All of that still holds.
Northam beat Gillespie in Virginia. That's the closest thing to real news out of yesterday's elections. New Jersey was never going to be a serious contest. Under the right circumstances, a Republican can win there-- Christie followed a very unpopular Democrat (Jon Corzine), with a Democratic President in office (Obama). Christie himself is a very unpopular Republican, and there is a very unpopular Republican President in office, so the state reverts to its partisan leaning (D). So, the big takeaway from yesterday, such as it is, is Northam's win, and even that isn't that "yuge" in terms of news. Virginia has been trending Democratic. Add to that an unpopular Republican President. Northam has been leading ever-so-slightly in the polls. His victory was somewhat larger than the polls predicted.
And that's the news. How big is that?
See my previous comments on special elections. This wasn't truly a "special election" because VA just schedules its guber... natorial elections for odd-numbered years to be weird, and "special elections" are elections held off-schedule because of resignations or deaths, but the same principles apply.
We have a year before the 2018 midterms. A lot can happen between now and then. And weird things can happen. So, what did yesterday mean for 2018, if anything? Um...
I keep saying that weird things can happen in single elections, so we shouldn't over-interpret them. As we accumulate more data points, though, (and that's what happens as more of these things are held), we should start to ask whether or not anything systematically odd is occurring.
Remember that polling mess from 2016? Remember how the polls systematically underestimated Trump's support? What the fuck was that about? Is there something deeper going on? I'm... not seeing it. I'll point that out for now as a basic observation about what has been happening since 2016. If anything yesterday, polls underestimated Democratic support (see Virginia). I'd chalk that up to random error at this point rather than some systematic problem with the polls, but let's note for now that, given everything we have seen since 2016, there doesn't seem to be a persistent problem with the polls akin to that mess.
Beyond that, all-told the Republicans have been winning in GOP-majority localities, the Democrats have been winning in Democratic-majority localities, and... um... I don't want to say that politics are proceeding "normally," because shit is far from normal, but things aren't nearly as discombobulating as they were a year ago, electorally speaking. Other aspects of the political system, sure, they've got my head spinning, but the electoral process seems to be working according to normal patterns, given the limited but slowly accumulating data we have.
That said, we still have limited data. What do I want to know right now, looking towards 2018? I want to know who the parties recruit. One of the best-established findings in the literature on congressional elections is that, ceteris paribus, the more experienced candidate wins, and an experienced challenger has a better shot against an incumbent than an inexperienced challenger. Thank you for your service to political science, Gary Jacobson. As we watch the electoral map shape up for 2018, the parties are trying to recruit the best candidates they can for each seat because they actually know this.
Incidentally, Ralph Northam? Current Lieutenant Governor of Virginia. Ed Gillespie? Never held an elected position in his life...