VA-GOV 2017: Utter Panic and Doom (General election: Nov 7th)

[BigSkyBob]

Momentum is not a real thing.

Spikes in donation, and increases in volunteers are.

[Young Conservative]

Momentum is not a real thing.

Spikes in donation, and increases in volunteers are.

Momentum is not a thing but publicly perceived momentum is.  If you have perceived momentum, it increases enthusiasm, which increases turnout among your voters and volunteers.

[BigSkyBob]

Average after Gravis release:

Gravis: N+5
Roanoke: Tie
Optimus: N+1.5
Rasmussen: Tie
Polling Company: G+2

Average: N + 0.9

I will say that I'm disappointed that the last five polls are all from mediocre companies. Hopefully we actually get polls from CNU, Siena, and Monmouth before the election.

All well and good, except Optimus is G+3 resulting in a tie.

Presidential election years have certain turn-out patterns, while mid-term and off-year elections have others. A priori, the best model for turnout is the last such election. A priori, the worst model for a off-year election is a Presidential-year election.

Of course, there could be differences in enthusiasm,  and trends in the underlying partisan make-up of the electorate. And, other factors such as which party is in power, and, the state of economy, etc., could exist. These can be modeled.

If pollsters want to claim that 2016 voters are likely voters, then, they are failing to model the electorate accurately. Failing to model correctly, is modeling to fail.

[Brittain33]

Momentum is not a real thing.

Spikes in donation, and increases in volunteers are.

Momentum is not a thing but publicly perceived momentum is.  If you have perceived momentum, it increases enthusiasm, which increases turnout among your voters and volunteers.

I don't see how that isn't arguing that momentum is a thing.

People use the term to argue that if polls go from Northam +5 two weeks before Election Day to Northam +2 one week before Election Day, we'll have Gillespie +1 on Election Day because of "momentum." Maybe you guys will be right and he'll win instead of losing in the polling average as he is now because of momentum, but we'll have to say.

[BigSkyBob]

Momentum is not a real thing.

Spikes in donation, and increases in volunteers are.

Momentum is not a thing but publicly perceived momentum is.  If you have perceived momentum, it increases enthusiasm, which increases turnout among your voters and volunteers.

I don't see how that isn't arguing that momentum is a thing.

People use the term to argue that if polls go from Northam +5 two weeks before Election Day to Northam +2 one week before Election Day, we'll have Gillespie +1 on Election Day because of "momentum." Maybe you guys will be right and he'll win instead of losing in the polling average as he is now because of momentum, but we'll have to say.

And, if with ten days to go there was ten percent undecided with Northam +3, and each and in each of every one of the first five days .7% decide for Gillespie, and .3% decide for Northam [Northam +1], then, maybe, there are reasons to believe that the remaining 5% will break in a similar fashion[Gillespie +1.]

[Brittain33]

And, if with ten days to go there was ten percent undecided with Northam +3, and each and in each of every one of the first five days .7% decide for Gillespie, and .3% decide for Northam [Northam +1], then, maybe, there are reasons to believe that the remaining 5% will break in a similar fashion[Gillespie +1.]

No, there aren't. That's the fallacy.

[BigSkyBob]

Northam tries to be on both sides of accusing Republican voters of being evil yet again:

http://freebeacon.com/politics/democratic-virginia-state-senator-labels-gillespie-supporters-evil/

Here is a link to his exchange with a reporter who confronts him as to whether, or not, he agrees with the characterization of Republicans as being "evil." Northam hems and haws:

https://twitter.com/FenitN/status/925906529101983746/photo/1

[Brittain33]

Larry Sabato predicts a narrow Northam win.

http://www.nbc29.com/story/36760091/larry-sabato-releases-his-prediction-for-gubernatorial-election

[Keep cool-idge]

Larry Sabato predicts a narrow Northam win.

http://www.nbc29.com/story/36760091/larry-sabato-releases-his-prediction-for-gubernatorial-election

Sabato is a clown after his awful 2016 predictions for president governor house and senate.
I don’t put to much stock in his predictions.

[Virginiá]

Larry Sabato predicts a narrow Northam win.

http://www.nbc29.com/story/36760091/larry-sabato-releases-his-prediction-for-gubernatorial-election

I don't get this part:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does he mean strictly in Virginia, or nationally? Nationwide, youth turnout was about the same as 2012, and as far as I can tell, only marginally less so in Virginia. Obviously it is to Democrats' disadvantage that youth turnout does not constantly rival that of the oldest generations, but I don't see why they would be a unique factor this cycle.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Larry Sabato predicts a narrow Northam win.

http://www.nbc29.com/story/36760091/larry-sabato-releases-his-prediction-for-gubernatorial-election

Sabato is a clown after his awful 2016 predictions for president governor house and senate.
I don’t put to much stock in his predictions.

[publicunofficial]

The VA Dem strategy:

1) Nominate whichever bland sh**theap of a politician that manages to climb to the top of the state establishment, regardless of electability.

2) Pray that the NoVA margins are big enough.

[smoltchanov]

The VA Dem strategy:

1) Nominate whichever bland sh**theap of a politician that manages to climb to the top of the state establishment, regardless of electability.

2) Pray that the NoVA margins are big enough.

True, but what's an alternative? Nominate "bold progressive"? He/she will lose, it's Virginia, not California. Nominate energetic, but not so popular (after all, he lost the primary to "bland sh**theap") candidate like Perriello? No guaranties it will work better..

[publicunofficial]

The VA Dem strategy:

1) Nominate whichever bland sh**theap of a politician that manages to climb to the top of the state establishment, regardless of electability.

2) Pray that the NoVA margins are big enough.

True, but what's an alternative? Nominate "bold progressive"? He/she will lose, it's Virginia, not California. Nominate energetic, but not so popular (after all, he lost the primary to "bland sh**theap") candidate like Perriello? No guaranties it will work better..

I'm curious: When was the last time a bold progressive got the D nomination for a major election in Virginia, and lost terribly?

[Miles]

^ Henry Howell in 1977.

[smoltchanov]

The VA Dem strategy:

1) Nominate whichever bland sh**theap of a politician that manages to climb to the top of the state establishment, regardless of electability.

2) Pray that the NoVA margins are big enough.

True, but what's an alternative? Nominate "bold progressive"? He/she will lose, it's Virginia, not California. Nominate energetic, but not so popular (after all, he lost the primary to "bland sh**theap") candidate like Perriello? No guaranties it will work better..

I'm curious: When was the last time a bold progressive got the D nomination for a major election in Virginia, and lost terribly?

Well, long ago. Probably - Henry Howell for Governor in 1977. But the very fact that "bold progressive" isn't usually nominated in Virginia (read - can't win primary) already speaks volumes.

[BigSkyBob]

And, if with ten days to go there was ten percent undecided with Northam +3, and each and in each of every one of the first five days .7% decide for Gillespie, and .3% decide for Northam [Northam +1], then, maybe, there are reasons to believe that the remaining 5% will break in a similar fashion[Gillespie +1.]

No, there aren't. That's the fallacy.

First of all, "fallacy" isn't an appropriate claim in the least. Had I made the strong claim, the best you could say is that the empirical data suggests otherwise. But, I made the weaker claim, so all you can claim is that the data tends to suggest otherwise.

Second, I doubt the empirical data suggests otherwise strongly. The single best question one can ask to determine voting intention is, "How is your best friend going to vote?" If one candidate is polling better, the pool of best friends is apt to skew in the same direction. You can claim that a strong correlation breaks down day-to-day, but I doubt it.

[BudgieForce]

https://www.nytimes.com//2017/11/05/upshot/upshot-siena-poll-gives-democrat-narrow-lead-in-virginia-governors-race.html

[Brittain33]

Ok, so final result is Gillespie 57-Northam 43.

[Panhandle Progressive]

As of right now (8:45am ET) on PredictIt



In other words...people betting money on this race still believe Northam will win.

[GeorgiaModerate]

As of right now (8:45am ET) on PredictIt

(Northam at .60, Gillespie at .41)

In other words...people betting money on this race still believe Northam will win.

That's narrowed a lot in a short time, though.  Gillespie was in the .25-.28 range a week or so ago.

[heatcharger]

Tuesday weather outlook:

Pouring rain in SW VA.
Scattered showers in VA Beach.
Slightly overcast in the morning in Fairfax, then rain once Republicans come home from work.

Great news.

[Brittain33]

Tuesday weather outlook:

Pouring rain in SW VA.
Scattered showers in VA Beach.
Slightly overcast in the morning in Fairfax, then rain once Republicans come home from work.

Great news.

I like this forecast.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Average after Siena:

Siena: N+3
Trafalgar : N+1
Gravis: N+5
Roanoke: Tie
Optimus: N+1.5

Average: N+2.1

As long as the average stays at this position (or goes higher for Northam), Northam should be fine.

[Skill and Chance]

Average after Siena:

Siena: N+3
Trafalgar : N+1
Gravis: N+5
Roanoke: Tie
Optimus: N+1.5

Average: N+2.1

As long as the average stays at this position (or goes higher for Northam), Northam should be fine.

You're including Optimus but excluding The Polling Company and WaPo?

Either way, would suggest Northam has just barely weathered the storm.