VA-GOV 2017: It's a Wave (GE: Nov 7th - Thread #2)

[BudgieForce]

Northam by 2 is a pretty good result for Republicans - it shows that hard-on-immigration campaigns energize the GOP base but won't significantly alienate the Dem base to the point that it negates the edge.

2013 was a much better year for Republicans than it was now. What a hypothetical Dem operative wants to see is Northam up by like 9. That'd be somewhere near the national margin the Dems need to be playing with in order to have a home run midterm like some metric indicate.

Gillespie improving on Cuccinelli's margin in the shift in landscape would be nothing less than miraculous. This election (and how exactly Guadagno falls to Murphy) should give folks in the RNC a good idea whether to run on a national anti-sanctuary message in 2018.

Maybe the trick for Paul Ryan is to move a bit to the right on cultural issues.

You sound like a democrat after Ossoff lost.

Not really. Ossoff losing was bad for the Dems for the same reasons a 2 point Northam win or 10 point Murphy win would be bad for the Dems: a lack of ability to improve on Hillary's numbers in an election they lost overall, despite muh wave and the muh Hillary horrible candidate coping mechanism.

I think your overthinking it. Hillary was a good fit for NJ and Tim Kaine helped her margin in VA. Phil Murphy has the charisma of a card board box and the last 3 VA governors races have been competitive. Tomorrow nights performance doesn't have to mean much about whether there will or wont be a wave next year.

Harry Enten of 538 has pointed out several times that off-year gubernatorial elections aren't particularly predictive of subsequent Congressional results.  Writing recently about Virginia specifically:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hence why this "if Northam doesn't do well, democrats won't do well in 2018" talk is downright annoying.

[IceSpear]

Northam by 2 is a pretty good result for Republicans - it shows that hard-on-immigration campaigns energize the GOP base but won't significantly alienate the Dem base to the point that it negates the edge.

2013 was a much better year for Republicans than it was now. What a hypothetical Dem operative wants to see is Northam up by like 9. That'd be somewhere near the national margin the Dems need to be playing with in order to have a home run midterm like some metric indicate.

Gillespie improving on Cuccinelli's margin in the shift in landscape would be nothing less than miraculous. This election (and how exactly Guadagno falls to Murphy) should give folks in the RNC a good idea whether to run on a national anti-sanctuary message in 2018.

Maybe the trick for Paul Ryan is to move a bit to the right on cultural issues.

You sound like a democrat after Ossoff lost.

Not really. Ossoff losing was bad for the Dems for the same reasons a 2 point Northam win or 10 point Murphy win would be bad for the Dems: a lack of ability to improve on Hillary's numbers in an election they lost overall, despite muh wave and the muh Hillary horrible candidate coping mechanism.

I think your overthinking it. Hillary was a good fit for NJ and Tim Kaine helped her margin in VA. Phil Murphy has the charisma of a card board box and the last 3 VA governors races have been competitive. Tomorrow nights performance doesn't have to mean much about whether there will or wont be a wave next year.

Yeah there's a way to spin everything.

Dems only lost 2016 because of Hillary (even though they failed across the board, many far worse than her)
Dems only lost KS/SC because they didn't pay attention.
Dems only lost GA because they paid too much attention.
Dems only lost MT because the Republican bodyslammed a reporter too late.
(Potential) Dems only lost VA because of <insert reason here>

But ultimately, when there's an actual wave, the beneficiaries of it aren't constantly spinning. They're too busy winning.

[BudgieForce]

Northam by 2 is a pretty good result for Republicans - it shows that hard-on-immigration campaigns energize the GOP base but won't significantly alienate the Dem base to the point that it negates the edge.

2013 was a much better year for Republicans than it was now. What a hypothetical Dem operative wants to see is Northam up by like 9. That'd be somewhere near the national margin the Dems need to be playing with in order to have a home run midterm like some metric indicate.

Gillespie improving on Cuccinelli's margin in the shift in landscape would be nothing less than miraculous. This election (and how exactly Guadagno falls to Murphy) should give folks in the RNC a good idea whether to run on a national anti-sanctuary message in 2018.

Maybe the trick for Paul Ryan is to move a bit to the right on cultural issues.

You sound like a democrat after Ossoff lost.

Not really. Ossoff losing was bad for the Dems for the same reasons a 2 point Northam win or 10 point Murphy win would be bad for the Dems: a lack of ability to improve on Hillary's numbers in an election they lost overall, despite muh wave and the muh Hillary horrible candidate coping mechanism.

I think your overthinking it. Hillary was a good fit for NJ and Tim Kaine helped her margin in VA. Phil Murphy has the charisma of a card board box and the last 3 VA governors races have been competitive. Tomorrow nights performance doesn't have to mean much about whether there will or wont be a wave next year.

Yeah there's a way to spin everything.

Dems only lost 2016 because of Hillary (even though they failed across the board, many far worse than her)
Dems only lost KS/SC because they didn't pay attention.
Dems only lost GA because they paid too much attention.
Dems only lost MT because the Republican bodyslammed a reporter too late.
(Potential) Dems only lost VA because of <insert reason here>

But ultimately, when there's an actual wave, the beneficiaries of it aren't constantly spinning. They're too busy winning.

I'm not spinning anything. Hillary overperformed polls in NJ and Tim Kaine is a popular sitting senator from VA. It's not hard to put 2 and 2 together about either state.

[Brittain33]

Harry Enten of 538 has pointed out several times that off-year gubernatorial elections aren't particularly predictive of subsequent Congressional results.  

This true, which is why the 30 or so special elections in 2017 showing Ds increasing 10-20% over the previous results are more compelling. Northam winning by the same margin as Hillary, or narrower, wouldn't invalidate those.

[Oryxslayer]

Harry Enten of 538 has pointed out several times that off-year gubernatorial elections aren't particularly predictive of subsequent Congressional results. 

This true, which is why the 30 or so special elections in 2017 showing Ds increasing 10-20% over the previous results are more compelling. Northam winning by the same margin as Hillary, or narrower, wouldn't invalidate those.

True - The best predictor of 2018 in VA (as stated by many others previously) is the HoD races, and particularly their relation to the Gov margin. The HoD results will tell us how well dems could fare in districts that are slightly gerrymandered/formerly republican but now competitive. It will also tell us how willing people are to throw out incumbents. Finally, I will also show how many people are willing to split their ticket between the top and the downballot races. if Gillespie ends up willing, but Dems gain 6 or more seats in the HoD, I consider that a win. If Northam wins by a reasonable amount, but dems only gain those 6 seat - well that is a setback.

[Brittain33]

Dems only lost KS/SC because they didn't pay attention.

I don't think anyone says this. People credit Parnell's showing because the Dems didn't pay attention. Dems lost KS/SC because those seats are virtually impossible for Dems to win now unless it's 1894 or 1958, AND because it was too early in Trump's term for the failures to sink in with his base. That we came so close is useless if we want to win Congress through special elections in seats Trump chooses to make vacant, but pretty indicative of swings in closer seats that are all up for election next year.

[IceSpear]

Harry Enten of 538 has pointed out several times that off-year gubernatorial elections aren't particularly predictive of subsequent Congressional results.  

This true, which is why the 30 or so special elections in 2017 showing Ds increasing 10-20% over the previous results are more compelling. Northam winning by the same margin as Hillary, or narrower, wouldn't invalidate those.

I think a high profile decent turnout statewide race is far more representative than extremely tiny abysmally low turnout state house races.

[Brittain33]

Harry Enten of 538 has pointed out several times that off-year gubernatorial elections aren't particularly predictive of subsequent Congressional results.  

This true, which is why the 30 or so special elections in 2017 showing Ds increasing 10-20% over the previous results are more compelling. Northam winning by the same margin as Hillary, or narrower, wouldn't invalidate those.

I think a high profile decent turnout statewide race is far more representative than extremely tiny abysmally low turnout state house races.

Well, then you need to explain why earlier in the thread people are quoting stats of how unpredictive Virginia's governors races have been in the past.

One thing I remember very clearly from 2001 is how Mark Warner won narrowly while Republicans swept to much higher margins in the HoDs. A big part of that was redistricting, but it also showed that Republican support was as strong as ever 1 year into Bush's term.

[Virginiá]

I think a high profile decent turnout statewide race is far more representative than extremely tiny abysmally low turnout state house races.

It's a useful measure of showing enthusiasm on top of potential swings. Democrats were consistently under-performing in special elections under Obama, and now it's like a sharp reversal and then some. Also, special elections taken individually aren't useful in predicting a midterm or presidential environment but taken in large groups they are reasonably useful.

Tomorrow the HoD races taken together will probably be the most useful predictor for 2018. People don't really know that much about their lawmakers, and the media gives most of its coverage to what Congress/the president is doing. This is why studies have shown these races, and other low-profile ones are where their opinions of the president and the ruling party tend to dominate. It's somewhat different for a single high-profile race like the gubernatorial one, where there is so much attention on it that it kind of becomes a thing unto itself. But even then, they are still affected by the political environment.

[Pericles]

It was interesting from 538's article that Northam does better in polls with fewer undecideds. Guess that 'undecideds always go GOP' Atlas so-called wisdom may be proven wrong.

[The Other Castro]

Worth remembering tomorrow night:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And in 2014, Gillespie lost his lead when 92% of the precincts were reporting.

So McAuliffe 2013 took the lead with 76% reporting, Clinton 2016 took the lead with 83% reporting (with a 5.4% final margin!), Warner 2014 took the lead at 92% reporting, and Herring 2013 took the lead in a recount.

Anyone know when Obama 2012 (3.9% final margin) took the lead?  Probably earlier than Clinton and McAuliffe because less purely dependent on NOVA?

I couldn't find the exact percentage in reviewing old election overage, but Obama trailed by ~16K with 80% in, and led by ~15K with 84% in, so I'd guess he took the lead with about 82% in.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Yeah, I'm growing more confident that Northam will win. He was shaky in the past week but the polls have shown he is stabilizing, better yet, they are showing that he is winning undecideds. Plus this is a Democrat state, folks.

[smoltchanov]

Yeah, I'm growing more confident that Northam will win. He was shaky in the past week but the polls have shown he is stabilizing, better yet, they are showing that he is winning undecideds. Plus this is a Democrat state, folks.

I never bought the last argument. Vermont and Massachussetts are, surely, Democratic states. That didn't prevented Baker and Scott from winning. And vice versa - Wyoming being Republican state didn't prevented Freudentahl from winning in 2002 and 2006

[Badger]

If Gillespie loses the race, I'm looking forward to some post-Ossoff-like handwringing from Republicans who got their hopes up.

Greedo will likely either be going off on everyone or *crickets chirp*

Krazen too. But he gets so little pleasure living in his parents basement instead of going to work, I can't blame him.

[BigSkyBob]

If Gillespie loses the race, I'm looking forward to some post-Ossoff-like handwringing from Republicans who got their hopes up.

And, I seem to remember an election 52 weeks ago today in which the Democratic candidate had had a bit of bad news which lead to the Republican candidate surging in the polls. Around the final weekend, the polls suggested that the Democratic candidate had stabilized her position with a small, but, significant and persistent lead. The Republican candidate won.

If Gillespie wins tomorrow, some folks are going to be howling at the moon a night early.

[smoltchanov]

If Gillespie loses the race, I'm looking forward to some post-Ossoff-like handwringing from Republicans who got their hopes up.

And, I seem to remember an election 52 weeks ago today in which the Democratic candidate had had a bit of bad news which lead to the Republican candidate surging in the polls. Around the final weekend, the polls suggested that the Democratic candidate had stabilized her position with a small, but, significant and persistent lead. The Republican candidate won.

If Gillespie wins tomorrow, some folks are going to be howling at the moon a night early.

Bob, Virginia doesn't have an Electoral College....

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If Gillespie loses the race, I'm looking forward to some post-Ossoff-like handwringing from Republicans who got their hopes up.

And, I seem to remember an election 52 weeks ago today in which the Democratic candidate had had a bit of bad news which lead to the Republican candidate surging in the polls. Around the final weekend, the polls suggested that the Democratic candidate had stabilized her position with a small, but, significant and persistent lead. The Republican candidate won.

If Gillespie wins tomorrow, some folks are going to be howling at the moon a night early.

Bob, Virginia doesn't have an Electoral College....

Georgia did back in the day.

[Baki]

https://www.nytimes.com/news/election-2013/2013/11/05/virginia-the-governors-race-minute-by-minute/

That's a graph that shows how the lead changed throughout the night in the 2013 race.

[MAINEiac4434]

If Gillespie loses the race, I'm looking forward to some post-Ossoff-like handwringing from Republicans who got their hopes up.

And, I seem to remember an election 52 weeks ago today in which the Democratic candidate had had a bit of bad news which lead to the Republican candidate surging in the polls. Around the final weekend, the polls suggested that the Democratic candidate had stabilized her position with a small, but, significant and persistent lead. The Republican candidate won.

If Gillespie wins tomorrow, some folks are going to be howling at the moon a night early.

Too bad for the GOP that Virginia doesn’t elect Governors through an electoral college.

[Bidenworth2020]

by the time around 90% is reporting, I think if Gillespie has over a 06000 vote it is unlikely northam will win even if most of Fairfax is to report.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Confident Northam will win. I am just interested in seeing how he performs in Virginia Beach. Hope he flips it.

[Baki]

by the time around 90% is reporting, I think if Gillespie has over a 06000 vote it is unlikely northam will win even if most of Fairfax is to report.

In the 2014 Senate race, with 89%  reporting Gillespie had a 7500 vote lead.
At that same moment Fairfax had less than 75% reporting.

[The Other Castro]

So it’s looking like if it’s a 2-3 point win for Northam, this could be called between 9:30-10ish. Closer than that, and this could take a while.

Edit: Though even in VA 2014, Warner took the lead around 10:40, and once the Democrat takes the lead at that point it’s pretty much over, so at least we’ll likely know if Northam wins before 11 (if he wins by more than 1%).

[BudgieForce]

I voted. We should have an "I voted today" thread.

[Gass3268]

Falls Church turnout 2 hours after polls opened

You must be logged in to read this quote.