Ruy Teixeira, author of major works of political analysis and non-resident senior fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, explains “Why Virginia Voters have Soured on Spanberger” at The Washington Post:
Abigail Spanberger’s shtick has long been moderation. When she ran for governor of Virginia last year, she emphasized her law enforcement background, her commitment to working across the aisle (“pragmatism over partisanship”) and her laserlike focus on the issue of “affordability.” She ducked questions about controversial issues, from transgender school policy to endorsing Democratic attorney general candidate Jay Jones, and stuck to her talking points. Virginians could count on her to govern and get things done, not to be a partisan warrior.
It was a successful formula in a blue-trending, Trump-disapproving state, and she romped to a 15-point victory over her admittedly weak Republican opponent. So how’s she doing?
Not too hot.
In a recent Washington Post-Schar School poll, Spanberger’s approval rating clocked in at 47 percent. Nearly as many voters, 46 percent, disapproved. Her net approval at only +1 is lower than her predecessor, Republican Glenn Youngkin, had at an early point in his term as governor (+13). Never mind that Youngkin squeaked into the governor’s mansion by 2 points in 2021 while Spanberger won by a landslide. She’s lost altitude — fast.This has been particularly true among pure independents, the swingiest of voters. They gave her a 20-point margin in November (60-40) but have since gone negative. According to The Post, the governor is underwater with that contingent: 40 percent approve, 44 percent disapprove.
A plurality of voters also think Spanberger’s views on issues are “too liberal” (45 percent) rather than “just about right” (42 percent). They are likewise unimpressed with her efforts on affordability: 41 percent say her policies will make Virginia less affordable, 31 percent think they will make Virginia more affordable and 23 percent think they won’t make a difference.
Why have voters cooled so quickly on a candidate they thunderously endorsed only five months ago? The answer lies in her not-particularly-moderate governance style. One might expect a candidate who so strenuously cultivated a moderate image to take some opportunities once elected to demonstrate her independence from partisan dictates. Not Spanberger.
On issues dear to the hearts of Democratic activists, she has pretty much done as they wished. They hate Immigration and Customs Enforcement and are generally uninterested in immigration enforcement writ large, prompting Spanberger to terminate all partnership agreements between state law enforcement agencies and federal immigration enforcement.
Democratic activists also detest fossil fuels. Spanberger has thus rejoined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which forces power companies to buy a shrinking number of carbon allowances that become more expensive over time. The RGGI costs tend to be passed on to consumers, which simply raises their energy bills. The governor has appointed a new energy czar, Josephus Allmond, who was previously at the Southern Environmental Law Center, an aggressive nongovernmental organization that wants toshut down fossil fuels in favor of wind and solar.
Spanberger has also failed to publicly oppose a raft of tax increases proposed by her Democratic and very liberal legislature. Nor did she publicly protest when her legislature refused to move a proposed budget amendment that would have eliminated the personal property car tax — the “most hated tax in all of Virginia,” as she called it last June.
First of all, Teixeira does know that his hero, Bill Clinton, was a tax hiker, both in the White House and in Arkansas? Thus, despite how new and crazy he casts “woke” as, he is holding Dems to a centrist standard even Clinton would have failed. Even I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve pointed to the decline of moderates and Teixeira’s refusal to acknowledge its relevance to the Democratic Party’s future. But he is now officially reduced to urging that Clintonism isn’t conservative enough even though it was when enough unlikely voters meaningfully cared what kind of Dem was being offered.
Also, there’s the little matter that we can’t trust Teixeira’s definition of “moderate” in the first place.
https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/the-sad-tale-of-moderate-joe-biden
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/27/895800425/democrats-meet-virtually-to-approve-platform-that-builds-off-of-biden-sanders-ef
As you can see from these links, Joe Biden ran on a progressive platform, albeit less so than some of the other candidates. Yet Teixeira casts him as having run as a Clintonian moderate. Which shouldn’t be surprising. Across the Atlantic, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is in hot political water. His policies have including disability cuts and attempts to cut immigration. Which, according to British data, succeeded. That has led to some people brazenly casting this Labour government as far left, though they always curiously fail to cite specific policies.
Not that Ruy Teixeira is alone here. Beware the anti-progressive pundit who twists these things.
The commenters in that WP column sure don’t agree with the writer. This is an article written before Virginia passed the redistricting initiative. Of course, Independents didn’t like it, which I bet is a big part of her polling decline. No proof it’s anything else as Ruy pushes his opinions as fact with no evidence.