Virginia Mega Thread: The Youngkin Administration

[tjstarling]

Do we buy this?

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1391777855474999298?s=20

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1391781567119364098?s=20

I'm kind of torn on this. On one hand, NoVA has become a hell of a mountain to overcome, and the shifts in Richmond and Hampton Roads haven't helped. McAuliffe is also very much a known quantity.

But Youngkin seems likely to be the nominee, and I feel like he could have some upset potential. Plus if Republicans were able to win in Maryland, Virginia should be hypothetically within reach.

If any of the other Dems had been the nominee (although I guess the dem nominee is still tbd), I’d agree that the potential for an upset was there. McAuliffe could still conceivably put his foot in his mouth I guess.

I’m more interested in turnout dynamics. I suspect we might see quite the drop off in dem turnout which might make this race closer than the underlying dynamics in the state would suggest. Curious what tea leaves we can read from the dem primary turnout in June.

[tjstarling]

We may be getting a poll from PPP soon (unknown if the poll is intended for public release or private use only). Just got a text from PPP asking to participate in their poll. No general election polling. Most of the specific questions pertained to the Dem AG race. They did ask about Dem gov primary. No questions on Dem Lt. Gov primary.

[tjstarling]

Sucks that T-Mac is going to run away with this nomination because JCF seems like one of the best gubernatorial candidates anywhere. She could've been a real model for black women to win statewide in 2022 (Abrams, Beasley, etc.) but old white men just can't give up their power.

This is silly and infuriating logic. I received a flier from the McClellan folks which basically focused on “vote for me because I’d be the first black woman governor”. That would be a wonderful personal accomplishment for her and would undoubtedly be historic, but why on earth should that motivate me to vote for a person who should be emphasizing how they are going to RUN my state competently. Government shouldn’t be about giving someone a position because they meet a fun ideological or racial quota (and it is particularly insulting to say “oh, just give it to the black folks” when minority candidates have much to offer voters beyond their race). So, no, a white man who demonstrated competent governance during his tenure and (as far as I know) never asked any of the other candidates to “give” him the nomination since he’s done the job before shouldn’t stand aside anymore than JCF or McClellan or even Fairfax should have stood aside for him.

[tjstarling]

Sucks that T-Mac is going to run away with this nomination because JCF seems like one of the best gubernatorial candidates anywhere. She could've been a real model for black women to win statewide in 2022 (Abrams, Beasley, etc.) but old white men just can't give up their power.

The election is free and fair one.  Turnout will be very ordinary.  It's up to the candidate to win, not have something "given" to them.

Yes, surely Terry McAuliffe, a former Governor and chair of the DNC, has no inherent advantage over a former state delegate at all for any reason.

Sucks that T-Mac is going to run away with this nomination because JCF seems like one of the best gubernatorial candidates anywhere. She could've been a real model for black women to win statewide in 2022 (Abrams, Beasley, etc.) but old white men just can't give up their power.

This is silly and infuriating logic. I received a flier from the McClellan folks which basically focused on “vote for me because I’d be the first black woman governor”. That would be a wonderful personal accomplishment for her and would undoubtedly be historic, but why on earth should that motivate me to vote for a person who should be emphasizing how they are going to RUN my state competently. Government shouldn’t be about giving someone a position because they meet a fun ideological or racial quota (and it is particularly insulting to say “oh, just give it to the black folks” when minority candidates have much to offer voters beyond their race). So, no, a white man who demonstrated competent governance during his tenure and (as far as I know) never asked any of the other candidates to “give” him the nomination since he’s done the job before shouldn’t stand aside anymore than JCF or McClellan or even Fairfax should have stood aside for him.

Yes, it is entirely a coincidence that no black woman has ever served as Governor of any state. There simply has just never been a competent enough black woman to run and they lost simply on merit and no other factors. And the shortage of black women in politics in general is the same situation. And there is no unique perspective that a black woman could offer beyond a white man whose previous jobs include, as I mentioned, serving as Governor of a state, chairing the DNC, and making millions in banking, real estate, and venture capital. Oh, and being super good friends with a former President and First Lady/Secretary of State.

JCF will lose because she didn't prove to people that she's competent. That's it.

No one said she wasn’t competent or that minority candidates don’t face obstacles that white candidates don’t have to overcome - they absolutely do. The discussion is whether or not one candidate should just step aside for another. You list the things McAuliffe has done over the years (which your tone seems to indicate that you don’t seem to think too highly of) and maybe you should reflect on the fact that this may be the reason he’s an attractive candidate to many people (including, if I had to guess, black woman) and likely to run away with the nomination as opposed to any “unique” perspective or experience JCF may or may not offer.

[tjstarling]

Genuine question:

will the democrats have single election this year or early next that doesn't contain at least SOME good news for them?

Besides the texas jungle they got locked out of, they have done well in both margin and turnout everywhere.

Hopefully if congress is 100% stagnant for the next year, that could damper things, but I am sick and tired of y'all being able to hang your hat on something.

lol

It's just bizarre. Barack Obama was on another planet than biden when it came to excitement and enthusiasm, and even he couldn't help what was a putrid 2009 and 2010 for democrats.

It has to end sometime, doesn't it? This endless string of good election news for them?

I personally don’t think it will be enough to save them from have a not very good midterm, but I get the genuine impression that the Obama years and subsequent Trump presidency taught many Dem voters a lesson - that it does matter that a GOP with little interest in anything but power, demagoguery, and obstruction should be stopped. I really think McConnell’s Supreme Court antics were a tangible illustration of the extent to which the GOP will use its power that even lower-propensity voting Dems could fully appreciate the stakes. I think Dems finally appreciate the full extent of what GOP control means - hence the GA runoff results which defied traditional runoff performance for Ds. The changing nature of the Dem electorate is certainly playing a role as well. Make no mistake though, the GOP will get their voters out by employing the tactics they often use as well.

[tjstarling]

Genuine question:

will the democrats have single election this year or early next that doesn't contain at least SOME good news for them?

Besides the texas jungle they got locked out of, they have done well in both margin and turnout everywhere.

Hopefully if congress is 100% stagnant for the next year, that could damper things, but I am sick and tired of y'all being able to hang your hat on something.

lol

It's just bizarre. Barack Obama was on another planet than biden when it came to excitement and enthusiasm, and even he couldn't help what was a putrid 2009 and 2010 for democrats.

It has to end sometime, doesn't it? This endless string of good election news for them?

I personally don’t think it will be enough to save them from have a not very good midterm, but I get the genuine impression that the Obama years and subsequent Trump presidency taught many Dem voters a lesson - that it does matter that a GOP with little interest in anything but power, demagoguery, and obstruction should be stopped. I really think McConnell’s Supreme Court antics were a tangible illustration of the extent to which the GOP will use its power that even lower-propensity voting Dems could fully appreciate the stakes. I think Dems finally appreciate the full extent of what GOP control means - hence the GA runoff results which defied traditional runoff performance for Ds. The changing nature of the Dem electorate is certainly playing a role as well. Make no mistake though, the GOP will get their voters out by employing the tactics they often use as well.

This is what is so puzzling though. The bush years, complete with the horrible war, crashed economy, gay marriage bans, etc, didn't keep dems motivated at all past the 2008 election. Once Obama won, there was a easily observable crash in dem interest in elections and turnout.

I think a number of things happened in the Obama years. First, the bottom fell out of the old Democratic coalition - this likely would have been, overall, unavoidable and was accelerated by cultural and racial anxiety towards Obama. Second, 08 was the first presidential election I could vote in even though I had followed elections and campaigning long before that race. I was in college at the time and remember the excitement many people felt (particularly younger people) towards the “hope and change” promises. Since I was a follower of politics and elections I never bought it (and have become even more jaded since that time which is why I really never bought the sh*t Sanders was selling in his runs), but many people did and were subsequently let down when big, structural changes failed to materialize. They didn’t vote. And Trump subsequently upped the ante in a way that democrats really could appreciate how unstable having the opposition control even one branch of government could be.

The thing is most voters are either dumb or pay very little attention or both. Ideology is so unimportant to most people. A Dem voter for instance is probably supportive of the intricacies Equality Act for example. But 90% couldn’t explain what’s in it or what it does or how it would impact them if at all. So they hear that the GOP filibusters the equality act and they sort of shrug their shoulders. It’s not tangible. But when they hear the GOP filibuster something with a lot of salience like a Supreme Court pick or a jobs/infrastructure package, that is more tangible and accessible. The voter gets the stakes there.