2025 VA Governor's race

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not like Sears' interruptions at all. But, Spanberger comes across as the ice maiden.

I too would rather have a raving wack job as my Governor vs. a boring lady.

You know, this is a really good point.

I remember watching the Republican debates for president in 2016. There were 17 candidates on stage, including heavy weights like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie - but only one person was riveting -- and it was Donald Trump. And some of the things he was saying sounded crazy, but he beat them all, and then went on to beat Hilary. So I think you're on to something

I had a friend who had worked for Dept of State all over the world for many years. I couldn't stand Trump. She said that when she saw those 16 people on the stage, she knew that he is the only person on that stage that could beat Hillary. (She did NOT like Hillary at all.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very odd. I don't hear any Republicans speaking up for Sears. It's almost like they don't support her...

Um - are you joking?

All of the Republican base is 100% behind Winsome Sears, and want her to be our next governor. All of us.

[Anonymous]

Sears is a total whacko. She acted nuts during her debate with Spanberger. She is not governor material.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very odd. I don't hear any Republicans speaking up for Sears. It's almost like they don't support her...

Um - are you joking?

All of the Republican base is 100% behind Winsome Sears, and want her to be our next governor. All of us.

They are being very quiet about it. No signs. No social media posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not like Sears' interruptions at all. But, Spanberger comes across as the ice maiden.

I too would rather have a raving wack job as my Governor vs. a boring lady.

You know, this is a really good point.

I remember watching the Republican debates for president in 2016. There were 17 candidates on stage, including heavy weights like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie - but only one person was riveting -- and it was Donald Trump. And some of the things he was saying sounded crazy, but he beat them all, and then went on to beat Hilary. So I think you're on to something

A significant portion of our population is dumb AF. They got sucked into the cult.

Many horrible people have charisma, including the orange pile of dog sht.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not like Sears' interruptions at all. But, Spanberger comes across as the ice maiden.

I too would rather have a raving wack job as my Governor vs. a boring lady.

You know, this is a really good point.

I remember watching the Republican debates for president in 2016. There were 17 candidates on stage, including heavy weights like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie - but only one person was riveting -- and it was Donald Trump. And some of the things he was saying sounded crazy, but he beat them all, and then went on to beat Hilary. So I think you're on to something

A significant portion of our population is dumb AF. They got sucked into the cult.

Many horrible people have charisma, including the orange pile of dog sht.

One of my favorite quotes:

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
― George Carlin

Spanberger did fine. Earle-Sears came off poorly with the constant interruptions, hyperbole and nonsense. She changed no votes last night, and likely only mobilized a few voters on her side that might have sat out. Spanberger maybe wins by one or two less points because of it (so by 8 rather than 10).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not like Sears' interruptions at all. But, Spanberger comes across as the ice maiden.

I too would rather have a raving wack job as my Governor vs. a boring lady.

You know, this is a really good point.

I remember watching the Republican debates for president in 2016. There were 17 candidates on stage, including heavy weights like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie - but only one person was riveting -- and it was Donald Trump. And some of the things he was saying sounded crazy, but he beat them all, and then went on to beat Hilary. So I think you're on to something

A significant portion of our population is dumb AF. They got sucked into the cult.

Many horrible people have charisma, including the orange pile of dog sht.

One of my favorite quotes:

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
― George Carlin

Spanberger did fine. Earle-Sears came off poorly with the constant interruptions, hyperbole and nonsense. She changed no votes last night, and likely only mobilized a few voters on her side that might have sat out. Spanberger maybe wins by one or two less points because of it (so by 8 rather than 10).

I'm sure that's what MCAuliffe and his supporters thought too.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not like Sears' interruptions at all. But, Spanberger comes across as the ice maiden.

I too would rather have a raving wack job as my Governor vs. a boring lady.

You know, this is a really good point.

I remember watching the Republican debates for president in 2016. There were 17 candidates on stage, including heavy weights like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie - but only one person was riveting -- and it was Donald Trump. And some of the things he was saying sounded crazy, but he beat them all, and then went on to beat Hilary. So I think you're on to something

A significant portion of our population is dumb AF. They got sucked into the cult.

Many horrible people have charisma, including the orange pile of dog sht.

One of my favorite quotes:

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
― George Carlin

Spanberger did fine. Earle-Sears came off poorly with the constant interruptions, hyperbole and nonsense. She changed no votes last night, and likely only mobilized a few voters on her side that might have sat out. Spanberger maybe wins by one or two less points because of it (so by 8 rather than 10).

I'm sure that's what MCAuliffe and his supporters thought too.

Except the polls at one month out were significantly different. Youngkin was actually up by small amount, though there were some that put McAuliffe up, but they were all within about 1 pt and well within the margin of error, unlike the Spanberger/Earle-Sears polls. Further Youngkin was a much better campaigner than Earle-Sears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not like Sears' interruptions at all. But, Spanberger comes across as the ice maiden.

I too would rather have a raving wack job as my Governor vs. a boring lady.

You know, this is a really good point.

I remember watching the Republican debates for president in 2016. There were 17 candidates on stage, including heavy weights like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie - but only one person was riveting -- and it was Donald Trump. And some of the things he was saying sounded crazy, but he beat them all, and then went on to beat Hilary. So I think you're on to something

A significant portion of our population is dumb AF. They got sucked into the cult.

Many horrible people have charisma, including the orange pile of dog sht.

One of my favorite quotes:

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
― George Carlin

Spanberger did fine. Earle-Sears came off poorly with the constant interruptions, hyperbole and nonsense. She changed no votes last night, and likely only mobilized a few voters on her side that might have sat out. Spanberger maybe wins by one or two less points because of it (so by 8 rather than 10).

I'm sure that's what MCAuliffe and his supporters thought too.

Except the polls at one month out were significantly different. Youngkin was actually up by small amount, though there were some that put McAuliffe up, but they were all within about 1 pt and well within the margin of error, unlike the Spanberger/Earle-Sears polls. Further Youngkin was a much better campaigner than Earle-Sears.

And Biden had just won the presidency and usually the midterms right after a presidential election favor the party out of power. And there was a lot of lingering COVID resentment and angst around school/public mask and COVID policies, which were very “2021” issues which obviously don’t exist now. And Youngkin was polling better than Sears at this point in time as well.

I wouldn’t be surprised if something wacky happened with the Lt. Gov and AG races though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not like Sears' interruptions at all. But, Spanberger comes across as the ice maiden.

I too would rather have a raving wack job as my Governor vs. a boring lady.

You know, this is a really good point.

I remember watching the Republican debates for president in 2016. There were 17 candidates on stage, including heavy weights like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie - but only one person was riveting -- and it was Donald Trump. And some of the things he was saying sounded crazy, but he beat them all, and then went on to beat Hilary. So I think you're on to something

A significant portion of our population is dumb AF. They got sucked into the cult.

Many horrible people have charisma, including the orange pile of dog sht.

One of my favorite quotes:

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
― George Carlin

Spanberger did fine. Earle-Sears came off poorly with the constant interruptions, hyperbole and nonsense. She changed no votes last night, and likely only mobilized a few voters on her side that might have sat out. Spanberger maybe wins by one or two less points because of it (so by 8 rather than 10).

I'm sure that's what MCAuliffe and his supporters thought too.

Except the polls at one month out were significantly different. Youngkin was actually up by small amount, though there were some that put McAuliffe up, but they were all within about 1 pt and well within the margin of error, unlike the Spanberger/Earle-Sears polls. Further Youngkin was a much better campaigner than Earle-Sears.

Even on DCUM there was a lot more buzz about Youngkin. Sears just has a few nut jobs here trolling with lies and misinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not like Sears' interruptions at all. But, Spanberger comes across as the ice maiden.

I too would rather have a raving wack job as my Governor vs. a boring lady.

You know, this is a really good point.

I remember watching the Republican debates for president in 2016. There were 17 candidates on stage, including heavy weights like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie - but only one person was riveting -- and it was Donald Trump. And some of the things he was saying sounded crazy, but he beat them all, and then went on to beat Hilary. So I think you're on to something

A significant portion of our population is dumb AF. They got sucked into the cult.

Many horrible people have charisma, including the orange pile of dog sht.

One of my favorite quotes:

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
― George Carlin

Spanberger did fine. Earle-Sears came off poorly with the constant interruptions, hyperbole and nonsense. She changed no votes last night, and likely only mobilized a few voters on her side that might have sat out. Spanberger maybe wins by one or two less points because of it (so by 8 rather than 10).

It is a scary thought.

[Anonymous]

Sears did fine. She wasn't unhinged, she was frustrated that Spanberger didn't answer questions which is the purpose of the debate. All I heard from Spanberger was a bunch of word salad and evasive tactics not to answer the questions. Maybe Sears didn't show the diplomacy of being patient and cut her off several times but at least she was trying to press Spanberger to answer questions that I certainly wanted answers to as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sears did fine. She wasn't unhinged, she was frustrated that Spanberger didn't answer questions which is the purpose of the debate. All I heard from Spanberger was a bunch of word salad and evasive tactics not to answer the questions. Maybe Sears didn't show the diplomacy of being patient and cut her off several times but at least she was trying to press Spanberger to answer questions that I certainly wanted answers to as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not like Sears' interruptions at all. But, Spanberger comes across as the ice maiden.

I too would rather have a raving wack job as my Governor vs. a boring lady.

You know, this is a really good point.

I remember watching the Republican debates for president in 2016. There were 17 candidates on stage, including heavy weights like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie - but only one person was riveting -- and it was Donald Trump. And some of the things he was saying sounded crazy, but he beat them all, and then went on to beat Hilary. So I think you're on to something

A significant portion of our population is dumb AF. They got sucked into the cult.

Many horrible people have charisma, including the orange pile of dog sht.

One of my favorite quotes:

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
― George Carlin

Spanberger did fine. Earle-Sears came off poorly with the constant interruptions, hyperbole and nonsense. She changed no votes last night, and likely only mobilized a few voters on her side that might have sat out. Spanberger maybe wins by one or two less points because of it (so by 8 rather than 10).

Funny how no one, including you, thinks that they’re on the left side of the bell curve.

I very well could be (made no claim to be otherwise), but I'm surely smart enough to know I'm not on the pointy end of either side.

Back on topic, though, I've seen a lot of folk complaining about Spanberger's answers and claiming they were non-answers. Just because one doesn't like an answer doesn't mean it's a "non-answer" or "word salad." She answered nearly every question. On Jay Jones, she implicitly said she wasn't removing her endorsement (it's up to the people to decide), she explicitly condemned the texts. She didn't choose him, he's voted on separately, etc. It may be "threading the needle" or nuancing or triangulating, but it was an answer. On transgender issues she said it should be up to the local communities. That used to be a big deal to the conservatives, remember States' Rights, 10th Amendment and "the government closest to the people serves the people best"? And make no mistake, Spanberger is fairly conservative for a Democrat (but not conservative enough for the current Freedom Caucus style Republican party). She talked about a policy she supported of Youngkin's (nuclear initiative), etc., etc.

Again, just because one doesn't like an answer or it isn't an enthusiastic "Yes" or explicit "No" doesn't make it a non-answer.