Virginia Mega Thread: The Youngkin Administration

[Pollster]

Why do morons like Youngkin, who secretly want to get into politics/are interested in politics, make statements that can easily come back to haunt them like that? 

Because when you aren't actively politicking, there's no use in engaging in the performative hyperbolics that politicking has been reduced to (especially when interacting with somebody who has direct influence over your bottom line).

[Pollster]

Yard signs as a campaign tactic are intended to increase the perception of social acceptability for supporting the candidate - the idea is that they reinforce the idea that "you are not alone."

The data do show that this does tend to have non-negligible effects on independent/non-ideological voters who live in highly partisan areas, which is why you will often see R signs in D areas, and vice versa. There is some great writing about how Doug Jones' 2017 campaign made great use of this tactic in the Birmingham suburbs and Mobile area.

Data also show that they are far more effective in local races and ballot measure campaigns.

[Pollster]

Yard signs as a campaign tactic are intended to increase the perception of social acceptability for supporting the candidate - the idea is that they reinforce the idea that "you are not alone."

The data do show that this does tend to have non-negligible effects on independent/non-ideological voters who live in highly partisan areas, which is why you will often see R signs in D areas, and vice versa. There is some great writing about how Doug Jones' 2017 campaign made great use of this tactic in the Birmingham suburbs and Mobile area.

Data also show that they are far more effective in local races and ballot measure campaigns.

yard signs don't vote.

Yes - they are purely a psychological tactic. Almost a form of electoral gaslighting.

[Pollster]

Yard signs as a campaign tactic are intended to increase the perception of social acceptability for supporting the candidate - the idea is that they reinforce the idea that "you are not alone."

The data do show that this does tend to have non-negligible effects on independent/non-ideological voters who live in highly partisan areas, which is why you will often see R signs in D areas, and vice versa. There is some great writing about how Doug Jones' 2017 campaign made great use of this tactic in the Birmingham suburbs and Mobile area.

Data also show that they are far more effective in local races and ballot measure campaigns.

I'd be interested to see that writing about Doug Jones's campaign. When I went through the National Democrat Training Committee's TAP Training Program they advised us to not use campaign signs because they're costly and ineffective. They suggested Mailers are a much more efficient method of campaigning along with just plain old door-to-door conversations with voters. So that's where I was coming from on that pretty much they said signs don't sway nearly enough voters for the price tag it takes to produce and distribute them along with collecting them after the election.

They’re mostly right - it’s not the right strategy for every race (and certainly wasn’t the right strategy for Trump).

Here’s the article.

[Pollster]

We did a very preliminary dial test of the "he'll do all of the things we want a governor to do" audio and not only did it activate Democratic voters, but did genuinely astonishing damage to Youngkin's support among independents (possibly exacerbated by the state having a large population of government-adjacent voters).

Potentially a huge gift that Trump just handed to the VA Dems at the most opportune time for them, I'm fully expecting to hear it all over television in the next week.

[Pollster]

Spent a bit of time with all the polling I could get my hands on (both public and private) and reconciled it with early voting indicators, some voter file analysis, roughshod modeling, and general observations of fundamentals. Came down with the takeaway that Youngkin can win, but he'll need one/both of a) a Democratic turnout collapse that early voting indicates is not happening and b) a sizeable improvement with independent and softer Democratic voters that polling indicates is possible but a tall order.

One thing that struck me is that Youngkin's best polls aren't actually showing this improvement. Rather, they're showing him gaining among Black voters and non-college whites. Its easy to dismiss this (Black voters being historically inelastic and non-college whites already supporting Republicans in massive numbers) and I certainly think it's much more likely that these polls are flawed, but there are also some explanations that are quite plausible:
     

• The increasing educational/religious polarization is starting to take hold of Black voters in a manner similar to Hispanic voters last cycle.
• Educational polarization is superseding urban/rural polarization among white voters, and non-college whites in urban areas (there are quite a few in VA) are abandoning Democrats.
• The remaining Democratic non-college white voters are planning to sit this election out.

Again, think it's much more likely these polls are just highly flawed and that McAuliffe/Youngkin's coalitions will be par for the course and unremarkable. But on the off chance they're actually just ahead of the curve and picking up on a burgeoning realignment, think it could have fascinating implications for the rest of the decade and could certainly lead to some hilarious dummymanders down the line.

[Pollster]

Just want to say I love your posts and appreciate your insights.

Thank you

Has the private polling you've seen lined up with what we're seeing in the public polls?

In some ways, but I haven't had access to much as we didn't end up getting a ton of work in VA.

[Pollster]

Thanks, but why do you think, that "I certainly think it's much more likely that these polls are flawed"? Historical data or anything else?

I mean, as you said, there were some realignments among Latinos in 2016/2020 [and Blacks in 2020]. Pre-election polls did indicate that, but was disregard, because "muh, they can't vote for Trump LMAO".

A lot of Youngkin's best polls have been from unreliable outlets with shoddy methodology, and the ones that weren't from unreliable outlets (mostly Monmouth, which is usually methodologically rigorous) have had some modeling quirks, small sample sizes, and a history of badly misreading Virginia.

[Pollster]

Spent a bit of time with all the polling I could get my hands on (both public and private) and reconciled it with early voting indicators, some voter file analysis, roughshod modeling, and general observations of fundamentals. Came down with the takeaway that Youngkin can win, but he'll need one/both of a) a Democratic turnout collapse that early voting indicates is not happening and b) a sizeable improvement with independent and softer Democratic voters that polling indicates is possible but a tall order.

One thing that struck me is that Youngkin's best polls aren't actually showing this improvement. Rather, they're showing him gaining among Black voters and non-college whites. Its easy to dismiss this (Black voters being historically inelastic and non-college whites already supporting Republicans in massive numbers) and I certainly think it's much more likely that these polls are flawed, but there are also some explanations that are quite plausible:
     

• The increasing educational/religious polarization is starting to take hold of Black voters in a manner similar to Hispanic voters last cycle.
• Educational polarization is superseding urban/rural polarization among white voters, and non-college whites in urban areas (there are quite a few in VA) are abandoning Democrats.
• The remaining Democratic non-college white voters are planning to sit this election out.

Again, think it's much more likely these polls are just highly flawed and that McAuliffe/Youngkin's coalitions will be par for the course and unremarkable. But on the off chance they're actually just ahead of the curve and picking up on a burgeoning realignment, think it could have fascinating implications for the rest of the decade and could certainly lead to some hilarious dummymanders down the line.

This lines up with my expectations.  So what do you think the margin will be? 

Probably McAuliffe by Hillary's margin + roughly 60% of the 2016 third party vote (which went overwhelmingly for Northam/Biden but will probably splinter a bit in a less favorable climate for Democrats). McAuliffe +6 maybe? Not holding my breath on a margin prediction though.

[Pollster]

Spent a bit of time with all the polling I could get my hands on (both public and private) and reconciled it with early voting indicators, some voter file analysis, roughshod modeling, and general observations of fundamentals. Came down with the takeaway that Youngkin can win, but he'll need one/both of a) a Democratic turnout collapse that early voting indicates is not happening and b) a sizeable improvement with independent and softer Democratic voters that polling indicates is possible but a tall order.

One thing that struck me is that Youngkin's best polls aren't actually showing this improvement. Rather, they're showing him gaining among Black voters and non-college whites. Its easy to dismiss this (Black voters being historically inelastic and non-college whites already supporting Republicans in massive numbers) and I certainly think it's much more likely that these polls are flawed, but there are also some explanations that are quite plausible:
    

• The increasing educational/religious polarization is starting to take hold of Black voters in a manner similar to Hispanic voters last cycle.
• Educational polarization is superseding urban/rural polarization among white voters, and non-college whites in urban areas (there are quite a few in VA) are abandoning Democrats.
• The remaining Democratic non-college white voters are planning to sit this election out.

Again, think it's much more likely these polls are just highly flawed and that McAuliffe/Youngkin's coalitions will be par for the course and unremarkable. But on the off chance they're actually just ahead of the curve and picking up on a burgeoning realignment, think it could have fascinating implications for the rest of the decade and could certainly lead to some hilarious dummymanders down the line.

Any insight on Hispanic/Asian patterns of support/voting preferences? (assuming subsamples are representative and not too small to be analyzed)

Has Youngkin actually made some noticeable progress (compared to past Republican performances) among them or is it more of a mirage?

Asian subsamples have been way too small. Hispanics seem to be at the baseline level of two-party support that you would expect, though those sample sizes are small as well.

I'll also note that "baseline level" for Hispanics for me is referring to Clinton/Biden numbers. Obama's lauded 2012 overperformance with Hispanics I think was misanalysed and generated a fundamental misunderstanding of the Hispanic electorate among the largely white political consultant/pundit class who, in a tacitly racist and "soft bigotry of low expectations" way misattributed their voting motivations to immigration* and culture issues despite scores of research showing that they were persuadable to populist, working-class economic arguments not dissimilar from the white working class voters that Romney was also a notoriously poor fit for** and Obama similarly overperformed with. Sanders' success with Hispanics in 2020 (when his campaign was far more focused on populist economics than 2016) underscores this. And this doesn't even touch on the gender, educational, generational, nationality, born in America/born abroad, and religiosity factors that are diverse within the Hispanic community and make them far more elastic politically than many believe/are willing to admit.

*This is not to suggest that immigration is not important to Hispanic voters, rather that it is not a primary driver of their voting behavior in numbers any higher than other racial groups. Focus groups have actually found that a significant (though certainly not monolithic) number of Hispanic voters have an "I'm already here, what do I care?" mentality about the issue, while others are sympathetic to the Democratic position but have differing thresholds for when they consider politicians to be genuine on the issue or just pandering to them.

**Romney's "self-deportation" comment - one of the few times immigration actually entered the national conversation in a major way during the 2012 general election campaign - probably hurt him more because it reinforced the image of him as an out of touch plutocrat with no basic understanding of the way normal people think about issues rather than because of the actual position he was taking. Trump himself even noted this after Romney's defeat.

[Pollster]

Thanks, but why do you think, that "I certainly think it's much more likely that these polls are flawed"? Historical data or anything else?

I mean, as you said, there were some realignments among Latinos in 2016/2020 [and Blacks in 2020]. Pre-election polls did indicate that, but was disregard, because "muh, they can't vote for Trump LMAO".

A lot of Youngkin's best polls have been from unreliable outlets with shoddy methodology, and the ones that weren't from unreliable outlets (mostly Monmouth, which is usually methodologically rigorous) have had some modeling quirks, small sample sizes, and a history of badly misreading Virginia.

All the polls are pretty much saying the same thing, though. It's a close race.

This is often a sign of herding - if the race were close, you'd expect a credible McAuliffe +11 or Youngkin +5 poll here or there, for example.

Margins, as I obnoxiously shout repetitively on this forum, are often misleading and not the ideal way to interpret polling. Youngkin has had serious trouble cracking 45% of the vote in virtually all credible polls. This is probably an accurate measurement of his overall support, and is the general reason for the "needs a Dem turnout collapse" side of my analysis (45% is enough to win if a good chunk of the remaining 55% don't show up or are efficiently divided).

[Pollster]

7% average undecided (which has been consistent in all the polling I've looked at that properly nudges leaners/doesn't cut true undecideds) is a strikingly high number in a high-profile, big-spending race that has reached virtually 100% media saturation in a state with a large pool of government and politics-adjacent voters.

It is probably the primary reason that I'm not really confident in any prediction I could make for the final result, and will undoubtedly generate plenty of misinformed "the polls were wrong" takes if McAuliffe wins resoundingly or if Youngkin pulls it off.

[Pollster]

Forgive me if this comparison has been made already, but I'm starting to notice incredibly eerie similarities between this race and IA-GOV 2018.

Both states voted for the incumbent President by roughly the same margins and had been trending aggressively in their respective partisanship's direction for a decent amount of time despite recent histories of competitiveness. Both incumbent parties nominated candidates who were asterisked incumbents (Reynolds an ascended lieutenant governor, McAuliffe the closest thing VA had to an eligible incumbent) who were generally competent and well-qualified but not particularly energizing. Both opposition parties nominated wealthy businessmen with no political records and malleable political identities who ran generally innocuous campaigns that walked a very delicate tightrope between nationalization and localization: avoided becoming political celebrities/national cause celebres for their party while still thoroughly engaging and energizing their local base. The national environment generally favored the opposition party but partisan polarization remained quite high.

Reynolds won by about 3 points, which is probably not an unreasonable prediction for McAuliffe at this point, with McAuliffe possibly doing slightly better because VA is a hair bluer than IA is R (and has far more racial diversity and subsequent inelasticity in its Democratic base).

[Pollster]

I have a question. If McAuliffe does lose, what do you think will have been the biggest reasons as to why he lost?

Important to remember that Youngkin had the airwaves to himself for essentially the entire first month of the general election and ran uninterrupted positive biographical ads during the crucial name recognition building phase of the campaign that successfully branded him as a well-mannered, successful, and largely inoffensive business professional with no controversial political background. McAuliffe's failure to interrupt this - for whatever reason - was political malpractice and by the time he got on the air Youngkin was already thoroughly inoculated. Possible McAuliffe was asleep at the wheel (totally inexcusable). Also possible McAuliffe needed to raise money after the primary, in which case he should have smoke-signaled the DGA or other groups for help.

[Pollster]

What a colossally stupid thing to do

[Pollster]

https://twitter.com/PollsandOdds/status/1455174915880013825?s=20

I do wonder what the impact will be if terry mcauliffe actually does go on to win. If pollsters turn out to be wrong on this I can see the polling industry taking an even bigger hit to their credibility than they did in 2016

pollsters better hope that Glenn Youngkin does win this race because otherwise they will have a lot of explaining to do....

Please understand that a McAuliffe +3 or so victory does not mean a Youngkin +1 poll is inaccurate.

[Pollster]

Not predicting this to happen, but one has to wonder what the narrative will be if McAuliffe winds up winning by a Northam/Biden 2020-esque margin. Seems like the possibility of such a result has been so decisively dismissed that there isn't a coherent agreement on what it would "mean."

[Pollster]

One thing that is important to remember: replicating Youngkin's playbook (win or lose) will be difficult for Republicans across the country who will not have his advantage of running in/winning a non-primary nomination contest that was designed to ensure a candidate like him emerged.

[Pollster]

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1455591885909659651?s=20

Hard to see McAuliffe lose in this scenario, unless Youngkin is dramatically outperforming partisanship.

[Pollster]

https://twitter.com/tencor_7144/status/1455592001538334722?s=20

This would be consistent with a McAuliffe victory by low to mid single digits.

[Pollster]

One thing that is becoming clear at this point is that Youngkin is not getting the precipitous Democratic turnout collapse that he likely needs.

[Pollster]

One thing that is becoming clear at this point is that Youngkin is not getting the precipitous Democratic turnout collapse that he likely needs.

My doomer premonition is Youngkin doing unexpectedly well in NoVa like Miami-Dade.

Certainly a possibility - and something that likely now needs to happen for a Youngkin victory.

[Pollster]

Early exit polls - with all caveats for early exit polls - not pretty for Democrats.

[Pollster]

Youngkin presenting a golden example of why you should always aggressively define yourself positively as quickly as possible with the general electorate. Great job to his team, in all honesty.

[Pollster]

Probably not as decisive in this race as the media is desperate to make it look, but Democrats need to come up with a better rebuttal to the CRT panic.