VA-Monmouth: Gillespie +1
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:32:14 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections
  2023 & Odd Year Gubernatorial Election Polls (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  VA-Monmouth: Gillespie +1
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: VA-Monmouth: Gillespie +1  (Read 5519 times)
Cactus Jack
azcactus
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,956
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 17, 2017, 04:32:05 PM »

Hey everyone, let's quote all of Greedo's posts from today on the night of November 7th/morning of November 8th.

Better idea: let's just throw him in the oubliette with Cora and the rest of our recent garbage posters.
Logged
BudgieForce
superbudgie1582
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,298


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 17, 2017, 04:35:56 PM »

It’s funny that the left will always say junk poll when it doesn’t favor their side. Polling numbers change and so do people’s opinions.
Go look on the main VA post I have gotten tons of hate because I called the polls with 11 point leads for northam junk
Also getting hate for saying Gillespie is going to win.

All we can do is wait and see.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 17, 2017, 04:38:02 PM »

@IceSpear: In case you're not aware, the official excuse for Dems not being able to beat Assaulterforte in MT (I refuse to call him by his real name after his actions), is that most of the vote was cast during early voting.

I'm pretty sure most Democrats agree that it had more to do with the fact that Quist by all accounts proved to be a piss-poor candidate despite initially looking solid on paper.

Why is it that the Dems need stellar candidates to win, but the GOP can nominate and elect Trump, Greg Gianforte, Roy Moore, Roy Blunt, Sam Brownback, Pat Roberts, Thom Tillis, Rick Scott, Paul LePage, etc. etc. without repurcussions?

I think Dems need to start accepting that deplorables are unwinnable and Republicans are far more "locked in" than Democrats are. Times have changed drastically since Akin/Mourdock, both of whom were exceptions to begin with. If Democrats routinely nominated candidates as piss poor as that above list we'd be a permanent minority. Even lazy but otherwise harmless milquetoasts like Martha Coakley and Anthony Brown end up losing in the most Democratic states in the country. When Dems imported some rich guy to run in an evenly split upstate NY seat, something Republicans do on the regular with occasional success, he lost by like 57 points, lol. The double standard is real.
Logged
Terry the Fat Shark
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,502
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 17, 2017, 04:38:28 PM »

Well, at least we finally got a poll showing Gillespie up.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 17, 2017, 04:39:15 PM »


If we assume that each GOP downballot candidate outperforms or underperforms Trump to the same degree as they did in real life, and adjust the presidential result the 1% that is needed for Hillary to win WI, MI, PA, no senate race flips. (Although Toomey's race becomes perilously close at R+0.43)

Or how about this? The Comey's announcement caused a uniform 3% swing of voters who were otherwise ready for Hillary/Feingold to win to Trump/Johnson. That's why both Trump & Johnson overperformed the polls.

Look at the polling for Bayh pre-Comey announcement.
Logged
Keep cool-idge
Benjamin Harrison he is w
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,770
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 17, 2017, 04:41:26 PM »

Hey everyone, let's quote all of Greedo's posts from today on the night of November 7th/morning of November 8th.

Better idea: let's just throw him in the oubliette with Cora and the rest of our recent garbage posters.
LOL I'm not even a troll besides I'm have been in conjunction with NOVA Green working on a project that will not have partisan lean at all I think both republicans and democrats will like what working on.
Logged
Frozen Sky Ever Why
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,611
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 17, 2017, 04:42:13 PM »

"Fiscal conservative, social liberal" Northam not good enough for VA?  I thought he'd be a perfect fit. What a disgrace this country is if Gillespie wins this race. I guess muh culture war trumps literally everything else.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 17, 2017, 04:46:36 PM »

@IceSpear: In case you're not aware, the official excuse for Dems not being able to beat Assaulterforte in MT (I refuse to call him by his real name after his actions), is that most of the vote was cast during early voting.

I'm pretty sure most Democrats agree that it had more to do with the fact that Quist by all accounts proved to be a piss-poor candidate despite initially looking solid on paper.

Why is it that the Dems need stellar candidates to win, but the GOP can nominate and elect Trump, Greg Gianforte, Roy Moore, Roy Blunt, Sam Brownback, Pat Roberts, Thom Tillis, Rick Scott, Paul LePage, etc. etc. without repurcussions?

I think Dems need to start accepting that deplorables are unwinnable and Republicans are far more "locked in" than Democrats are. Times have changed drastically since Akin/Mourdock, both of whom were exceptions to begin with. If Democrats routinely nominated candidates as piss poor as that above list we'd be a permanent minority. Even lazy but otherwise harmless milquetoasts like Martha Coakley and Anthony Brown end up losing in the most Democratic states in the country. When Dems imported some rich guy to run in an evenly split upstate NY seat, something Republicans do on the regular with occasional success, he lost by like 57 points, lol. The double standard is real.

Deplorables, per Hillary's comments, are half of Trump's supporters. 46% (Trump's NPV total) * .5 = 23% of the country consists of deplorables. Quit acting like deplorables are 40% or something.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 17, 2017, 04:49:29 PM »

If 3% of voters were solidly in the D camp, and solidly moved to R following Comey's announcement, that would cause a 6% swing in the results.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 17, 2017, 04:49:51 PM »

@IceSpear: In case you're not aware, the official excuse for Dems not being able to beat Assaulterforte in MT (I refuse to call him by his real name after his actions), is that most of the vote was cast during early voting.

I'm pretty sure most Democrats agree that it had more to do with the fact that Quist by all accounts proved to be a piss-poor candidate despite initially looking solid on paper.

Why is it that the Dems need stellar candidates to win, but the GOP can nominate and elect Trump, Greg Gianforte, Roy Moore, Roy Blunt, Sam Brownback, Pat Roberts, Thom Tillis, Rick Scott, Paul LePage, etc. etc. without repurcussions?

I think Dems need to start accepting that deplorables are unwinnable and Republicans are far more "locked in" than Democrats are. Times have changed drastically since Akin/Mourdock, both of whom were exceptions to begin with. If Democrats routinely nominated candidates as piss poor as that above list we'd be a permanent minority. Even lazy but otherwise harmless milquetoasts like Martha Coakley and Anthony Brown end up losing in the most Democratic states in the country. When Dems imported some rich guy to run in an evenly split upstate NY seat, something Republicans do on the regular with occasional success, he lost by like 57 points, lol. The double standard is real.

Deplorables, per Hillary's comments, are half of Trump's supporters. 46% (Trump's NPV total) * .5 = 23% of the country consists of deplorables. Quit acting like deplorables are 40% or something.

I happen to think Hillary was being very generous and diplomatic with that comment. Wink
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 17, 2017, 04:52:42 PM »

If 3% of voters were solidly in the D camp, and solidly moved to R following Comey's announcement, that would cause a 6% swing in the results.

I think that's probably an overestimation of the Comey effect. I could see half of that though, which would be enough to get Kander and McGinty over the top, so there's your Manchin Majority. Of course, it's not as if dems would be able to do much of anything with that sort of majority.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,929
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 17, 2017, 04:55:26 PM »

Atlas is once again being biased for a Republican. There are two other polls out that show Northam leading, so this one is the outlier out of recent polling.
Logged
BudgieForce
superbudgie1582
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,298


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 17, 2017, 04:59:45 PM »

Atlas is once again being biased for a Republican. There are two other polls out that show Northam leading, so this one is the outlier out of recent polling.

I think it's because a majority of us our drama queens.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 17, 2017, 05:06:18 PM »

Atlas is once again being biased for a Republican. There are two other polls out that show Northam leading, so this one is the outlier out of recent polling.

Well, Roanoke is junk and should be ignored. The other has Northam ahead, but still shows a significant narrowing of the race since their last poll. My posts were mostly referring to how the race was close at all, not how Gillespie was ahead/gonna win. I still think Northam is ahead and the favorite.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 17, 2017, 05:07:14 PM »

@IceSpear: In case you're not aware, the official excuse for Dems not being able to beat Assaulterforte in MT (I refuse to call him by his real name after his actions), is that most of the vote was cast during early voting.

I'm pretty sure most Democrats agree that it had more to do with the fact that Quist by all accounts proved to be a piss-poor candidate despite initially looking solid on paper.

Why is it that the Dems need stellar candidates to win, but the GOP can nominate and elect Trump, Greg Gianforte, Roy Moore, Roy Blunt, Sam Brownback, Pat Roberts, Thom Tillis, Rick Scott, Paul LePage, etc. etc. without repurcussions?

I think Dems need to start accepting that deplorables are unwinnable and Republicans are far more "locked in" than Democrats are. Times have changed drastically since Akin/Mourdock, both of whom were exceptions to begin with. If Democrats routinely nominated candidates as piss poor as that above list we'd be a permanent minority. Even lazy but otherwise harmless milquetoasts like Martha Coakley and Anthony Brown end up losing in the most Democratic states in the country. When Dems imported some rich guy to run in an evenly split upstate NY seat, something Republicans do on the regular with occasional success, he lost by like 57 points, lol. The double standard is real.

Roberts was in hindsight never gonna lose, Gianforte would've lost to a better candidate, Moore hasn't won yet and is being held to single-digits by a weak b-lister in most polls in friggin' Alabama.  The rest of those races would've been won by Democrats had they not taken place in a Republican wave year (or in Trump's case, had we run a remotely competent candidate).
Logged
BudgieForce
superbudgie1582
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,298


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: October 17, 2017, 05:08:21 PM »

Atlas is once again being biased for a Republican. There are two other polls out that show Northam leading, so this one is the outlier out of recent polling.

Well, Roanoke is junk and should be ignored. The other has Northam ahead, but still shows a significant narrowing of the race since their last poll. My posts were mostly referring to how the race was close at all, not how Gillespie was ahead/gonna win. I still think Northam is ahead and the favorite.

The CNU poll shows movement within the MoE.
Logged
Keep cool-idge
Benjamin Harrison he is w
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,770
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 17, 2017, 05:10:32 PM »

Atlas is once again being biased for a Republican. There are two other polls out that show Northam leading, so this one is the outlier out of recent polling.
Says a left wing democrat

Seriously this is a big deal Gillespie hasn't had a lead in 1 poll since the primary till now.
Logged
BudgieForce
superbudgie1582
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,298


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 17, 2017, 05:18:22 PM »

Atlas is once again being biased for a Republican. There are two other polls out that show Northam leading, so this one is the outlier out of recent polling.
Says a left wing democrat

Seriously this is a big deal Gillespie hasn't had a lead in 1 poll since the primary till now.

Polls are never a big deal.
Logged
Ye We Can
Mumph
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,464


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: October 17, 2017, 05:22:29 PM »

I mean, I still think Northam will edge him, but why the surprise? Gillepsie isn't a trash tier candidate, as we've seen.  If anything he's a very personally strong candidate imo.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 17, 2017, 07:21:57 PM »

They still have a shot at 60 seats now, lol. We really have no idea what the political environment will be like in a year.

Historically that is highly unlikely. Even in a favorable midterm, the party that controls the White House almost always has trouble ousting incumbent opposition party Senators. It's not to say Democrats won't lose some, but 8 would be GOP wave numbers and with Trump in office it's hard to argue even for a neutral year when he is digging their party into a ditch with the electorate.

It's undeniable the Republican Party's strength right now, but that came from a succession of favorable election years under what was an unpopular Democratic president (save for his entry, reelection and leaving office). Republicans aren't invincible, rather I think that 8 years is a long time and that is how long it has been since Republicans had a deeply unpopular president wrapped around their necks.

As it stands now, it's actually pretty remarkable things went downhill for Republicans so fast. It took Republicans a lot longer to start posting consistently comfortable leads in the generic ballot than it did for Democrats in 2017.

we're currently in a pro-D political environment that rivals if not eclipses 2006/2008, yet actual election results have not lined up with this reality outside of a couple crimson red seats Dems didn't try in (KS/SC.) It seems like every time Dems actually try in a race, they end up bungling it somehow (GA, MT, and now possibly VA.)

To be fair, Georgia's race was not really a friendly district - there are a lot more that are better targets and with electorates more friendly to Democrats. Coming in at around Clinton's numbers could have been the best Ossoff could do at this point, given how fast the district moved towards Democrats already. As for Montana, well even as he assaulted a reporter, most of the vote was already in at that point. Had he done it maybe a week or two prior, we could be having a different discussion. Suffice to say that there is a reason Trump picked incumbents from these districts, and not, say, people like Coffman, Upton or LoBiondo.

Point is, those Congressional races were all in tough, deeply conservative districts, ones Republicans probably wouldn't even expect to lose in a wave. If you look at the performance of Democrats in the oodles of legislative special elections, they have made decent gains and over-performed quite a bit. I think the average of it is +11 or +12 points better than they should, which even surpasses most of the generic ballot leads.

There was a Cook article (link) recently that went over something I've been saying for a while now, and that is that Virginia's gubernatorial race isn't the one to watch. It's the HoD races. That is where people's default opinions / opinions of the president tend to play out. It's easier for a single Republican candidate to wage an effective campaign for a single high-profile statewide race, but all those smaller races that people are largely in the dark about are where you see a potential wave building. So far Democrats have been posting pretty tall leads in the HoD generic ballot, which could translate to substantial gains. Maybe not enough to flip it, given all the incumbents Republicans have, but enough to use 2019 to build a majority.


I get your pessimism, I think it's warranted in some respects (NJ Democrats should be performing better given the state's leanings, but oh well), but after the Obama years, I find the energy on the left and current special election results (as a whole) rather encouraging
Logged
JonHawk
JHawk
Rookie
**
Posts: 213


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 17, 2017, 07:44:16 PM »

I think Northam will take this, but if Gillespie holds it within 2 points should be a "moral" win for the VA Republicans.
Logged
Lothal1
Rookie
**
Posts: 228
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 17, 2017, 07:49:17 PM »

Some SERIOUS denial here... How come the GOP in Virginia seemingly outperform every poll? 2014 Ed vs Mark Warner (most popular politician in the state) was D+9 on election day, yet became D+1 barely. Cuccinelli was down D+7 and barely won by D+2. Polls are skewed, folks.
Logged
Co-Chair Bagel23
Bagel23
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,369
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.48, S: -1.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 17, 2017, 07:56:24 PM »

Some SERIOUS denial here... How come the GOP in Virginia seemingly outperform every poll? 2014 Ed vs Mark Warner (most popular politician in the state) was D+9 on election day, yet became D+1 barely. Cuccinelli was down D+7 and barely won by D+2. Polls are skewed, folks.

Every one of y'all casually ignore 2016...
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: October 17, 2017, 08:07:55 PM »

Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,684
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: October 17, 2017, 08:40:06 PM »

The VA governor's race is tightening. If you like him or hate him, Terry McAuliffe is a hardball, brass-knuckles campaigner and politician. That is why he wins. He won in 2013 because of that. Now, McAuliffe looks like he will not have a successor like Kaine and Deeds (2009) and McDonnell and Cuccinelli (2013).

Virginia governors only serve one-terms anyway, but the Virginia Legislature is crucial as well.

The African-American and Latino vote may be unenthusiastic about Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam anyway. Some black voters may be voting for Ed Gillespie as well.

Virginia governors elections change parties. The pendulum swings. I don't think the current American political environment matters anymore unless if it has big impact. Republicans look motivated to vote and suburban Republicans look like they are voting for Gillespie. Even the rural/working class Republican Trump-Stewart voters look like they are for Gillespie, reluctantly. The Republican base looks energized in Virginia.

I wonder how Tom Perriello would have done....
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 14 queries.