An Alternate Analysis of Virginia's Election Results
An Alternate Analysis of Virginia's Election Results
by wdrath - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/06/1253601/-An-Alternate-Analysis-of-Virginia-s-Election-Results
Actually...the pollsters in Virginia were right on. Everyone seems to forget that all polls have a margin of error of at least 3-4 percent; some are even higher. When you factor in margins of error plus Republicans' deliberate attempt to disenfranchise as many people as possible (most of whom would likely be voting Democratic), combined with what seemed to me to be a bit of overconfidence by Democrats toward the end, and McAuliffe's win was right on target.
(There were people on this site declaring that it would be a McAuliffe “landslide” even as polls showed him barely ahead of his opponent by single digits, for instance. That type of talk in Democratic circles is politically lethal, when you consider that a large number of "soft" Democrats and Democratic Party constituent groups tend not to get out and vote in large percentages to begin with, especially during non-presidential years. When they hear that the Democrat is “going to win” that gives them even less incentive to get out and vote.)
There is something to be said for giving voters cause for optimism. However, there can sometimes be a fine line between optimism and overconfidence. And, this year in Virginia, we might have found the perfect case study. ...........
= new reply since forum marked as read