If LaRock gains traction, then it may require Sears to move further right to win the primary, thus harming if not killing her general election prospects.
Though LaRock to me is the latest in the long line of "where the hell does he think he's running?" candidates, in both parties. DOGE isn't popular nationally, but it's hard to think of a state where praising it is more harmful (at least with the general electorate) than VA, with the possible exception of MD.
I have mixed feelings about this remark, given what election results we actually had last year. These folks are a lot closer to the political reality in the U.S. than they ever should have been.
They are, in many senses. I do not think general policy is one of those. Social and media discourse of the 2024 election was absolutely bereft of policy.
The swingy-ish people that voted R weren't voting that way because they liked the republican policy proposals. If anything their ignorance — often willful ignorance — of republican policy proposals was crucial for their vote turning out the way it did.
Yes, but how many of them are the swingy-ish people that voted republican instead of die-hard consistent republican voters?
If 80% of 2024 republican voters support large scale deportations, and 20% oppose, that would mean that ten percentage points of their final support do not like that policy. Those ten points would have been less likely to support republicans if they knew of that policy.
The 2024 election had republicans pretty close to 50% of the vote, especially at the presidential level. Losing ten points of support would bring them to only 40% of the vote — that would be a crushing loss. Obviously that kind of swing would not be likely over a single policy item even if that group were voraciously opposed. Even a far more realistic two point swing away from them would be huge, and that would align with >95% of 2024 republican voters being pro-deportation and <5% being ardently opposed.
I think it's safe to assume that the parts of their voter composition that are least likely to support them on various policy grounds are that swingy-ish group.
Are you ignoring the percentage of Democratic voters who support large-scale deportations but voted for the Democrats, anyway, because of other factors?
Besides, whatever Republican voters theoretically claim to support or oppose in opinion polls, their decisions to vote for extremist authoritarian types mean that they effectively support them because they are Republican extremist authoritarian types, with whatever issues they supposedly disagree with being either disingenuous or not too important to a great majority of them. I mean, to the Nazi voters who weren't antisemitic or didn't support an attack on the Soviet Union, it was your fault.
Yeah, the recent polling showing Earle-Sears behind Spanberger by double digits is not a good sign for her.
It won’t be better though for a more DOGE friendly GOP candidate who defeats Earle-Sears in the primary. Doesn’t change how toxic Trump, Musk and DOGE are in VA right now.
VA-Gov: Ex-Del. Dave LaRock (R) challenges Winsome Earle-Sears, saying she's not conservative enough and promising a "Virginia DOGE".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/02/26/virginia-trump-youngkin-larock-governor/
He probably won't be nominated and almost certainly wouldn't win the general if he were, but let the cat fud fly....
Regardless it doesn’t augur well for enthusiasm for Winsome-Sears
If LaRock gains traction, then it may require Sears to move further right to win the primary, thus harming if not killing her general election prospects.
Though LaRock to me is the latest in the long line of "where the hell does he think he's running?" candidates, in both parties. DOGE isn't popular nationally, but it's hard to think of a state where praising it is more harmful (at least with the general electorate) than VA, with the possible exception of MD.
It definitely goes to show how high on their own supply movement conservatives have become. Utterly divorced from reality at this point
I have mixed feelings about this remark, given what election results we actually had last year. These folks are a lot closer to the political reality in the U.S. than they ever should have been.
They are, in many senses. I do not think general policy is one of those. Social and media discourse of the 2024 election was absolutely bereft of policy.
The swingy-ish people that voted R weren't voting that way because they liked the republican policy proposals. If anything their ignorance — often willful ignorance — of republican policy proposals was crucial for their vote turning out the way it did.
I can't agree. Lots of Republican voters have to have supported large-scale deportations of immigrants, for example.
Yes, but how many of them are the swingy-ish people that voted republican instead of die-hard consistent republican voters?
If 80% of 2024 republican voters support large scale deportations, and 20% oppose, that would mean that ten percentage points of their final support do not like that policy. Those ten points would have been less likely to support republicans if they knew of that policy.
The 2024 election had republicans pretty close to 50% of the vote, especially at the presidential level. Losing ten points of support would bring them to only 40% of the vote — that would be a crushing loss. Obviously that kind of swing would not be likely over a single policy item even if that group were voraciously opposed. Even a far more realistic two point swing away from them would be huge, and that would align with >95% of 2024 republican voters being pro-deportation and <5% being ardently opposed.
I think it's safe to assume that the parts of their voter composition that are least likely to support them on various policy grounds are that swingy-ish group.
I fully stand by my argument.
Are you ignoring the percentage of Democratic voters who support large-scale deportations but voted for the Democrats, anyway, because of other factors?
Besides, whatever Republican voters theoretically claim to support or oppose in opinion polls, their decisions to vote for extremist authoritarian types mean that they effectively support them because they are Republican extremist authoritarian types, with whatever issues they supposedly disagree with being either disingenuous or not too important to a great majority of them. I mean, to the Nazi voters who weren't antisemitic or didn't support an attack on the Soviet Union, it was your fault.
Yeah, the recent polling showing Earle-Sears behind Spanberger by double digits is not a good sign for her.
It won’t be better though for a more DOGE friendly GOP candidate who defeats Earle-Sears in the primary. Doesn’t change how toxic Trump, Musk and DOGE are in VA right now.