being D, the chances of snatching defeat from victory's jaws is much higher.

The D's have no monopoly on this (Akin, Mourdock, etc.)

Monopoly? No. Higher chance? Yes.

For every Mourdock or O'Donnell, you've got ten Braleys or Ossoffs or Bayhs or Grimeses or Nunns or ...you get the point.