Virginia Mega Thread: The Youngkin Administration

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1453146251810181122

[Matty]

what percent of 2004 W bush voters are voting mcauliife

[Non Swing Voter]

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1453146251810181122

what are you trying to imply by this?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

When will these people learn to just take their kids out of public schools and then vote to totally defund them since all the moneyed children will be in private schools where we do control the curriculum

[Non Swing Voter]

This thread is about the VA and other elections of 2021.  Not school board conspiracy theories.

[wbrocks67]

T-Mac and his team leaning into this - the whole thing is kind of backfiring on Youngkin. Now it looks like he put some crazy lady on TV who wanted to ban a book by an award winning black author because her AP studies son "was scared"

https://twitter.com/DNCWarRoom/status/1452785923490463744

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

T-Mac and his team leaning into this - the whole thing is kind of backfiring on Youngkin. Now it looks like he put some crazy lady on TV who wanted to ban a book by an award winning black author because her AP studies son "was scared"

https://twitter.com/DNCWarRoom/status/1452785923490463744

That’s the right play for McAuliffe; Youngkin has run an amazingly weak campaign and his anti-book insanity is the sort of thing thing that will play horribly in suburbia regardless of the results.  That and Youngkin’s opposition to anti-COVID regulations are his two biggest weaknesses (well…there’s also the fact that his campaign doesn’t seem to have a clue what it’s doing, but I’m talking policy/messaging).

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

T-Mac and his team leaning into this - the whole thing is kind of backfiring on Youngkin. Now it looks like he put some crazy lady on TV who wanted to ban a book by an award winning black author because her AP studies son "was scared"

https://twitter.com/DNCWarRoom/status/1452785923490463744

That’s the right play for McAuliffe; Youngkin has run an amazingly weak campaign and his anti-book insanity is the sort of thing thing that will play horribly in suburbia regardless of the results.  That and Youngkin’s opposition to anti-COVID regulations are his two biggest weaknesses (well…there’s also the fact that his campaign doesn’t seem to have a clue what it’s doing, but I’m talking policy/messaging).

Sure, Jan.

A poll released on Tuesday by Suffolk University asked if parents or school boards should "have more of an influence on a school's curriculum?" It found 50% of overall respondents and 57% of independents said parents should have more of an influence.

With your "definition" 50% of VA voters and 57% of Indies wants more "anti-book insanity" influence to parents.

[wbrocks67]

T-Mac and his team leaning into this - the whole thing is kind of backfiring on Youngkin. Now it looks like he put some crazy lady on TV who wanted to ban a book by an award winning black author because her AP studies son "was scared"

https://twitter.com/DNCWarRoom/status/1452785923490463744

That’s the right play for McAuliffe; Youngkin has run an amazingly weak campaign and his anti-book insanity is the sort of thing thing that will play horribly in suburbia regardless of the results.  That and Youngkin’s opposition to anti-COVID regulations are his two biggest weaknesses (well…there’s also the fact that his campaign doesn’t seem to have a clue what it’s doing, but I’m talking policy/messaging).

Sure, Jan.

A poll released on Tuesday by Suffolk University asked if parents or school boards should "have more of an influence on a school's curriculum?" It found 50% of overall respondents and 57% of independents said parents should have more of an influence.

With your "definition" 50% of VA voters and 57% of Indies wants more "anti-book insanity" influence to parents.

Your conflating two different things though. First of all, that question is shoddy because the school board does not set the curriculum to begin with. Not to mention, it is not really specific to what is happening with the book issue. I'm sure if you worded the question around "banning books you don't like" it would come with a different answer. And I'm sure suburban parents want to be involved, but highly educated ones like in much of the VA suburbs, would think this woman is going way overboard.

The bottom line is Youngkin may have had the upper hand on the "education" narrative, but he kind of shot himself in the foot with this, letting Dems now take control of the narrative and paint Youngkin as being extremist and out of touch on an issue like this, while ginning up black supporters with saying that Youngkin is trying to ban award winning books by popular black authors.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

I agree to disagree. As I said, in my opinion giving a possibility to parents to opting out their kids from reading "books containing sexually explicit material" or "submit alternative readings if desired" ≠ ban books.

In my opinion, it's a winning issue for Youngkin, and it's McAuliffe, who's shooting himself in the foot by elevating it.

Also, it's like 538th time, you guys say, Youngkin's X has backfired hehe haha, yet polls has been indicating even tighter race, than it already was. IMO, there is overall (not just polls) more evidence, that McAuliffe is backfiring than vice versa.

[roxas11]

I agree to disagree. As I said, in my opinion giving a possibility to parents to opting out their kids from reading "books containing sexually explicit material" or "submit alternative readings if desired" ≠ ban books.

In my opinion, it's a winning issue for Youngkin, and it's McAuliffe, who's shooting himself in the foot by elevating it.

Also, it's like 538th time, you guys say, Youngkin's X has backfired hehe haha, yet polls has been indicating even tighter race, than it already was. IMO, there is overall (not just polls) more evidence, that McAuliffe is backfiring than vice versa.

While I agree that overall Youngkin and GOP had been very effective when it comes to going after Dems on education, however, I Do think that by talking about banning Toni Morrison 1987 book Beloved they are allowing the Dems to take control the narrative

It's one thing for Youngkin and GOP to speak generally about parents having more control over what their kids read
 
It's another to suddenly start talking about banning this....



My mom is a big fan of the book and movie so I wanted to get her reaction to this. She was shocked that anybody would by trying to ban Beloved and I suspect a lot of people will feel the same way as news of this spreads.

I just think that Youngkin and GOP made a mistake by specifically singling out out this book and using it is as their main example of problematic books that kids should not read.

[Person Man]

I agree to disagree. As I said, in my opinion giving a possibility to parents to opting out their kids from reading "books containing sexually explicit material" or "submit alternative readings if desired" ≠ ban books.

In my opinion, it's a winning issue for Youngkin, and it's McAuliffe, who's shooting himself in the foot by elevating it.

Also, it's like 538th time, you guys say, Youngkin's X has backfired hehe haha, yet polls has been indicating even tighter race, than it already was. IMO, there is overall (not just polls) more evidence, that McAuliffe is backfiring than vice versa.

While I agree that overall Youngkin and GOP had been very effective when it comes to going after Dems on education, however, I Do think that by talking about banning Toni Morrison 1987 book Beloved they are allowing the Dems to take control the narrative

It's one thing for Youngkin and GOP to speak generally about parents having more control over what their kids read
 
It's another to suddenly start talking about banning this....



My mom is a big fan of the book and movie so I wanted to get her reaction to this. She was shocked that anybody would by trying to ban Beloved and I suspect a lot of people will feel the same way as news of this spreads.

I just think that Youngkin and GOP made a mistake by specifically singling out out this book and using it is as their main example of problematic books that kids should not read.

And maybe you think that "we just want to talk about this" isn't the same as banning something, it's making people uncomfortable.

This is basically the showcase issue for Republicans in the early 2020s beside abortion. That is the issue that society needs to be protected from this overreaction to the perceived abuse of power of conservative institutions by "cancelling" popular cultural trends and artifacts associated with them. That is what Republicans are now trying to do. Cancel culture. They see a popular symbol of American culture, accuse it of being this dangerous left-wing Trojan Horse and then talk about "getting parents involved".

If the GOP wins the 2021,2022, and 2024 elections, I expect by 2025 "free speech" being a part of te Democratic Platform.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Suck. They don't talk about it, nor single it out. The only thing, they did, was using Laura Murphy in an ad.

It's McAuliffe who [desperately?] want to move focus from his comments about parents to "muh they want to ban Beloved!!!!!!11111". Hopefully, no voters will fall for this bs.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/amyewalter/status/1453327455599702024

Well, we'll find out soon enough, if it works or not.

[GeorgiaModerate]

New CNU/Wason Center poll has the Democrat up by 1 in all three races:

https://cnu.edu/wasoncenter/surveys/archive/2021-10-27.html

[roxas11]

Suck. They don't talk about it, nor single it out. The only thing, they did, was using Laura Murphy in an ad.

It's McAuliffe who [desperately?] want to move focus from his comments about parents to "muh they want to ban Beloved!!!!!!11111". Hopefully, no voters will fall for this bs.

Let's just be honest about this you and I know full well that these political campaigns don't just put random people in their ads without doing any research or background on them

Glenn youngkin and his team knew full well what that Laura Murphy was trying to ban beloved and he still put her in his ad anyway. He is not the innocent bystander that you seem to want to portray him as

Also, I agree that McAuliffe is clearly going to use this issue to distract from his own problems, but by the end day I don't blame him at all for that because Youngkin and GOP are the ones who handed him this great political gift in the first place lol

[Non Swing Voter]

Suck. They don't talk about it, nor single it out. The only thing, they did, was using Laura Murphy in an ad.

It's McAuliffe who [desperately?] want to move focus from his comments about parents to "muh they want to ban Beloved!!!!!!11111". Hopefully, no voters will fall for this bs.

This is so disingenuous and absurd

[wbrocks67]

After going thru exit polls in 2017 and 2020 and the recent polls, what is sticking out to me specificially is Males and 18-44 year olds.

Gillepsie won males by 2, while Biden won them by 1. Most recent polls have Youngkin up 10-15% with Men, so interested to see if that bares out. Biden and Northam also won females by about the same % as well (22-23%), while most polls have T-Mac up 15-20% with them.

18-44 year olds when for Northam by 30, and Biden by about 25. Recent polls show T-Mac in the single digits with that group.

Subsamples aside, I'm interested to see if what more than a few polls are seeing is true, or if we just got bad samples with these groups. Males would not surprise me if Youngkin did better than Gillepsie/Trump, but the 18-44 category would be more surprising if it was that low.

[ChiefFireWaterMike]

After going thru exit polls in 2017 and 2020 and the recent polls, what is sticking out to me specificially is Males and 18-44 year olds.

Gillepsie won males by 2, while Biden won them by 1. Most recent polls have Youngkin up 10-15% with Men, so interested to see if that bares out. Biden and Northam also won females by about the same % as well (22-23%), while most polls have T-Mac up 15-20% with them.

18-44 year olds when for Northam by 30, and Biden by about 25. Recent polls show T-Mac in the single digits with that group.

Subsamples aside, I'm interested to see if what more than a few polls are seeing is true, or if we just got bad samples with these groups. Males would not surprise me if Youngkin did better than Gillepsie/Trump, but the 18-44 category would be more surprising if it was that low.

Finally some interesting conversation in this thread. Does someone smarter than me know if these numbers make sense for a close statewide race? Like have they been attainable before, etc?

[wbrocks67]

After going thru exit polls in 2017 and 2020 and the recent polls, what is sticking out to me specificially is Males and 18-44 year olds.

Gillepsie won males by 2, while Biden won them by 1. Most recent polls have Youngkin up 10-15% with Men, so interested to see if that bares out. Biden and Northam also won females by about the same % as well (22-23%), while most polls have T-Mac up 15-20% with them.

18-44 year olds when for Northam by 30, and Biden by about 25. Recent polls show T-Mac in the single digits with that group.

Subsamples aside, I'm interested to see if what more than a few polls are seeing is true, or if we just got bad samples with these groups. Males would not surprise me if Youngkin did better than Gillepsie/Trump, but the 18-44 category would be more surprising if it was that low.

Finally some interesting conversation in this thread. Does someone smarter than me know if these numbers make sense for a close statewide race? Like have they been attainable before, etc?

Young people are notoriously hard to poll so in that instance, I wouldn't be surprised if the samples they're getting could be wonky.

However, if T-Mac is really only winning 18-44 year olds by 5 and Males by 15%, then that seems like a formula where he definitely ekes it out statewide.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Suck. They don't talk about it, nor single it out. The only thing, they did, was using Laura Murphy in an ad.

It's McAuliffe who [desperately?] want to move focus from his comments about parents to "muh they want to ban Beloved!!!!!!11111". Hopefully, no voters will fall for this bs.

Let's just be honest about this you and I know full well that these political campaigns don't just put random people in their ads without doing any research or background on them

Glenn youngkin and his team knew full well what that Laura Murphy was trying to ban beloved and he still put her in his ad anyway. He is not the innocent bystander that you seem to want to portray him as

Also, I agree that McAuliffe is clearly going to use this issue to distract from his own problems, but by the end day I don't blame him at all for that because Youngkin and GOP are the ones who handed him this great political gift in the first place lol

Of course, they knew, who she was. It was the whole point. Put a "controversial" (controversial only among woke libs, normies don't give a f**k) figure in the ad, in order to get attention to the issue they think (and polls confirm it), they are winning. Now not only media, but even McAuliffe talk about it (like I said, I don't believe "swinger" voters will fall for "muh they want to ban Beloved"). That's why I thought, that it was McAuliffe who is shooting himself in the foot and hans Youngkin "this great political gift".

Now, of course, both Youngkin's campaign and the polls might get it wrong, but it's their strategy. Perhaps, you're right and it will backfire, but, as I said, I think that elevating parents vs McAuliffe is a winning strategy, given what polls indicate.

[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.

[Matty]

Did nobody on this board actually research the “book banning” thing? It’s not actually true

https://mobile.twitter.com/PhilipWegmann/status/1453160723094327298

Where is the book banning thing coming from?

This issue involves mcauliffe vetoing a bipartisan bill.

Wapo has a good write up on it

[wbrocks67]

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.

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

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

[MT Treasurer]

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?