Virginia Mega Thread: The Youngkin Administration

[Roll Roons]

This is not going to hurt her in a post-Me Too era. Republicans are just going to look like assholes for leaking the images.

Isn’t it also, ya know, illegal. I feel like this falls under revenge porn.

No, because she posted those videos on a public website.

[Aurelius2]

It's possible that SD-31 (Segura vs Perry) might actually finish strictly to the right of the tipping point seat.

Agreed. This makes it look like SD-24 will vote left of SD-31 and be decisive (if R's hold SD-16, they have almost surely already flipped the chamber).  That would fit with the dynamic of people who are neither white nor black shifting R while college towns shift left (SD-24 has one of the larger public colleges in it).  There are some Loudoun-specific issues that are probably hurting Dems right now, too.

Also looks like Dems have just given up on SD-17 despite the substantial Biden margin there.

It's crazy to me how the drama in Loudoun just never ends. When I moved to Virginia in January my impression was that the Loudoun stuff was just one particular set of incidents in fall of 2021... no, it just keeps building on itself, and now there's the Ghana crap too. Some day the sun will rise in the west and Loudoun will no longer be the laughingstock of northern Virginia.

There's some social scientist who wrote up a big paper or study about how politics focuses increasingly more on cultural nonsense and less on bread and butter issues as prosperity increases. I suppose it's no surprise that Loudoun, the richest county in America by a country mile (regardless of how strenuously they'll protest that they're "middle class") is sort of an epitome of that unfortunate tendency.

[Skill and Chance]

It's possible that SD-31 (Segura vs Perry) might actually finish strictly to the right of the tipping point seat.

Agreed. This makes it look like SD-24 will vote left of SD-31 and be decisive (if R's hold SD-16, they have almost surely already flipped the chamber).  That would fit with the dynamic of people who are neither white nor black shifting R while college towns shift left (SD-24 has one of the larger public colleges in it).  There are some Loudoun-specific issues that are probably hurting Dems right now, too.

Also looks like Dems have just given up on SD-17 despite the substantial Biden margin there.

It's crazy to me how the drama in Loudoun just never ends. When I moved to Virginia in January my impression was that the Loudoun stuff was just one particular set of incidents in fall of 2021... no, it just keeps building on itself, and now there's the Ghana crap too. Some day the sun will rise in the west and Loudoun will no longer be the laughingstock of northern Virginia.

There's some social scientist who wrote up a big paper or study about how politics focuses increasingly more on cultural nonsense and less on bread and butter issues as prosperity increases. I suppose it's no surprise that Loudoun, the richest county in America by a country mile (regardless of how strenuously they'll protest that they're "middle class") is sort of an epitome of that unfortunate tendency.

They aren't middle class, but they aren't the ruling elite either.  They are the wealthiest county because the majority of households make >$100K, but they generally work for the government and government contractors, so the ceiling is surprisingly low.  They lag wealthy suburbs of other coastal metros in share of households making >$1M.  However, in those areas, the counties are larger or more densely populated, e.g. there's probably 100K people in households making >$1M in Manhattan, but the total population of 1.6M includes plenty of poor and truly middle class people.

[Ferguson97]

This is not going to hurt her in a post-Me Too era. Republicans are just going to look like assholes for leaking the images.

Isn’t it also, ya know, illegal. I feel like this falls under revenge porn.

No, because she posted those videos on a public website.

I don't think that matters.

Virginia law defines revenge porn as:

A. Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever that depicts another person who is totally nude, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

[lfromnj]

The Daily Mail’s and Red State reporter Jennifer Van Laar’s news gathering and publication of images depicting a nude Hill brushing another woman’s hair and holding a bong are protected by the 1st Amendment, and the content of the pictures was in the public interest because of Hill’s position as an elected official, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yolanda Orozco wrote in decisions that dismissed Hill’s cases against both.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-04-07/katie-hill-daily-mail-pictures-revenge-porn

[DaleCooper]

This is not going to hurt her in a post-Me Too era. Republicans are just going to look like assholes for leaking the images.

Isn’t it also, ya know, illegal. I feel like this falls under revenge porn.

No, because she posted those videos on a public website.

I don't think that matters.

Virginia law defines revenge porn as:

A. Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever that depicts another person who is totally nude, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

This law almost certainly violates the First Amendment.

[Ferguson97]

This law almost certainly violates the First Amendment.

Nonsensical claim.

[DaleCooper]

This law almost certainly violates the First Amendment.

Nonsensical claim.

Not nonsensical at all. For one, it makes no distinction between nudity and pornography. It also broadly criminalizes videos or images "created by any means whatsoever," which makes no distinction between stolen footage or illegal voyeuristic footage and embarrassing footage that is already out there or that exists but is not pornographic in any way. It also makes no distinction between private citizens and public figures. I don't understand the part about being "licensed or authorized to disseminate" but that seems questionable too. I doubt that even the most prudish Supreme Court would tolerate this law.

I guess the "intent to intimidate" is what arguably makes it justifiable, but that still seems dubious when it comes to public figures.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

This law almost certainly violates the First Amendment.

Nonsensical claim.

Not nonsensical at all. For one, it makes no distinction between nudity and pornography. It also broadly criminalizes videos or images "created by any means whatsoever," which makes no distinction between stolen footage or illegal voyeuristic footage and embarrassing footage that is already out there or that exists but is not pornographic in any way. It also makes no distinction between private citizens and public figures. I don't understand the part about being "licensed or authorized to disseminate" but that seems questionable too. I doubt that even the most prudish Supreme Court would tolerate this law.

I guess the "intent to intimidate" is what arguably makes it justifiable, but that still seems dubious when it comes to public figures.

1) why the heck should there be a distinction between public figures or not.

2) it doesn’t broadly criminalize at all. Only those “with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates”. If you’re a pornstar or running an only fans this doesn’t apply to you. Porn is still legal in Virginia

[DaleCooper]

This law almost certainly violates the First Amendment.

Nonsensical claim.

Not nonsensical at all. For one, it makes no distinction between nudity and pornography. It also broadly criminalizes videos or images "created by any means whatsoever," which makes no distinction between stolen footage or illegal voyeuristic footage and embarrassing footage that is already out there or that exists but is not pornographic in any way. It also makes no distinction between private citizens and public figures. I don't understand the part about being "licensed or authorized to disseminate" but that seems questionable too. I doubt that even the most prudish Supreme Court would tolerate this law.

I guess the "intent to intimidate" is what arguably makes it justifiable, but that still seems dubious when it comes to public figures.

1) why the heck should there be a distinction between public figures or not.

2) it doesn’t broadly criminalize at all. Only those “with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates”. If you’re a pornstar or running an only fans this doesn’t apply to you. Porn is still legal in Virginia

Let's say there is a political candidate that chose to pose for nude photos and then distribute them. Is it malicious (and therefore illegal) for someone to disseminate those and say that voters should vote against that candidate? Even when not talking about public figures, I don't think the entirety of this law would hold up. If a private citizen is the subject of a bunch of naked photos that were legally shared with the public, is it then illegal for some asshole on the internet to re-post it and make fun of their appearance or something? I don't know, it seems dubious.

[Person Man]

Dem candidate in a competitive ... Rich District North of Richmond made and posted public sex tapes. In a closely divided district like this one, anything could matter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/11/susanna-gibson-sex-website-virginia-candidate/

who cares what she does in the privacy of her own home?

She has a good marriage annd she is proud of her marriage and that’s bad?

I mean think about it. Why is someone running on trying to make someone’s medical and sexual behavior a part of the role of government when they publicly disseminated the sexual behavior of their opponent, who is a woman, working on her marriage? This is some spectral sh**t.


If this ends up working, nothing’s off limits. My counterpunch to this would be an AI deepfake if this creep banging a sheep to be honest. Seriously. Whoever is changing their vote because of this is a goddamn pig!

And guys wonder why they can’t get laid.

[Skill and Chance]

Dem candidate in a competitive ... Rich District North of Richmond made and posted public sex tapes. In a closely divided district like this one, anything could matter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/11/susanna-gibson-sex-website-virginia-candidate/

who cares what she does in the privacy of her own home?

She has a good marriage annd she is proud of her marriage and that’s bad?

I mean think about it. Why is someone running on trying to make someone’s medical and sexual behavior a part of the role of government when they publicly disseminated the sexual behavior of their opponent, who is a woman, working on her marriage? This is some spectral sh**t.


If this ends up working, nothing’s off limits. My counterpunch to this would be an AI deepfake if this creep banging a sheep to be honest. Seriously. Whoever is changing their vote because of this is a goddamn pig!

And guys wonder why they can’t get laid.

The fundamental question here is are there a significant number of people in this district (and perhaps statewide) who 1. believe any public discussion of sex (perhaps particularly by a woman) is inappropriate and disqualifying for a leadership position and 2. are otherwise open to voting Dem

I don't know?  This seems high risk/high reward.  It isn't about the "20th century was a mistake" people.  They were never voting for her or any modern Dem to begin with.  It probably does give this district to the R's because of an instinctual "ewww, that's gross" reaction among "proper" suburban types who are voting Dem in part because they similarly grossed out by Trump's sexual exploits, but it also risks sending a bunch of social libertarians over to the Dems statewide and/or generating near presidential level turnout from young single women. 

IMO making the whole election about gender issues = a statewide R loss in VA, but we will see.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

The cope in this thread is lol, it reminds me of Nc Senate 2020. This will obviously hurt democrats.

[Person Man]

Dem candidate in a competitive ... Rich District North of Richmond made and posted public sex tapes. In a closely divided district like this one, anything could matter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/11/susanna-gibson-sex-website-virginia-candidate/

who cares what she does in the privacy of her own home?

She has a good marriage annd she is proud of her marriage and that’s bad?

I mean think about it. Why is someone running on trying to make someone’s medical and sexual behavior a part of the role of government when they publicly disseminated the sexual behavior of their opponent, who is a woman, working on her marriage? This is some spectral sh**t.


If this ends up working, nothing’s off limits. My counterpunch to this would be an AI deepfake if this creep banging a sheep to be honest. Seriously. Whoever is changing their vote because of this is a goddamn pig!

And guys wonder why they can’t get laid.

The fundamental question here is are there a significant number of people in this district (and perhaps statewide) who 1. believe any public discussion of sex (perhaps particularly by a woman) is inappropriate and disqualifying for a leadership position and 2. are otherwise open to voting Dem

I don't know?  This seems high risk/high reward.  It isn't about the "20th century was a mistake" people.  They were never voting for her or any modern Dem to begin with.  It probably does give this district to the R's because of an instinctual "ewww, that's gross" reaction among "proper" suburban types who are voting Dem in part because they similarly grossed out by Trump's sexual exploits, but it also risks sending a bunch of social libertarians over to the Dems statewide and/or generating near presidential level turnout from young single women. 

IMO making the whole election about gender issues = a statewide R loss in VA, but we will see.

I can buy that. This is what something like this does.

[Skill and Chance]

The cope in this thread is lol, it reminds me of Nc Senate 2020. This will obviously hurt democrats.

As someone who thinks Trump is going to win the 2024 election, I'm not convinced this is a net harm to VA Democrats.  College+ women really seem to run the show in off-year elections nowadays. 

[lfromnj]

Gibson reportedly violated Chaturbate’s terms and conditions by soliciting tips in order to perform specific sex acts and could be seen on video telling viewers that she was raising money for a "good cause."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/virginia-democrat-candidate-posted-sex-acts-husband-online-soliciting-tips-report

She made these videos after announcing her campaign. I think if you really wanted to attack on this issue I would go down this angle that she was attempting to fundraise for her campaign by doing this. Not illegal but still lol.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The cope in this thread is lol, it reminds me of Nc Senate 2020. This will obviously hurt democrats.

Umm, that was a guy cheating on his wife.
Literally the exact opposite of what happened here.

[GALeftist]

Gibson reportedly violated Chaturbate’s terms and conditions by soliciting tips in order to perform specific sex acts and could be seen on video telling viewers that she was raising money for a "good cause."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/virginia-democrat-candidate-posted-sex-acts-husband-online-soliciting-tips-report

She made these videos after announcing her campaign. I think if you really wanted to attack on this issue I would go down this angle that she was attempting to fundraise for her campaign by doing this. Not illegal but still lol.

The point about violating Chaturbate's terms and conditions is obviously asinine though. The terms and conditions prevent chatters from requesting acts in exchange for tips, not performers from requesting tips in exchange for acts; that's, like, the whole business model.

Anyway, who cares. Women can have hobbies.

[Vosem]

My guess is that it hurts for the same reason it hurt Katie Hill in 2019, which is that it makes her look unprofessional. It's obviously not revenge porn if she posted it herself, and the complaints that people who paid to see it were defrauded into political donations are asinine (what, if I buy something at a business, does that mean I endorse every political stance that business takes, and every candidate that business endorses? of course not).

(The Hill thing was pre-Dobbs. But it also hurt a lot: it caused a Republican to win a Clinton+6, Biden+10 seat by 10 points in a special where she wasn't even a candidate, and really the whole "Democrats overperform in specials" has pretty consistently been a thing since January 2017 or so. It's hard to see just because that particular special had such an insane result.)

[Ferguson97]

My guess is that it hurts for the same reason it hurt Katie Hill in 2019, which is that it makes her look unprofessional.

What? The problem with Katie Hill was that she was involved with a subordinate. Not the same thing at all.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

My guess is that it hurts for the same reason it hurt Katie Hill in 2019, which is that it makes her look unprofessional.

What? The problem with Katie Hill was that she was involved with a subordinate. Not the same thing at all.

You assume the voters see things the way you do and are able to carefully think through situations.

[Landslide Lyndon]

My guess is that it hurts for the same reason it hurt Katie Hill in 2019, which is that it makes her look unprofessional.

What? The problem with Katie Hill was that she was involved with a subordinate. Not the same thing at all.

You assume the voters see things the way you do and are able to carefully think through situations.

I have a hard time believing that even the stupidest voter can't tell the difference between having sex with somebody who is your husband and having sex with somebody who is not.

[Senator Incitatus]

I think some of the cope in this thread is hilarious, but I also agree that it's more effective to attack Gibson in a more precise, reserved way, e.g., any statements to the public which would have been misleading or fraudulent about sources of income. The campaign contributions bit is an effective line even if untrue or tenuous because it introduces the issue without being ribald.

Don't get me wrong—the scorched earth approach would be accurate, but some voters will be turned off by the vulgar truth of the matter. Leave the jokes and foul language to talk radio hosts and comedians.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

A lot of this boils down to are people comfortable with a woman expressing her sexuality. For a lot of people in this thread comparing a consensual act in a heterosexual marriage to a man cheating on his wife or a woman sleeping with her subordinate the answer seems to be no.

[Person Man]

A lot of this boils down to are people comfortable with a woman expressing her sexuality. For a lot of people in this thread comparing a consensual act in a heterosexual marriage to a man cheating on his wife or a woman sleeping with her subordinate the answer seems to be no.

Like I said, how this goes down will say more about the voters than the woman herself.