Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Who's more likely at fault for the loss in Virginia and overall bad results for the Democrats?


ConservativeElector2

Who's more likely at fault for the loss in Virginia?  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. Who's more likely at fault?

    • Progressives
    • Moderates
    • Both equally
    • Others (please name them)


Recommended Posts

I really think it's three things:

1. Biden's approval and Northam's approval. 

2. COVID economic issues, supply chain, etc. 

3. Bad campaign strategy. For instance, relying too heavily on turnout in Northern Virginia and not sending the starts to more centrist areas. 

McAuliffe left office relatively popular, so it wasn't him. Another major factor is that Youngkin played it smart and distanced himself from Trump just enough to not offend Trump supporters. He was clearly not wanting to be associated with him. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

I find the, "ideological bloc blame game," tenor of this poll to be highly distorted and sensationalist. Completely out-of-touch with reality, in fact. 

Just asked the content of news articles I've read. They are largely about this ongoing blame game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with @vcczar's #2.  Anger about masks and covid vaccine mandates are key, along with supply chain issues and the false perception that "Nobody wants to work."  (In truth, I don't know a single person who is unemployed, though I do know many that left bad jobs for better jobs including myself).  

I'd add that from what I hear, the Republican winner skillfully played both sides of the MAGA and Never Trump groups.  Quietly getting Trump's endorsement and portraying himself as Trump's successor in the primary and then never mentioning Trump or the endorsement in the general, presenting himself as somebody who didn't want to be tied to him after tying himself to him.  That worked, and it's probably the model for other Republcians to follow in future races.  MAGA groups will be well aware of the endorsement, while Republicans who don't like Trump will be less aware and perceive him as a fellow Never Trump Republican.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, vcczar said:

I really think it's three things:

1. Biden's approval and Northam's approval. 

2. COVID economic issues, supply chain, etc. 

3. Bad campaign strategy. For instance, relying too heavily on turnout in Northern Virginia and not sending the starts to more centrist areas. 

McAuliffe left office relatively popular, so it wasn't him. Another major factor is that Youngkin played it smart and distanced himself from Trump just enough to not offend Trump supporters. He was clearly not wanting to be associated with him. 

You forgot one big one. Telling parents that they don't have a right to have a say in the kids' education.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

You forgot one big one. Telling parents that they don't have a right to have a say in the kids' education.

I think that quote might be overblown. I heard it the day it was made and then it rarely appeared again on Virginia election news coverage. Only times I really heard it come up is in the 270Soft message board. I'm not saying it didn't have an effect, but I don't think it was a top factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, vcczar said:

I think that quote might be overblown. I heard it the day it was made and then it rarely appeared again on Virginia election news coverage. Only times I really heard it come up is in the 270Soft message board. I'm not saying it didn't have an effect, but I don't think it was a top factor.

From my communications with people who were focusing campaign efforts on the suburban areas, that was a big factor in those areas shifting back towards Youngkin and down ballot Republicans. The grassroots really focused on that (along with the broader CRT issue which that comment came from).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

From my communications with people who were focusing campaign efforts on the suburban areas, that was a big factor in those areas shifting back towards Youngkin and down ballot Republicans. The grassroots really focused on that (along with the broader CRT issue which that comment came from).

So you're of the opinion McAuliffe would have won if he hadn't had said that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, vcczar said:

So you're of the opinion McAuliffe would have won if he hadn't had said that?

It was that comment in relation to the broader issue of CRT that he was addressing. If that wasn't present, it would have been more difficult for Youngkin to win. That issue (which was exacerbated by the comment) was definitely one of the key factors in the race in addition to the others you mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

It was that comment in relation to the broader issue of CRT that he was addressing. If that wasn't present, it would have been more difficult for Youngkin to win. That issue (which was exacerbated by the comment) was definitely one of the key factors in the race in addition to the others you mentioned.

Then it might be better to argue that CRT was a major reason for McAuliffe's defeat, rather than the comment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump was the best that could have happened to the media. Who cares about press conferences by Biden, Obama and others? Trump always works for "good" headlines and people held their breath during press conferences because they weren't sure about him pressing the nuclear button next...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

You forgot one big one. Telling parents that they don't have a right to have a say in the kids' education.

I'm fine with parents having a say in their kids' education.

The problem is that at public schools, they're trying to have a say in "my" child's education.  In that case, those parents can kindly fuck off.

  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for bringing back the fairness doctrine. It's not authoritarian to tell national news media to simply report fairly. You can be opinionated. Just be fair. 

You have opinion peices.  You have factual pieces.

I think itd be a good thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Patine said:

What do you think of my statement about the media's irresponsible role in this - and other - electoral affairs of late?

Hard to say.  Are they helping?  Surely not.  Are they the chief instigators?  I don't think so.

Part of it is simply the reality that news is a business, and a business needs profit.  When there were only three tv stations, the surest way to make a profit was to have the broadest appeal -- stay in the middle, stay neutral, just the facts, etc.  No editorializing.  That's the era most of us long to return to, for the news industry.

However, the world is simply different now.  There's thousands and thousands of tv channels vieing for viewership eyeballs...and that's before we even get into streaming, or video games, or cell phones, or all the other places those eyeballs can go instead.  The market has become extremely fragmented -- and now the profitable path is NOT to have broad appeal.  Now, if you want viewers, you have to confirm what your audience already believes.  You have to rile people up, you have to create controversy, you have to present a stuffy Presidential debate like it's a literal boxing match.  

Do you also have to tell the truth?

Ideally, sure.  But what is truth?  "The such and such law passed in the Senate today" is boring as hell.  Your customers aren't tuning in for that.  But make it "The Democrats scored a major victory today!" or "Three Republicans voted for this bill, what does that mean for Trump's chances in 2024?" or "AOC sneezed in Joe Biden's general direction today, dissention in the ranks!" -- that kind of political commentary is much more interesting, and thus gets people to tune in, and as for truth...well, it's their opinion that it is true, so...

Understand I'm not suggesting any of this is a positive development.  It's not.

But it is the business adjusting to the fact that there's thousands of competitors now instead of just two.

Unless we're going to rewind back to only having three TV stations, I think this new system is here to stay.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2021 at 1:35 PM, vcczar said:

Then it might be better to argue that CRT was a major reason for McAuliffe's defeat, rather than the comment. 

My bringing up the comment was to bring up the larger issue that McAuliffe faced because the CRT issue revolves a lot around the role of parents in the education of their kids. I did that mainly because there were other educational concerns as well. CRT was just the biggest of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Pringles said:

I'm all for bringing back the fairness doctrine. It's not authoritarian to tell national news media to simply report fairly. You can be opinionated. Just be fair. 

You have opinion peices.  You have factual pieces.

I think itd be a good thing.

And who gets to decide what is considered fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I'm fine with parents having a say in their kids' education.

The problem is that at public schools, they're trying to have a say in "my" child's education.  In that case, those parents can kindly fuck off.

That goes both ways. If you support a certain curriculum/policy, then they will argue you are trying to have a say in their kids' education.

Edited by jvikings1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Patine said:

What do you think of my statement about the media's irresponsible role in this - and other - electoral affairs of late?

The media is responsible for a lot of unfortunate outcomes.

I am in favor of making it easier to sue media companies for libel/slander when clear disregard for the truth is present (see the Nick Sandmann situation where he collected big time from CNN and other news groups).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:

That goes both ways. If you support a certain curriculum/policy, then they will argue you are trying to have a say in their kids' education.

Ah, I see you've walked right into my trap.  ;c)  Those parents aren't upset that they "don't have a say in their child's education", because that's just not true.  Of course they have a say.  They have the exact same right to vote in school board elections and/or run for office in those same elections that the rest of us do.

They're upset that they aren't the ONLY ones having a say in EVERY child's education.  

They are the loudest people at the school board meetings, for sure.  They have the biggest signs in their yard, no doubt.

But they are not the only people who matter, or the only people who have strongly held feelings about how their child's school should be run.  And that's why we have school board elections.

  • Based 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

But they are not the only people who matter, or the only people who have strongly held feelings about how their child's school should be run.  And that's why we have school board elections.

School board elections, which just so happened to be the one area where Trumpoids by and large lost in elections this November.

  • Like 1
  • Based 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...