Gillespie really will win this

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

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.

You're right on Braley and Grimes, but Ossoff, Bayh, and Nunn had no YUGE gaffe that doomed them like Akin/Mourdock did. Bayh and Nunn lost because the year they ran in was too republican for them to win, and Ossoff lost because the DNC and their allies spent too much money on his campaign.

[Virginiá]

You're right on Braley and Grimes, but Ossoff, Bayh, and Nunn had no YUGE gaffe that doomed them like Akin/Mourdock did. Bayh and Nunn lost because the year they ran in was too republican for them to win, and Ossoff lost because the DNC and their allies spent too much money on his campaign.

Wasn't Bayh drowning under negative news coverage? His actions after he left the Senate looked like a roadmap of what not to do if you plan to return to politics later in life.

[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.

Worked for Matt Bevin in 2015

Nearly worked the last time Gillespie ran for anything too.

Try again.

Bevin was not behind double digits close to the election in any poll and he was in a much more Republican favorable state. And if we want to talk about 2014, Gillespie got close, but he still lost despite a more favorable environment.

[GeorgiaModerate]

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.

Bevin was not behind double digits close to the election in any poll and he was in a much more Republican favorable state. And if we want to talk about 2014, Gillespie got close, but he still lost despite a more favorable environment.

Gillespie isn't behind by double digits.  One poll does not make it so.

[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.

Worked for Matt Bevin in 2015

Nearly worked the last time Gillespie ran for anything too.

Try again.

Bevin was not behind double digits close to the election in any poll and he was in a much more Republican favorable state. And if we want to talk about 2014, Gillespie got close, but he still lost despite a more favorable environment.

Gillespie isn't behind by double digits.  One poll does not make it so.

But he is ahead because one poll says that he is? You all can't have things both ways. With that said, there are other polls that show him trailing from anywhere form 4-7%. There isn't a lot of evidence outside of wishful thinking that suggest that he will win.

[GeorgiaModerate]

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.

Bevin was not behind double digits close to the election in any poll and he was in a much more Republican favorable state. And if we want to talk about 2014, Gillespie got close, but he still lost despite a more favorable environment.

Gillespie isn't behind by double digits.  One poll does not make it so.

But he is ahead because one poll says that he is? You all can't have things both ways. With that said, there are other polls that show him trailing from anywhere form 4-7%. There isn't a lot of evidence outside of wishful thinking that suggest that he will win.

Of course Gillespie is not ahead because one poll says he is.  I never said that he was.  In fact, I posted upthread that neither extreme is likely and that Northam probably has a modest lead:

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.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

I don't think Virginia is totally 100% done for Republicans. Clinton won it by only 5 despite Trump pulling out; Kaine as her running mate (very popular in Virginia); and the Access Hollywood tape.

It may be like Minnesota - they win by only 4-6 points but that 4-6 points is SUPER stubborn.

Gillespie however has a chance. If he wins by 1+ points it could send the Democrat party into a panic about 2018. I am really hoping he wins but I won't put money down on a Virginia race.