Telemental Health Malpractice: A Prescription for Legal Action

Stimulants and SSRIs are frequently overprescribed, particularly through telemental health services. A quick search for 'SSRI prescription' reveals numerous sponsored links offering instant prescriptions or refills after brief 15-minute consultations. This approach raises concerns about the adequacy of patient evaluations. Medical professionals should thoroughly assess a patient’s needs before prescribing medication, ensuring it is truly necessary. In many cases, telemental health providers appear to preemptively decide on a prescription, tailoring the patient’s assessment to justify the use of SSRIs and stimulants. Done and Cerebral, telehealth startups, were caught in this scheme. The Justice Department alleges that executives at Done conspired to provide easy access to stimulants, such as adderall, to patients - then bill insurance for these medications. A lawsuit in California state court alleged that Cerebral conspired to bolster customer retention by prescribing stimulants to 100% of patients diagnosed with ADHD. Cerebral grossly violated a reasonable standard of care for patients using their service. Former vice president of product and engineering at Cerebral turned whistleblower, Matthew Truebe, was told by Cerebral CEO Kyle Robertson to invest nothing into building compliance or patient safety, and instead focus on customer retention. With Cerebral’s 30-minute patient evaluations, there was simply not enough time to adequately diagnose patients with ADHD, depression, anxiety, etc. This isn’t just unique to Cerebral as well. There are evaluation consultations that can last less than 15 minutes in which a medical professional is authorized to prescribe a cocktail of stimulants or SSRIs. Although some claim that these evaluations can be administered in 15 minutes, I find it hard to believe that someone with a complex history of presumed mental health issues or traumatic experiences can have their pharmaceutical needs summed up in such a brief period of time. This overprescription epidemic has consequences as well, serious ones. People have felt serious side effects by suffering from exacerbated negative mental health issues through the hasty prescription of SSRIs or stimulants. There needs to be accountability and oversight of these services, and that starts with medical malpractice lawsuits.

Above are the search results for ‘SSRI prescription’.

A physician doesn’t need physical contact with a patient for a relationship to be established and for the physician to owe the patient a duty of care. Why? A doctor-patient relationship has been established because they have taken affirmative action to treat a patient’s illness and prescribed a course of treatment. If this doctor-patient relationship is violated, this constitutes a breach of duty and opens the grounds for a medical malpractice lawsuit. This can occur through a multitude of reasons in telehealth such as: misdiagnosis, prescribing or administering the wrong medication, not considering contraindications, and lack of informed consent or not properly discussing side effects. These acts of negligence are particularly pervasive in telemental health because the doctor cannot see you in person, and there is often not enough protocol for patient due diligence on behalf of providers in telemental health appointments. There is an impersonal detachment in telemental health practice in which providers can often not get the full picture of a patient’s story and subsequent needs through treatment. This detachment runs the risk of providers missing key information, not fully reading questionnaire forms, and missing important medical red flags or contraindications for a prescription. I’m sure that these factors are also wildly exacerbated by the fact that many of these consultations with online mental health professionals last such a brief period of time. A code of conduct needs to be established in medical malpractice lawsuits in order to prove that there was a deviation of normative care for the patient. If a plaintiff can prove that a telemental health provider or service deviated from this standard duty of care, then this strengthens their case substantially. In a litany of these telemental health appointments, it can be reasoned that a deviation of standard care can be proven if an appointment is hasty, doesn’t consider the prior mentioned criteria, and a course of treatment is pursued that doesn’t portend to the needs of a patient, resulting in an injury. 

There needs to be a causal link established between this dereliction of duty on behalf of the provider and the sustained injury. These injuries are often physically invisible as these are injuries to the function of the brain. There also needs to be a clear injury for which patients can seek compensation. Compensatory damages for economic loss can be sought if it pertains to the injury. This includes past and future medical costs, out-of-pocket costs related to the injury, and lost wages. Non-economic damages for pain and suffering can also be sought, as well as punitive damages which are designed to punish the offending provider and prevent other providers from making a similar decision. The collection of these facets of a malpractice case depend on the relevant state caps in which legal action is being pursued. 

Accountability of the telemental health industry will not occur unless serious punitive damages are levied against these negligent providers. Although many of these providers are put under pressure by companies like Cerebral and Done to hash out prescriptions, it is a breach of their duty to hastily get medication to patients without a serious and appropriate evaluation of their mental health needs. These awarded damages will set an example to other providers and services that it is antithetical and not acceptable to an appropriate standard of care to needlessly prescribe stimulants and SSRIs that yield serious side effects. If taken by the wrong patient, these drugs can cause horrible side effects such as dissociation, seizures, suicidal ideation, panic attacks, insomnia, reduced sexual desire, etc. The worst part of all of this is that children and adolescents are being prescribed these medications in such a hasty and inappropriate fashion as well. These medications can have a dire effects on growing brains such as suicidal ideation, social isolation, self harm, and agitated and impulsive behavior. Currently, there is a lack of literature surrounding the long-term effects of psychotropic medications among children and adolescents. We just don’t know the full scope of damage being done by the overprescription of psychotropic medications.

Telemedicine should not be run in a fashion similar to your typical startup - move fast and break things. It is disgusting that a company like Cerebral would expense the needs of a patient to support the bottom line. Expanding as fast as possible through the rapid prescription of drugs is deplorable and needs to be punished through every available legal avenue. This approach to business has serious consequences in healthcare because it is putting a conclusion first, then retrofitting the facts to support a narrative. Practices such as marketing and political punditry employ this method. However, that methodology is antithetical to a reasonable and appropriate standard of care on behalf of a medical provider. The practice of unnecessary and overprescription of SSRIs and stimulants is going to have dire consequences for generations to come. It’s hard not to conclude that the overprescription of these drugs has played a serious hand in the current mental health crisis faced by today’s youth, as well as the populace at large. Unless an onslaught of medical malpractice lawsuits are waged against negligent telemental health providers and services such as Done and Cerebral, then this overprescription crisis will continue to persist.

The Perils of Collective Apathy

In the modern era, the reflections of Alexis de Tocqueville on individualism and public engagement in American society have taken on new and crucial dimensions. The intensified pursuit of personal and commercial interests, a foundational aspect of American culture as observed by Tocqueville, has eroded effective civic participation and collective awareness. This heightened individual focus, once a driving force for innovation and economic prosperity, is now contributing to a broader disengagement from political and cultural involvement.

One clear indicator of this trend is the fluctuating patterns of political participation. Voter turnout in the United States, especially in non-presidential elections, has often lagged behind other developed democracies. For instance, the low turnout in the 2014 midterm elections, at around 36.4%, reflects a broader disconnection from the political process, which can be attributed to an increased preoccupation with personal affairs over communal or national issues.

The transformation of the media landscape, including the advent of social media, has also reshaped public discourse. Platforms like Twitter and Facebook, designed to foster communication and discussion, have created insulated communities where alternative viewpoints are oftentimes ostracized. Additionally, the media's emphasis on sensationalism, driven by commercial interests, often overshadows in-depth analysis and balanced reporting. This has bred public misinformation which plays into the collective public’s lack of nuanced understanding of complex issues.

The rise of 'cancel culture', where individuals or entities are boycotted or ostracized for expressing unpopular opinions, exemplifies another challenge to open discourse. This discourages individuals from participating in public debate or expressing divergent views, out of fear of social or professional repercussions.

Behind-the-scenes decision-making in politics further alienates the general public from the democratic process. The influence of special interest groups and lobbying in political decision-making create a disconnect between policy decisions and the will of the populace. An unresponsive and untested public has allowed for this because there has yet to be any substantial mass electoral resistance to it.

In this climate, the greatest threat to American democracy is not an abrupt overthrow of government but a gradual erosion of democratic engagement. As citizens become more absorbed in their private lives, the democratic process weakens, allowing unchecked power and exploitation. This withdrawal provides an opportunity for the manipulation of public opinion and policy by a minority, often leaving the majority's needs and views unaddressed.

The solution requires a deliberate effort to reignite civic responsibility and re-engage with the political process. This involves nurturing a culture that values open debate, embraces diverse viewpoints, and actively involves citizens in democratic participation. Examples like grassroots movements and citizen-led initiatives across various political spectrums show the potential for civic engagement to influence change and challenge prevailing narratives.

The future of American democracy depends on a collective curiosity and a testing of all ideas in the public sphere. We risk ceding our power as citizens to ask big questions or speak truth to power if we are not responsive or tested in our cultural discourse. Ideas need to be tested in the sphere of rigorous and intellectually insightful debate. Bad ideas will continue to prevail if we do not start exploring our inclination to be curious and constantly test and seek the best answers to good questions. Otherwise, we risk losing serious intellectual introspection and ability to test and debate ideas only so that the reigns of collective apathy and disillusionment asphyxiate the conscious of the American people - sowing the seeds for more political dysfunction and malice.

Does Montana Have A Legal Right To Ban TikTok?

Our behavior is always being monitored and analyzed when using the internet. Social media companies and search engines compile our inquiries, likes, favorites, follows, geographic and demographic information, in order to continuously curate content that keeps users hooked on their platforms. This concept and practice itself has been the subject of scrutinous conversation. However, now the practice of collecting user data in order to funnel it through an addictively influential algorithm is not in the hands of just American companies and government - but the Chinese government through the “TikTok” app. There is no directly comparable precedent for the media influence and national security risk that TikTok poses. Americans have always had access to content from foreign owned media outlets such as RT or Pravda, yet those outlets do not come close to the same level of influence TikTok has over Americans. 

There are a few major ways TikTok has become so influential over audiences. For one, TikTok is a source of monetary livelihood and traffic for many small business owners, start-ups, and sole proprietors. The ease and accessibility of the app’s interface for content creators, and subsequent mass proliferation of user-generated content, has been a major vehicle in making the medium so attractive for businesses and proprietors. The content on the app is highly addictive as well. Videos are incredibly brief, contain encapsulating hooks, and oftentimes contain vivid and rapid imagery. The most jarring part about the proliferation of this medium is that the largest share of users are adolescents ages 10-19, at 25% of total user base. These are the most impressionable and emotionally volatile years of a person’s life. Habits, personal beliefs, behaviors, and attention spans are all being impacted by TikTok - and not for the better. However, that is for a separate discussion - yet these facts should serve as an important piece in understanding TikTok’s role in a legal and regulatory context.

Montana was the first, and maybe only, state to ban TikTok. The actual enforcement of the ban does not occur until January 1, 2024 - which then will not likely go into effect due to TikTok filing a preliminary injunction to halt the ban until the federal case (Alario et al. v. Knudsen) is resolved. The move to ban TikTok in Montana proved to be rather controversial, sparking the ACLU to file an amicus brief in favor of the plaintiffs. Much of the suit in the plaintiff's perspective is making an argument that banning TikTok is a violation of the first amendment because it does not meet the threshold for enacting prior restraint. Historically, it has been nearly impossible to constitutionally enforce prior restraint. Starting with Near v. Minnesota in 1931, the Supreme Court basically ruled that a newspaper could not be stopped from publishing scandalous information about some crooked local politicians by a state-level “gag law”.  The ruling did carve out some exceptions for prior restraint usage, such as when speech is obscene, incites violence, or reveals government secrets.

 On the surface level of prior restraint tests, it appears that the TikTok ban (SB419) fails to meet the threshold for enaction. Despite TikTok’s compromised position toward public health and safety, it does not present an imminent danger to society. The problem with proving the harmfulness of TikTok from a health and safety perspective is that its negative effects are gradually degenerative, and do not possess the same tangible aspects of harm like being physically tormented or imminently psychologically traumatized. There will certainly be adolescents who will grow up to be more unfocused or self-conscious, but that isn’t just cause to ban something outright. By that logic, sugary sodas or video games could just as easily be banned. I am divulging into the health and safety aspect of this case so much because the motion to block the preliminary junction, filed by Knudsen’s Office, cited protecting public health as a crucial reason for banning TikTok. 

In response to first amendment violation claims, the defense counteracts with the opinion that banning TikTok is not a violation of the first amendment because there are other like-social media outlets in which users can replicate and proliferate like-content. However, singling out a single company for a ban, especially when the first amendment is in question, has historically worked out in favor of upholding first amendment protections. This essentially means that first amendment protections can prevent a single company’s expression from being banned. However, the defense cites Arcara v. Cloud Books as a counterpoint to the argument that the first amendment shields TikTok from a ban, despite other unsavory aspects of their practices. In Arcara v. Cloud Books, an adult bookstore, became the site of frequent prostitution, but the court concluded that the bookstore’s first amendment right to sell books did not shield it from other illicit acts occurring within the operations of the business. I find this assessment by the defense flawed when comparing Cloud Books to TikTok. For one, TikTok is not overtly engaging in mass and proliferated criminal activity like Cloud Books was. 

Although TikTok has been fined in the past for violations of COPPA, it’s difficult, or even impossible, to conclusively pinpoint a prolific illegal practice TikTok is engaging in that would warrant a ban predicated on protecting public safety. Much of the grievances brought up by the defense are predicated on a notion of consumer protection. Yet, consumer protections are meant to protect consumers from illegal and unfair trade practices. Although scraping user data is unsavory, it’s not illegal - even if the Chinese Government has access to this data. It’s not illegal because user data is largely publically accessible, and analyzing user data on your own social media platform is not illegal. I get that lawmakers want to protect consumers, but TikTok’s data extraction practices are no different from what American social media companies engage in. The problem lawmakers have is that now this highly advanced ability to harvest data and analyze to feed an addictive and influential algorithm doesn’t lie in the hands of clearly definable and accessible actors like leadership and staff at  Google, Meta, or Amazon - but TikTok leadership and the Chinese Government agencies and officials they work with. 

That point is where this case gets weaker because there are currently so few relevant legal protections and regulations that apply to such a new and unprecedented problem - which, hopefully, gets resolved through new laws, regulations, and legal precedent. It’s not a bad thing that Montana has passed legislation to ban TikTok, and is facing subsequent legal action in retaliation because it helps set more defined legal boundaries in relation to the first amendment, user data privacy, and national security interests in a contemporary context. It is troubling that a foreign adversary of ours has such a clear and direct influence over the minds and hearts of Americans, especially American youth. However, we have to set out to resolve this issue of China having access to American user data diplomatically before we press the red button. If we start banning privately-owned social media services for the reason of promoting and maintaining public safety, we will open a slippery slope toward banning future platforms in a way that is adversarial to the first amendment. If ever came a moment in which we could pinpoint clear and tangible malice directed by the Chinese Government through TikTok against the American people, then the case for an outright ban will get stronger. But for now, TikTok is just a pioneer in a new media medium. There will be, and already are, competitors that will eat market share away from the platform. They do pose a national security threat, but not yet in such a way that will eminently harm Americans to invoke prior restraint for a ban.

 The most likely remedy to this TikTok problem we currently have is to impose a Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS) oversight onto ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company. CFIUS can impose regulations onto ByteDance, most notably including an oversight board to review TikTok’s algorithm queuing practices to track data flows. This, accompanied with “Project Texas”, an initiative by TikTok to store and govern American user data within the United States, are smarter and more diplomatic steps toward eschewing TikTok’s unique position within US national security interests. Ultimately, there are enough constitutional protections to deny an outright TikTok ban. Within the purview of the first amendment, TikTok cannot be banned anymore than RT or Pravda can be banned in the United States. The most diplomatic and least calamitous way, for both US national security interests and our constitutional right to free speech, is to continue stringent oversight over TikTok’s data harvesting and storage practices; and consider further and harsher legal action against TikTok if severe and imminent harm can be proven to have been perpetrated by TikTok against Americans.

Lessons From Biden and Ramaswamy: Why Marketing and Public Image Matter In Politics Now More Than Ever

 Something that I have learned from politics is that marketing and public image are essential in leadership. The Biden Administration has actually authorized a historic investment of $46.1 billion into curtailing the fentanyl epidemic - but we may have never heard of this initiative because Biden himself is not an in-touch, energetic, and intuitive leader who understands the essence of American public opinion. Biden’s inability to control his own narrative is what puts his reputation at a detriment. He has failed to effectively orate that inflation is currently a global phenomenon, and that the Federal Reserve has more skin in controlling inflation than he and Congress does. Believe it or not, US domestic oil production is poised to surpass Trump era levels by the end of next year. Although Biden wanted to take a more aggressive stance in advocating and developing green energy, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair, Joe Manchin, has been instrumental in ensuring that domestic energy production can continue to proliferate. So far in 2023, murder rates across many major US cities have actually been decreasing. However, overdose deaths continue to rise exponentially across the nation - hitting record highs every year since 2020. Biden should be touting responsibility for every piece of news that is contrary to what the mainstream perceives of his image on these issues. Biden should be in major cities meeting with mayors, visiting rehabilitation centers and treatment facilities, and talk in candid fashion with voters about what his administration has accomplished to address their concerns.

 However, I feel that Biden is physically incapable of doing this. His weakened condition is not his fault. He lost his beloved son and professional heir-apparent, Beau, while also having to watch his surviving son, Hunter, face a series of public humiliations. These factors, combined with his age, have obviously culminated into the low-energy and inarticulate Biden the American public perceives and judges through their rapid and vapid media mediums. He, and quite frankly, many other politicians are struggling to convey their messages in a media environment that increasingly favors fast-talking attention getters. The American public does not have the patience to sit down and read newspapers or digest a “fireside chat” on the radio as they once did. The public now largely absorbs information through tweets and tiktoks - mediums that are not only unconducive to nuance, but their models and algorithms actually discourage it. Twitter or Tiktok is not going to promote someone who writes too much in their tweet or speaks too long about uninteresting subjects. They are going to promote vibrant pieces of content that elicit reactions within people to keep them engaged on their platforms. Biden talking about his Corvette in front of an audience of people who recently lost everything and their loved ones will circulate more than him droning on about the wonders of the infrastructure package in Philadelphia because it makes people have a rapid response that makes them want more like-content. Biden’s gaffes have also been perfect fuel for the outrage algorithm because they last about the average length of a Tiktok video and elicit the same reactions that people get from pungent celebrity tabloid gossip. 

Vivek Ramaswamy has mastered the concept of gaming the algorithm in his favor. Ramaswamy is a quick-on-his-heels thinker and knows what to say to get attention from the media. Appearing on podcasts that then get clipped and circulated on Tiktok have been crucial in his strategy to run his campaign. Even if his policy proposals, if you can even call them that, seem outlandish in the mainstream - they get attention. The spikes of heat he gets from these outlandish statements in the media circulate his name and campaign’s messages for free. A counter argument could be that these statements and staunch stances could jeopardize his reputation by relegating him into the basket of extremists. However, prominent attorney Roy Cohn once said that even though someone could get hot and scathing press for a bit - a few months, weeks, and even days down the road people will forget why they were mad at you and only remember your name. This has worked so far for Vivek. The widespread circulation of his name, image and message, combined with his aggressive grassroots media appearances boosted his profile and poll numbers to a point where he was not only able to qualify for the first GOP debate but poll high enough to stand in the center of the stage. His performance in the debate itself was stellar from a media circulatory and public image perspective. He dominated the stage, quickly and effectively summarized his points in viral fashion, and most importantly, controlled and dominated the debate. His message will only proliferate further from here as the mainstream cable media circuit will fixate on him. This will ineffectually turn him into a brand, and his consistent coverage will be free advertising. The same strategy adopted by Trump in his 2016 Presidential bid that propelled his campaign into mainstay hood. 

My message to politicians going forward is not only to not discount social media as an effective communication medium, but they should consider it an essential vessel of campaigning. It’s how many people in the United States exclusively get their information, and it is only going to get bigger from this point onward. The performance tonight from many establishment Republicans reminded me of the debate performances from Republicans in 2012, and prior. Inoffensive platitudes, droning points with the occasional emphasis on a word or phrase that consultants say polls well, which culminates into an overall boring performance. Asa Hutchinson would make a great professor at Arkansas Law School and Doug Burgum could potentially be the most intelligent person on that stage, but they lack the exceptional public speaking skills needed to game the modern media circuit. Even historically sharp and skilled orators such as Chris Christie and Ron DeSantis were overshadowed by Ramaswamy because they are acclimated solely for a cable news environment, but not social media. Overall, the votes aren’t online, they’re at the doors. However, the way voters hear about candidates and develop opinions and perceptions to influence their votes lay within media mediums. Ramaswamy started off online, and will continue proliferating his presence there - but the debate legitimized his image because cable tv has an effect of granting people perceived credibility by appearing on it. For the Biden camp, a match up between Biden and Ramaswamy isn’t impossible, but it is unlikely. As it currently stands, the match-up will most likely be against Trump again, and it’s all up in the air from there. It is impossible to tell the outcome of that election right now because the conditions and factors that will influence people’s votes will occur in the week before election day. But, it doesn’t help Biden that his image is tarnished and that he is also incapable of gaming the media echosphere. It does seem pessimistic that the 2024 general election line-up will be between two very unpopular candidates.However, I am optimistic for future elections as the 2024 Republican primary will set the precedent for how successful campaign marketing and strategy will be conducted in the future as they will be rooted in more authentic messaging that rewards candidates with true conviction in their goals and ideals over consultant crafted speeches and slogans.

The DeSantis Personality Problem

Governor DeSantis emerged as a national figure during COVID, serving as the free and open juxtaposition toward a drastically aggressive approach toward COVID taken by Governors such as Gavin Newsom and Andrew Cuomo. The effectiveness of DeSantis’s COVID strategy is an incredibly separate and nuanced discussion, but the consensus is that his strategy ushers a hostile reaction from Democrats, strong for Republicans, and mixed among independents. However, in a depressed economy and social climate battered by lockdowns, his approach inspired thousands of people to flock to his state from California and New York. Riding high on the sails of his perceived economic success, chatter quickly arose about DeSantis becoming the one to challenge Biden in 2024. It seemed that he was invincible for about a solid two years between early 2020 to early 2022.

The cracks in DeSantis’s fault began to show in early 2022 after Disney announced its opposition to the Parental Rights in Education Bill. DeSantis reacted by going to war with one of the largest economic engines in his state, taking away Disney’s control of the Reedy Creek special district - tarnishing the opportunity for billions of more dollars to circulate into Florida’s economy. Democrats also used the divisive Parental Rights in Education bill as a messaging opportunity - coining the pungent “Don’t Say Gay” slogan in retaliation. This slogan served as a strong uniting point for many Democrats and progressive-minded individuals against DeSantis. In contrast to his ‘open for business’ reputation he garnered during COVID, DeSantis now created the ultimate talking point for opponents to prove why he is not good for business- and that he is more concerned with impressing ideologues over improving and managing his state appropriately. 

The controversy surrounding the bill, now law, was a move on DeSantis’s part to align himself deeper with the changing social tides in the nation as they were now favoring antipathy toward ambitiously progressive policies and rhetoric adopted in 2020. After seeing Glenn Youngkin’s win on the almost sole issue of parental rights in Virginia, DeSantis probably realized that a freshly passed law in Florida of the same subject could lasso that effective public opinion horse. However, his approach went too far. DeSantis should have let the opposition to his bill be the progressive protest flavor of the day. The protests and the Twitter wars will come and go, but Disney World is everlasting. Instead of issuing a statement to try and explain the bill, cutting through the “Don’t Say Gay” persona, DeSantis kept picking at the scab with an ice pick - targeting Disney after CEO Bob Chapek voiced his displeasure with the bill. I find it hard to believe that DeSantis ever had a problem with Reedy Creek’s special status before 2022. The move was solely to punish a company for exercising its first amendment right. It’s hard to come back from this one and in light of recent rhetoric and actions out of the DeSantis campaign - it just adds to the cruel and cold persona of Ron DeSantis.

Say what you will about Trump, but he has charisma and charm, unlike DeSantis. Even though Trump drives a brutal bargaining style, you can still see him chuckling with his golf buddies or warming a crowd of coal miners in West Virginia at the end of the day. DeSantis just doesn’t have that same encapsulating effect. He struggles to connect with voters on the ground, as evidenced by numerous viral videos of him saying strange things to children or forcing laughter like a cement block going through a woodchipper. He has such a rigid personality that can’t launch him past his perceived elitist credentials. George W. Bush went to the same academic institutions (different degree programs) as DeSantis, and yet, he had a better time communicating with people. His events struggle to gain energy as well. Political events should not feel or sound like giving a lecture on policy at a Heritage Foundation seminar. They should be filled with exciting music, food, guest speakers, shoutouts to local community leaders, and whatever else fits the vibe of the area. The combination of imagery from the anti-LGBT Tiktoks, pouty faces, and monotone speeches, all add up to a bad public perception for Ron DeSantis - which is why his poll numbers have dropped so dramatically. 

My theory is that DeSantis did so well when people needed a figure to unite behind to combat lockdown policies. It is a principle of war that warriors do best on the battleground they are most familiar with. The issue of COVID, DeSantis’s winning issue and most familiar battleground grows farther away from the public interest as time goes on. Presidential elections are forward-facing, and people are voting on change and prosperity for tomorrow. It is not a referendum on now obsolete issues that captured public interest over three years ago. Anti-woke is the big feeling to capture in the GOP Primary this election cycle. That’s not DeSantis's best battleground because his anti-woke persona elicits such a visceral reaction from not just Democrats, but even moderate Republicans at this point. Even if DeSantis was good at messaging on anti-wokeness, Republican primary voters would still prefer Trump anyways. A DeSantis campaign revamp has gone underway in recent weeks, but little has come from it aside from a few more Casey DeSantis media appearances and Vivek Ramaswamy eating more into his rapidly declining margins. 

At a certain point, we should ask if Ron DeSantis should even be President of the United States. His campaign is failing because he is simply not a nationally electable person. He barely won his first gubernatorial election in 2018, and his reelection landslide win can largely be attributed to the fact he was a popular incumbent who appeared on cable a lot. He hasn’t received any endorsements from the Florida Congressional Delegation and struggled to receive them the first time he ran for Governor of Florida. He does not possess the tactfulness of an empathetic leader. He has made little attempt to get to know the other key Republicans in his state, aside from Rep. Matt Gaetz - who endorses Former President Trump. In a political environment shaped by social media and cable news, personality, and outreach strategy matters now more than ever. The transparency and rapid populism that social media has brought to American politics demand vibrant and emotionally compelling candidates. These days, we see more than just two people in suits arguing against each other with well-crafted talking points a few weeks before election day. Campaign season starts sooner because we see candidates talking to voters through Tiktok and Instagram, and these short clips get picked up and syndicated by legacy media. We see candidates engaging with our favorite podcasters and influencers in discussions that transcend policy. Not every voter is going to watch these podcasts, but these consistent and repeated media appearances that get targeted to a candidate’s core group of supporters connect them on a deep psychological level. That connection is something that simply no amount of money or ads candidates can obtain from voters. Perhaps in 1972, DeSantis would have done well if all he had to do was go before the American people on a static-laden TV and talk about oil and foreign intervention for an hour. But now, the media climate demands days worth of footage of DeSantis going everywhere - with only a few key viral moments for the masses to digest and understand his persona. If candidates stay consistent and honest, those key moments will give the public a summation of who they are as a person. I can gather that Former President Obama is incredibly articulate and charismatic, while George W. Bush is goofy in sort of an earnest and endearing way. People can smell right through DeSantis holding a beer in Iowa and see him as a cold and calculating person due to the few key pieces of information they hold. Until DeSantis appears on an authentic podcast or magically becomes charming overnight, he will continue to struggle to appeal to voters - which will be exacerbated by the upcoming Republican Primary debate.

A Win-Win Venture: How A FBI HQ in Virginia Would Advance Agency Goals, Boost Economic Development, and Foster Equity

Pictured Left to Right: Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), Delegate Luke Torian (D-Woodbridge), Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), Fairfax County Chairman Jeff McKay, and Governor Glenn Youngkin (R-VA)

The choice for the placement of the new FBI headquarters should obviously be in Springfield, Virginia, given the GSA’s guidelines - both updated and prior. Springfield is ten minutes away from the Pentagon, without traffic. It is also thirty-five minutes away from Quantico, without traffic. On the other hand, Landover, Maryland is over an hour away from Quantico. The route from Landover to the Pentagon would also be marred by gridlock traffic throughout the entire drive anytime between 8 AM to 7 PM during the work week. The metro ride from the Springfield-Franconia Station to the Pentagon Station would be just a few stops northbound on the Blue Line. However, Landover requires a significant amount of more stops on the Blue Line from the Pentagon. Greenbelt would require a tedious transfer in DC - only to reach the very end of the Green Line. A new FBI headquarters in DC would also be a catalyst for metro expansion down to Quantico. Springfield is also less than 20 minutes away from Reagan National Airport, both on car and metro - a criteria noted as important by the GSA. 

The expansion of the metro southbound into Virginia to include Lorton, Woodbridge, and Dumfries via the Blue Line has been something that has been discussed for years, but has yet to be fleshed out in concept. Adding 7,500 new jobs in Springfield would cause a spike in the local housing market, which is already inflated due to its proximity to DC. More people would not only move to Fairfax County, but also Prince William and Stafford Counties as well. More people also means more traffic, and the traffic from Fredericksburg to Lorton is already notoriously bad. A crucial piece of an argument for southbound expansion of the Blue Line could begin as the region’s traffic could hit a near-breaking point if the FBI goes through with choosing Springfield. Wherever the FBI gets placed in the DMV, it will be in a congested area. However, it is better that it gets put in a place that is right up one single highway from Quantico rather than having to cross through various traffic-filled bridges and exits to finally get to 95-S. 

The GSA criteria list the advancement of racial equity and support for underserved communities as a considered guideline in their HQ decision. I would argue that placing the FBI HQ in Springfield furthers these goals because the HQ’s subsequent effect on Blue Line expansion discussions will give underserved, predominantly Hispanic communities in Woodbridge a chance at substantially greater access to public transportation. Assuming Blue Line expansion discussions are considered and brought into fruition, many underserved households will have access to cheap and accessible transportation via the metro. There are many service and retail workers who work in Alexandria-Arlington-DC, and live in Woodbridge. They have to take nearly two-hour bus rides and transfers just to get to work if they do not own a car. Having a metro stop that could get those same people from Woodbridge to Alexandria in less than thirty minutes would be a game changer - and significantly advance racial equity for the Latino community of Woodbridge. 

Aside from the competition between Maryland and Virginia, an even more significant point into Republican rhetoric and conduct concerning the FBI and law enforcement has been opened up by the HQ squabble. Republican opinion on the FBI has significantly varied - from Rep. Jen Kiggans saying, “I’m confident that the Commonwealth remains the best choice!” to House Judiciary Chair Rep. Jim Jordan expressing interest in moving the FBI’s headquarters to Huntsville, Alabama. In typical appeasing fashion, Speaker McCarthy played scattered opinion by expressing discontent at the idea of a new, large consolidated headquarters while also expressing interest in breaking agency facilities across multiple locations. However, he also expressed disinterest in Rep. Jordan’s idea of moving the headquarters to Huntsville. Some Republicans are also uneager to fund the new move for the FBI as well, vowing opposition after FBI Director Christopher Wray appeared before the House Judiciary Committee.

Rhetoric and stances of Virginia Republicans, both in the Commonwealth’s Executive Branch and Congressional Delegation, on the FBI are cited as examples by elected officials in Maryland as evidence the political climate in Virginia is unwelcoming and inappropriate for a massive FBI presence. I am personally not convinced by this argument. Although Rep. Bob Good’s stance on the FBI is counterintuitive toward his state’s economic well-being - his district is more than two hours away from the proposed Springfield location. And despite Governor Youngkin’s past critique of the FBI’s handling of investigations into Trump and parents at school board meetings, he has come in full favor and support of pushing for the FBI’s relocation into Springfield. It is one thing to have a particular rhetorical stance, but it’s a more material endeavor to go out and significantly push for the Bureau’s relocation. The relocation of the FBI into Springfield is about creating jobs, opportunities, and adding more tinder to an already roaring economy in northern Virginia. Even though Governor Youngkin put out a testy Tweet which referred to the FBI operating under a ‘two-tiered justice system’ - executive administrations come and go, and the FBI HQ is substantially more permeable than a governorship that is limited to a single four-year term. 

The bottom line is that Virginia, even under the GSA’s updated criteria, is still best suited for Springfield. Although there was a large statistical downgrade of the new headquarters' proximity to Quantico as an important factor, the boost in equity still plays in Springfield’s favor. Springfield is incredibly diverse, as well as Fairfax County, Prince William County, and the City of Alexandria - where the largest concentration of employees for the new HQ will presumably preside. The factor of cost also doubled in importance in the updated criteria, probably due to funding uncertainty from House Republican opposition on the Appropriations front. It is cheaper to build and renovate real estate in Virginia than it is in Maryland. Placing the potential of FBI headquarters in Virginia also applies pressure on Republican members of Congress to be more sympathetic toward the FBI as well. Despite Rep. Good’s combative stance, Rep. Kiggans broke ranks with Republicans to advocate for building the new HQ in Virginia. Without the potential discussion of such a large investment into Virginia, Rep. Kiggans could have perhaps fallen into the mainstream stance Republicans have taken on the size and scope of the FBI - which is advocating for it to be scaled-back and spread into subdivisions across the South and Midwest. 

I can understand the argument of wanting to spread prosperity across the nation by divvying well-paying and high-benefit government jobs. However, the government will operate more efficiently if its agencies can stay within close proximity of not just each other, but to Congress and the White House as well. Washington, D.C. is the Nation’s capital. There is something special about taking a plane ride into DCA and taking in the sights of Washington before and after an important meeting with a Federal Agency. That same sense of wonderment and appreciation for our great Nation could be diminished if a big meeting with an Agency was located somewhere else. It is utterly important that agencies maintain Service Centers and Field Offices around the nation in as many counties as possible. But, by and large, the Agencie’s main offices should be in or around Washington, D.C. to affirm a message of efficiency, unity, and reverence for our Nation’s capital. 

The FBI’s new headquarters would be perfectly located if it were placed in Springfield. It’s unbelievably close to the Pentagon, DCA, and Quantico. It also advances racial equity in northern Virginia as underserved communities will have more access to greater economic opportunity, brought in by a boom of new development, businesses, and potential, much-needed expansion of public transportation into Prince William County - whether it be into Woodbridge, Dumfries, or Manassas (not part of PWC but nearby enough to benefit from expanded transportation access). The right choice for the FBI is to place themselves in Springfield as it is a win on all fronts. They get to have close proximity to their essential locations, get cheaper costs on construction, and most importantly, help be the catalyst to bridge the largely unaddressed gap for the needs of the region’s most underserved communities in Woodbridge, Dale City, Dumfries, Alexandria, and Manassas by providing them essential economic lifelines and opportunities through their ability to further transform the region.

Can Democrats Flip Florida in 2024?

The Democratic Party of Florida is in an almost impossible position to win anything state-wide. Especially after the wild popularity of Governor Ron DeSantis within his own state, the Democrats couldn’t even secure Miami-Dade County in 2022’s Governor’s race. The Democrats are functionally destitute with good candidates as well within Florida. The entire Democratic Congressional Delegation either does not want to run for Senate or can’t get elected based on their relatively liberal voting records and prior public stances. The only viable Democrat is former Rep. Stephanie Murphy, who was a member of the Blue Dog Caucus during her time in Congress. She was even chair of the caucus. The window for her as a candidate would be even more viable if there ends up being turmoil in the Republican Primary. Senator Mitch McConnell and even former President Trump have notably been critics of Senator Scott, leaving a gap to be filled by a more establishment-pleasing candidate. Senator Rick Scott was in charge of the NRSC during one of the most disappointing Republican-favoring midterms in modern history. Under his leadership, he failed to flip Arizona, Pennslyvania, Nevada, and Georgia. However, Senator Scott will most likely not have a serious primary challenger, and the Democrats will have to run against him. The problem for Democrats is the resources and energy available to try and unseat Scott. Lots of money and precious airtime would need to be dedicated toward tuning a message that Stephanie Murphy represents sanity and supports seniors while Rick Scott has spent his career attempting to undermine the American social safety net that so many Floridians depend on. However, the reality is that Florida is a crazy state, and trying to win the electorate on sanity and stability is like teaching a goldfish to climb a tree. Governor DeSantis and former President Trump have put so much electricity into Florida politics and trying to stop that would be like putting a thumbtack on a railroad track. Rick Scott could get nicked on his abhorrent track record of supporting legislation and policy proposals that would terribly impact senior citizens, a pivotal voting block in Florida. But ultimately, the chances of Democrats flipping Florida are almost zero in 2024. The coattail effect will significantly benefit Republicans in 2024, combined with DSCC resources spread thin, making this opportunity for a flip a tough one for Democrats.

Key Takeaways

• The Florida Democratic Party is in a terrible spot due to the wild popularity of Governor DeSantis in Florida - alongside consistent and significant rightward trends over the past few years.

• Senator Rick Scott’s list of enemies and terrible track record may be to his detriment, however, the coattail effect would certainly launch him into reelection, especially if Donald Trump or Governor DeSantis is the 2024 presidential nominee.

• The shortage of Democratic candidates in close political alignment to the general Florida electorate with statewide recognition poses a significant challenge for electability, especially in a state that carries the two most nationally recognized Republican figures, Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump.

Can Democrats Hold West Virginia in 2024?

Just as in the case with Jon Tester, Senator Joe Manchin could either have a slightly easier time getting reelected or a brutal time depending on who his opponent is. So far, three serious potential candidates have been named. The three are Rep. Alex Mooney, Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, and Governor Jim Justice. Like Montana, West Virginia is another state that values intrastate heritage. Of the three, only Governor Justice can honestly claim West Virginia heritage. Patrick Morrisey was a high-priced city-slicking lawyer and lobbyist between New York City and Washington D.C. before moving to West Virginia about ten years ago. Alex Mooney is the most problematic candidate of the lot. He has been embroiled in a House Ethics scandal over the usage of his staff and campaign resources for personal errands and affairs. He was also a State Senator in Maryland, representing Frederick, and the Chair of the Republican Party of Maryland before moving forty minutes to the west to Charles Town, a relatively affluent exurb within the D.C. metro area. It’s apparent he only made the move because he realized moving up to Congress as a Republican in Maryland was a fool’s errand. However, he must be kicking himself now after the recent redistricting effort in Maryland drew what would have been Alex Mooney’s district from semi-safe Democratic, to nearly dead even with the Cook PVI index rating the redone Maryland’s 6th at D +2. Both Mooney and Morrissey could easily be named “carpetbaggers”, moving into West Virginia only because the other two states bordering D.C. favor Democrats, Maryland more so than Virginia. Mooney would especially have a hard time with the other half of the state that has yet to put him up to the test on the ballot. Despite the fact his prior map had him representing Charleston, he still has to make his plea to voters in Southern West Virginia, which is significantly more impoverished and deprived than his constituencies in Morgantown, Jefferson County, and previously Charleston. Imagine explaining to the entirety of West Virginia why the guy who was a proud and nearly-lifelong Maryland resident suddenly had a change of heart and thought West Virginia was more aligned with his values. He barely lives in the cultural heart of the state, as Jefferson County is an exurban spillover of the D.C. suburban development boom, as is evident by its status as the richest county in West Virginia. Governor Justice would have the easiest time coasting through the primary. Not only is he Governor, which has much more name recognition than a member of Congress, but he is the only serious candidate that can tout his West Virginia heritage. He literally owned coal mines, a political and economic lifeline in West Virginia. However, his connection to coal can be considered a double-edged sword in the race. On the one hand, he can say he created jobs with his family-owned coal company. A sweet sentiment for the coal-connected families in West Virginia. But, his company has been involved in litanies of scandal with its terrible environmental track record and dodgy finances. His wealth doesn’t appear to be subject to scrutiny either as voters don’t seem to mind it as evidenced by his election to the Governorship twice. Senator Manchin also owned a coal company, although it was much smaller in scale than Justice’s mines. However, personal finances or dealings will not be the most pressing issue in this campaign. This election is a referendum on the Biden agenda in West Virginia, a phenomenon that usurps personal politics. It doesn’t matter how long Manchin’s family has been involved in West Virginia or how many coal jobs he created. This is about sending a message to Washington that they are sick of the consistent undermining of West Virginia values by the Biden Administration. Inflation, aggressive renewable energy initiatives, and overall dissatisfaction with the political culture Democrats are perceived to be ushering in are all going to be put up to the test on the ballot. West Virginia will vote for the Republican candidate as President, even if it is Mickey Mouse, and the coattail effect will be in full swing unless Manchin can make a large, genuine, and expensive plea to voters that he has been critical in trying to scale back Biden’s massive and consequential initiatives. 

Key Takeaways

• Governor Justice poses the most serious threat to Senator Manchin due to his status as Governor and immense personal resources

• The election will be a referendum on the Biden Agenda, which could help or harm Manchin depending on his campaign strategy

• The state will vote for the Republican presidential candidate and the coattail effect may send the Republican Senate candidate over the line into victory

Will Jon Tester Keep His Senate Seat in 2024?

Senator Jon Tester has been incredibly lucky with how his past three elections have been scheduled. All of his past elections were scheduled during good years for Democrats. His initial election in 2006 was the big pushback year against Bush that saw Nancy Pelosi gain speakership. 2012 was perhaps his hardest year, however, politics was different back then and personal politics mattered more, especially when Tester’s opponent’s complicated stance on his personal wealth was jarring to voters. 2018 barely needs an explanation. Good year for Democrats and bad for Republicans. By 2024, partisan identity is going to matter more than ever, and it may not be enough to save the personal politics style of Jon Tester. Analysts already estimate that $100 million will be spent between Democrats and Republicans for this election. Especially with the other Senator from Montana, Republican Steve Daines, becoming Chair of the NRSC, a great deal of Republican resources is going to be behind whoever faces against Tester in the general election. The Republican Primary may be a challenge for Republicans in this race. It is anticipated that both Montana’s Congressmen, Rep. Ryan Zinke, and Rep. Matt Rosendale, are going to face each other in the primary. Jon Tester will probably win reelection if Matt Rosendale gets nominated, and Republicans know this. Tester beat Rosendale in 2018, and Rosendale’s outlandish political style, personal wealth, and Maryland roots are turnoffs for humble Montana voters. It’s safe to assume Republicans already know this. Considering the antics Rosendale pulled during the McCarthy speakership vote, the party would be much more inclined to back Ryan Zinke, who was Secretary of the Interior under Trump, and was actually born in Montana; which is something that Montana voters treasure immensely. The value of Montana heritage in elections when choosing a candidate makes Montana such a unique state. It’s far from other more populous states which garners a special culture and appreciation for the state and brings a tight-knit and community-oriented feel, which has allowed sixth-generation, farm-owning Montanan Jon Tester to resonate so well with Montana voters. “Maryland Matt” was used as a slogan in 2018 to paint him as a carpetbagger who moved to Montana because he could not get elected state-wide in such a liberal bastion like Maryland. However, Matt Rosendale did win the then-at-large Congressional Seat in Montana just two years after his Senate loss, which should serve as a warning light for Democrats. Rep. Zinke is no angel himself either. He had to resign from his post as Secretary of the Interior due to a litany of charges pertaining to financial malfeasance. The whole extent of investigations into Zinke was stalled by the then-Deputy Attorney General, however, Zinke was still found to be in violation of ethics rules by the Inspector General of the Interior. Zinke could be painted as the definition of pay-to-play access in Washington. His extensive history with giving special treatment to corporations such as MGM and Halliburton, as well as lobbyists, could tie him close to the kind of swampy politics humble Montana voters vehemently despise. Despite the fact Jon Tester has the third lowest voting alignment with President Biden, it still stands at 91%. Although this figure is significant for political analysts, it sounds like a massive red flag for conservative voters in Montana. Tester will run a more grounded issues-oriented campaign than a partisan one. He will run on his record as the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, as well as tout the parts of the infrastructure package that greatly benefit Montana. The latter portion of his strategy is incredibly risky. In a cable news-dominated political culture, it is bold to assume voters will recognize nuance in the infrastructure package. Despite the fact that there are parts of the package that help Montana, the rest of it would just seem excessive to swingvoters. Especially on the heels of rampant inflation, which has devastated Montana’s real estate market, selling the infrastructure package as a victory would not be convincing to Montana voters who just think that the Biden Administration has authorized way too much spending, and Tester would be tied as an enabler to it, unlike an opponent to it like his other vulnerable counterpart Senator Joe Manchin.

Key Takeaways

• Both potential Republican candidates are tainted, Zinke with consistent violations of ethics rules and Rosendale with his outlandish political flair and lack of Montana roots

• Jon Tester may be tying himself too close to the infrastructure package, which can be spun as him enabling the rampant inflation that has plagued Montana’s economy since 2020

• There are numerous blue-trending cities in Montana including Missoula, Kalispell, Butte, Great Falls, Bozeman, and Helena; all of which combined constitute 25.7% of the state’s population, which may not be enough to take Tester over the edge unless turnout is high in those areas.

Virginia's Moderate Mosaic: Embracing Progress with Prudence - Your Comprehensive Guide to Virginia Politics

Despite…

not having a Republican Senator in over a decade and increasing Democratic trends, Virginia is still prone to the occasional Republican winning either statewide or in key battleground areas. It’s safe to assume that popular incumbent Senator Tim Kaine will win reelection in 2024. However, as evidenced by 2021’s Governor’s Race, all it takes is a centimillionaire from Great Falls and $50 million to flip the state red. Democrats in Virginia have been lucky because of the candidates Virginia Republicans have decided to run in the past decade. They are usually either milquetoast lawyers/lobbyists who can win the ire of the Party due to their deep political connections (Ed Gillespie & Ken Cuccinelli), or some candidate who pivots too far to the right of the Virginia electorate; which always ends in some racially-charged scandal that costs any chance to capture any sizable amount of swing voters in increasingly diverse suburbs such as Henrico, Loudoun, and Stafford counties (Corey Stewart & George Allen). 

The key to winning Virginia is its massive amount of suburbs and increasingly growing exurbs. The largest population share of the state is one giant wealthy suburb of Washington D.C., which grows by the decade as mini-cities like Tysons Corner pop up and expand the radius people are willing to live in. Places that were once rural farming communities such as Fauquier County, western Prince William County, and large portions of Loudoun County, have now become development hotbeds due to more people working in places like Manassas, Tysons Corner, Reston, Ashburn, and Chantilly. All of the people moving to this part of Virginia have greatly influenced its politics and legislative maps. Virginia’s Eleventh used to favor Republicans somewhat as it spanned from Falls Church all the way to Bristow. However, examining former Congressman Tom Davis’s election results, one can see his increasingly skint margins of victory, largely due to increasing development, until Gerry Connolly finally took the prize in 2008. Virginia’s Eleventh is now completely in Fairfax County, of which it only represents a large portion, not the entire county. The district is now also rated D +18 by the Cook PVI, which means even in the reddest of waves the seat will remain in Democratic control. A more contemporary example of Virginia’s demographic shifts northbound is the Tenth and Seventh Congressional Districts. The 2022 redistricting especially highlighted the changes in Virginia’s population trends. Before the redistricting, only two congressional districts could be considered completely in the metro D.C. Northern Virginia area, the Eighth and Eleventh. Virginia’s First, despite having Stafford, Fredericksburg, and the more undeveloped areas of western Prince William County, was mainly drawn into the Northern Neck, a large portion of an undeveloped chunk of the I-95 corridor, and the more conservative parts of the Hampton Roads, including Poquoson and York County. Many of those parts of Virginia’s First that encompassed Northern Virginia were drawn into the Seventh, which was almost entirely moved from Central Virginia and the Richmond Suburbs. Although Culpeper and Orange County are still in the Seventh, the true population centers and electoral lifeblood of the Seventh were drawn to encompass eastern Prince William County, Stafford, and Fredericksburg.
This just shows how much development and movement into those areas have warranted an entire Congressional District covering that vibrant stretch of land. Virginia’s First now has replaced its suburban population center from the Stafford-Fredericksburg corridor to the suburbs of Richmond and just a bit more of the Hampton Roads area. Virginia’s Tenth also experienced significant reshaping, although its electoral lifeblood and essential voting bases, Loudoun County and Manassas, remain in the district. Virginia’s Tenth, before 2022, spanned from the wealthier, more moderate, and more sparsely populated parts of Fairfax County out to the western edge of Virginia, Frederick County and Winchester. After 2022, the district became much more centralized around Loudoun County, which has experienced the largest population boom in Northern Virginia, aside from Stafford County. The redrawn Tenth now captures the entirety of Fauquier County, which used to belong to Virginia’s Fifth Congressional District. The redrawn Tenth also greatly scaled back its representation of Fairfax County, now only covering the more conservatively-minded affluent town of Clifton. The significant geographic scaleback and consolidation of the redraw Tenth around Washington D.C.’s suburbs and exurbs just illustrate how much development has occurred in the region, further influencing Virginia’s statewide politics to be more Democratic. Despite the fact, the Tenth is only D +6, the sheer amount of suburban vote share between Sterling to Leesburg, as well as the recently exploding Manassas-Gainesville-Haymarket area, in the district, means that even the slightest off-color soundbite about race or abortion from a Republican candidate would relegate them to knocking doors in Purcellville and begging voters in Warrenton to at least consider reading their issues page.

 Outside of Northern Virginia, the other two massive population centers of Virginia include Richmond and the Hampton Roads area. The top three fastest-growing counties in Virginia, New Kent, Goochland, and Louisa, are all considered to be in the Richmond metro area. I speculate that this growth within Richmond, and its suburbs, will continue over the next few decades. A common phenomenon that drives suburban and exurban development is when the main city that a metro area envelopes around becomes too expensive or unattractive for investment, so companies start to plant themselves in the suburbs, which expands the radius of suburbs even farther outward. Especially as development gets denser and prices rise, development expands to greater lengths away from the main city. However, companies and major employers start to plant themselves in the suburbs to make commute times better and save money and time by obviating the pesky regulations and politics that plague cities. With this comes more incentive for developers to expand outward as more people can commute less densely packed roads from a sparsely populated area to another somewhat more densely populated area. This is what happened in Northern Virginia. As Washington D.C. became too expensive and far for commuters, companies such as Hilton, Capital One, Northrup Grumman, and many more ingrained themselves in Fairfax County, allowing for incentive to develop more of western Prince William County, Loudoun County, and even Fauquier County. To commute from Warrenton or Leesburg to Washington D.C. would be a living nightmare. However, if the commute is from Warrenton to Manassas or Leesburg to Reston, it isn’t so bad and a lot better than having to sit in gridlock from Woodbridge to Washington D.C. As Richmond gets bigger and eventually more expensive, companies may find it a lot more attractive to settle down in Henrico County, which allows for development to occur in such a rural place like Louisa County, a middle ground between Albemarle County and the outer-Richmond suburbs. Although now largely considered a rural retreat, eastern Louisa County could see a rise in development if companies begin to seek campuses in Short Pump. However, this will occur gradually and won’t be truly tangible for at least a few more decades, seeing as how Richmond is still one of the most affordable mid-sized cities on the East Coast. 

Development is much slower in the Hampton Roads area. Aside from Chesapeake and semi-retirement communities in James City and New Kent Counties, the core of the Hampton Roads, Hampton, Norfolk, and Newport News has seen stagnant population trends and even population decline in some areas. Crime and infrastructure continue to be an issue in Hampton Roads. The actual roads of which the Hampton Roads are aptly named experience near-constant gridlock and are constantly under maintenance due to their proximity to corrosive seawater. Up the Hampton Roads peninsula, in the Historic Triangle, investment seems more attractive due to proximity to both the core of Hampton Roads and Richmond for commuters who do not mind a 45-minute to an hour drive either way. It is also a great place for retirees as the Historic Triangle offers both beaches and scenic historical sights. This is partly why New Kent County, a middle ground between the Historic Triangle and Richmond is the fastest-growing county in Virginia. The military is also the largest driver of development in Hampton Roads. Norfolk is home to the largest naval base in the United States, which is telling of the military’s power in the Hampton Roads area. That is why former Congresswoman Elaine Luria semi-campaigned against President Biden in 2022, touting her disagreement with him on his reduced military budget, adjusted for inflation. The military is the heart of Hampton Roads, and capturing that vote will secure any election that occurs in the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Cheaspeake area. The Black vote is also crucial in Hampton Roads. However, this often causes tension around redistricting time. Everything around the core of Hampton Roads is semi-competitive, but functionally Republican when Trump isn’t in the picture. Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, and James City all went for Biden but then pivoted toward Youngkin in the 2021 election while York County and Poquoson remained Republican, even with Trump in the picture. Around redistricting time, there are consistent and unfortunate attempts to stick all of the Black voters in Hampton Roads into one or a few districts, while cracking everything else that is even slightly competitive into more conservative territory in Gloucester, Isle of Wight, and Suffolk Counties. State Senator Mamie Locke was almost drawn into a senate district that captured only predominately black neighborhoods in Hampton, Norfolk, and Newport News before the final map forewent any of Norfolk and sprang for more of Newport News. The final map of Senator Monty Mason’s district ended up encompassing the more affluent parts of Newport News along the water, as well as Christopher Newport University.

 In terms of Congressional representation, the Hampton Roads metro area is split across three congressional districts. Virginia’s First Congressional District, after 2022 redistricting, encompasses the Historic Triangle completely as well as Poquoson. Those areas, except for Williamsburg, are among the most conservative in the Hampton Roads metro area and are experiencing the largest population growth in the region, as mentioned earlier. Virginia’s Third Congressional District completely encompasses what is considered to be the core of the Hampton Roads area. It is a majority-Black district, as it encompasses Newport News, Hampton, Portsmouth, and Norfolk. The Third has a Cook PVI score of D +17, which has allowed the incumbent and Dean of the Virginia Congressional Delegation, Congressman Bobby Scott, to remain in the seat for as long as he has. The district used to cut into Isle of Wight County, which was much more conservative. However, by 2022, the district was redrawn to cut more into Norfolk, which shoved Isle of Wight County into the Second district. Virginia’s Second Congressional District is objectively the most competitive seat in the Hampton Roads metro area, and maybe even the entire Commonwealth of Virginia. The district used to be dead even, as it used to encompass the entirety of the Historic Triangle. Votes in Williamsburg were counterbalanced with votes from York County and Poquoson, Accomack counteracted Northampton, and Virginia Beach itself, although has historically skewed Republican, voted for Biden in 2020 and for McCain in 2008 by only less than a percentage point. The heart of the Second District is undeniably Virginia Beach. It is the largest city in the district and serves as a suburban, family-friendly haven for many service members who work in Norfolk. After the 2022 redistricting, the Second’s representation of the Historic Triangle vanished and absorbed the more Republican Chesapeake and Isle of Wight Counties. Although Chesapeake is pretty much dead-even, it has proven that it is a bellwether for any sort of wave that may hit an election cycle. It voted for Obama in both 2008 and 2012 but by less than two percentage points both times. It voted for Trump by less than a percentage point, while voting for Biden by nearly seven points. It then pivoted nearly five points in favor of Governor Youngkin just one year after a comfortable victory of President Biden in the county. It’s safe to say that nobody would want this seat as a Member of Congress. Whoever represents it would have to be in constant campaign mode and at even the slightest breeze favoring a certain political party in an election year, the district has the highest chance of flipping toward the favorable party. Former Rep. Elaine Luria won the seat during a blue/pink wave year but then lost in what was considered an incredibly disappointing and underwhelming red tide for Republicans. Whoever represents this seat would also need to be on the Appropriations or Veterans Affairs Committees due to the sheer amount of military power and veteran population residing in the district. It’s safe to say that any candidate with a soundbite even slightly critical of the military-industrial complex would probably never get elected in this district, as the sheer volume of campaign spending, $13 million in total for 2022, would make sure everyone who consumes media will know what you said. What is also jarring is that Elaine Luria’s campaign spent over $10 million, and was beaten by Jen Kiggans, whose campaign only spent just over $3 million; further proving just how volatile this district is to partisan swings in any given election year. 

The final major metropolitan area in Virginia is Richmond. Richmond is the smallest of the three major metropolitan areas in Virginia. While Northern Virginia has a population of 3.16 million and Hampton Roads has a population of 1.8 million, Richmond stands at a more humble 1.1 million. Like Hampton Roads, the Richmond area is also represented by three congressional districts, however, all of them service large portions of other areas as well. While the actual Hampton Roads has its very own congressional district, the Third. Richmond itself is in the Fourth district, which services areas well beyond Richmond. The Fourth encompasses financially stressed towns including Petersburg (which nearly went bankrupt in 2016), Emporia, and Waverly. There are many predominately Black communities in the Fourth due to the sheer amount of slavery that occurred in this part of Virginia due to its fertile soil and proximity to vital trade routes. Although the Fourth is not majority Black, the representation of Richmond and many other predominately black towns and counties make the district a critical fixture for Black American representation. The first black female representative in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Jennifer McClellan, was just elected in the Fourth after the seat was vacated when former Rep. and Richmond political powerhouse Donald McEachin passed away in November of 2022. Virginia’s First, which has been mentioned quite a lot in this piece, now represents the Richmond suburbs after the 2022 redistricting cycle. Although Henrico County consistently votes Democratic, Chesterfield County does not. Chesterfield County has been considered a safe Republican base for quite some time. However, as more development occurs in Midlothian, the county is becoming increasingly more competitive, voting for Biden in 2020 but then pivoting toward Youngkin in 2021. The district also includes Hanover County, another Republican County, although much safer than Chesterfield County.

Virginia’s First is rated at R +6 by the Cook PVI. Although this may seem somewhat competitive on paper, much like the Tenth district, there is enough vote share in a variety of key areas, including the Historic Triangle, Northern Neck, Hanover County, and Chesterfield County among Republicans to send the Republican Candidate over the edge to victory. Turnout among the older folks, particularly in the Historic Triangle and Northern Neck, is particularly high and can counteract any pushback from the district’s only two Democratic pressure points, Henrico County and Williamsburg. The entirety of Henrico County isn’t even in the First as well, leaving what would be a solid Democratic base incomplete. However, with all that said, it wouldn't be out of the realm of reality to see a Republican lose, especially if they pivot too far to the right. The district’s incumbent, Rob Wittman, has been an establishment darling during his nearly 20 years of service in Congress. Although he did vote against certifying electors from Pennslyvania in 2021, he certainly got an earful about his decision in the local and statewide press. Virginia’s First is certainly the perfect place for a Republican party-line voter to represent because it’s not too red, but also still has enough blue to push back loudly and publicly against unkosher decisions and rhetoric that the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus adopt. 

Virginia’s Fifth Congressional District can almost barely be considered part of the Richmond metro area. The closest proximity the district has to Richmond is Manakin Sabot and strangely Doswell, most known for the location of Kings Dominion. Before the 2022 redistricting cycle, the Fifth had a long and tall map. It started all the way at the southern border with North Carolina and stretched up as far as Fauquier County. The Fifth is most well-known for being the district that encompasses Charlottesville and Albemarle County, which is the district’s only overwhelmingly Democratic area. The district is also home to Lynchburg, which was recently drawn into the district in 2022. The Fifth also contains some major economically distressed towns including South Boston and Danville, which have become the focal point in the debate of rural emigration in Southern Virginia. However, not much else is notable about the district aside from hills and vineyards. The Fifth’s Congressman, Bob Good, lives just south of Lynchburg in overwhelmingly conservative Campbell County, where he previously served on the Board of Supervisors. Some wonder as to how such a conservative firebrand like Bob Good ended up representing Charlottesville in Congress, however, the rest of his district consists of large enough amounts of Republican voters to counteract Albemarle County and Charlottesville. Lynchburg, which is home to Liberty University, also serves as another small-sized city counteracting point against Charlottesville’s political power. 

The other two congressional districts not mentioned so far, the Sixth and the Ninth, are both not part of any of Virginia’s three major metropolitan areas. The Sixth encompasses the entire Shenandoah Valley, which is Appalachia’s richer little brother. The area benefits from a lot of tourism due to its various notable landmarks including scenic roadways, Luray Caverns, hiking trails, and various adorable little towns such as Stauton and Waynesboro. These landmarks are also not painfully far away from the DC area. Luray is only an hour and thirty minutes from Fairfax County, and add thirty minutes to an hour for other pleasant things to see and do in the district. The district is also home to two major universities, James Madison University and Washington & Lee. Parts of the district that used to be in the Tenth, Winchester, and Front Royal, are now in the Sixth after the 2022 redistricting. Remote workers, and even some hybrid workers from DC, are moving into these two towns, especially after the pandemic. Winchester is only an hour and twenty minutes from DC, and forty minutes away from Leesburg. Front Royal is only an hour and ten away from DC, and fifty minutes away from Manassas. This district is pretty long as it spans from Frederick County in the north, all the way down to Roanoke, the district’s largest population center. Before being represented by incumbent Rep. Ben Cline, the Sixth was held by the powerful and well-regarded Honorable Bob Goodlatte, who was Chairman of the House Agriculture and Judiciary Committees. However, despite the district’s natural beauty, inside is partisan ugliness that favors more right-wing Republicans. If ever a Marjorie Taylor Greene or Madison Cawthorn got elected to this district, it would be a hard time trying to get them out. 

Virginia’s Ninth Congressional District has not been as fortunate as its prettier mountainous counterpart, the Sixth. The median household income in the Ninth is $12,000 lower than the Sixth. Pretty much the entirety of the district resides in Appalachia, a region not exactly known for economic contentment and high quality of life. The Ninth has the highest poverty rate of out all eleven of Virginia’s Congressional Districts. The district borders some of the poorest congressional districts in the nation, including Kentucky’s Fifth and West Virginia’s First. Aside from Blacksburg, home of Virginia Tech, and Bristol, half of which is in Tennessee, there are no other notable cities in this district. There are a few small towns here and there like Galax, Abingdon, Martinsville, and Tazewell. Pretty much every county in the Ninth went to Youngkin by 75 to 65 points, which was a major source of contention among Democrats who pointed to this as evidence that the Democratic rural strategy was non-existent. Although it’s expected for Democrats to lose this area, the margins should not have been as large as they were, as it looks like no Democrats live in this overlooked part of Virginia. There is contention in this part of the state with the rest of Virginia. While the big three areas soak up all the resources and attention, especially northern Virginia, folks in this part of Virginia feel alienated and strange in a state whose culture has changed drastically in the past thirty years. This part of the state must feel like what Virginia used to be before all of the massive development. Rural communities, centered around folksy towns with nothing but hills and virgin greenery for endless miles. I’m sure this feeling in the Ninth is particularly animated by the fact that so many people in this district must be old by the sheer virtue of Appalachian population demographics. One major source of tourism in the district is Smith Mountain Lake, a popular tourist destination for affluent and middle-class Virginians alike. Tourism in the rest of the district is severely limited by the fact that the district is nearly six hours away from Washington DC and northern Virginia. Even Richmond is nearly five hours away from the district. This district has not benefited from the expansive economic development of Virginia because it is simply just too far from its vital population centers. 

This illustrates a larger issue in the grand scheme of Appalaichan development and partially explains why the region was never able to prosper. The mountains make it unsuitable for development, not that trees and nature are bad things, but no crucial cities were ever able to develop due to its lack of vital waterways for trade and commerce. Pretty much the entirety of industry and economic opportunity in Appalachia revolved around mineral extraction, seeing as how mountains are the only place one can find coal. But as that resource was lapped by fossil fuels, Appalachia became obsolete as the region found itself hours and hours away from flourishing cities like Washington DC, Cleveland, Columbus, Charlotte, Nashville, and Cincinnati. The Shenandoah Valley has been able to prosper because it’s a nice weekend getaway for those who live in the DC and Richmond areas. The Ninth, on the other hand, is too far for a weekend getaway and must survive on Virginia Tech and Radford dollars that come in from northern Virginia and Richmond. This is also reflected in the Cook PVI scores between the Sixth and the Ninth as well, with the Sixth at R +14, and the Ninth at R +23 which makes it the most conservative congressional district in Virginia. 

The final congressional districts discussed here are the Eighth and Eleventh. The Eighth is Virginia’s smallest and most liberal congressional district by the sheer virtue that it is the closest to Washington DC. This district only underwent minor reshaping in 2022. It gained the wealthier parts of McLean and filled in the rest of the beltway by adding Annandale, while also losing Lorton. Twenty years ago, the district did not have any Mason Neck and had a weird antenna-shaped extension that reached out to Reston, probably to make Tom Davis’s seat safer. The Eighth has two major mid-sized cities located within it, Alexandria and Arlington. These cities are largely known for housing thousands of federal employees and contractors. Homes in the Eighth are incredibly expensive, which is why so many are opting to move out to the Eleventh (which has also gotten pretty expensive), Tenth (expensive in Loudoun), or Seventh (arguably the cheapest option but traffic is a nightmare).  As Alexandria and Arlington got too expensive and filled up with contracting firms, IT companies, and government agencies, people started moving to Woodbridge, Lorton, Burke, Fairfax, and Springfield, which grew those towns into the great levels of development saturation we see today. The Eighth is probably the only suitable congressional district a member in Virginia can join the House Progressive Caucus, aside from arguably the Third. Even the Eleventh district, as Democratic as it is, contains many old-guard-style Democrats who would prefer someone like Gerry Connolly or Henry Waxman over a vapid progressive firebrand. This is due largely in part to the suburban makeup of the Eleventh. It doesn’t contain any truly notable cities aside from Fairfax. The Eleventh is essentially a collective of affluent towns, inhabited by postgraduate educated two-income households. These kinds of voters prefer stability and candidates with established and successful careers. Candidates who have served on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors are also highly preferred in the Eleventh as the role demonstrates the highest level of civic engagement and understanding of issues in the district. Although there is no chance a Republican would win in the Eleventh, the Democratic Primary would weed out inexperienced progressives in favor of more establishment-friendly candidates. Perhaps, the Eighth is a hybrid of Medicare-for-All and Medicare X voters, while the Eleventh is almost completely dominated by Medicare X voters. Medicare X voters refer to a more moderate brand of Democrat, while Medicare-for-All refers to a progressive style of Democrat. The Eighth is socio-economically divided. There are more working-class folks in various neighborhoods, particularly in Alexandria and Falls Church. Massive Korean and Central American immigrant communities also greatly influence the district’s culture and economy. The working-class folks and a good chunk of the young adults that live in Arlington (Rosslyn, Crystal City, and Ballston neighborhoods) are much more progressive and would be much more likely to support someone like Ritchie Torres or Pramila Jayapal. The other half of the district, well-to-do folks, are still Democratic but are greatly more moderate. These people are postgraduate-educated professionals and high-ranking government officials who reside in McLean, Mount Vernon, and various wealthy neighborhoods in Alexandria and Arlington. Rep. Don Beyer is perfect for this district because he has been able to walk the Progressive Caucus-New Democrat Coalition line so well, never pivoting too far to one side. 

Virginia Democrats reflect the state's more traditional political culture. Politics, in the South, is seen as something for people to do in the latter portion of their careers. Young people are encouraged to get engaged in politics, but not encouraged to run until they at least accomplish something in the private or public sectors, combined with an extensive track record of prior civic and political engagement. It sounds like a lot to accomplish, but this is why the quality of our politicians is so high. Both Senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, and House Members Gerry Connolly, Don Beyer, Bobby Scott, Abigail Spanberger, and Jennifer Wexton, all had successful careers before their entrance into politics. Virginia’s politics are well-represented in the Senate. Mark Warner is functionally a centrist and has been a lowkey yet crucial voice in negotiating the size and scope of the Biden Agenda. Tim Kaine is a little more Democratic than Warner but is still widely regarded as a moderate. Tim Kaine used to take a public pro-life stance, famously voting in favor of the Hyde Amendment. However, like Senator Bob Casey Jr., they both forewent their pro-life stances as the Democratic electorate shifted leftward on abortion. There is no question that no matter what party Virginia’s Senators end up being, they have to remain moderate. If there was any inclination to lean into more partisanship, it is at least more favorable for Democrats due to the backing of three major metro areas. 

However, the caveat for Democrats in statewide elections is two phenomena, receding radius and death by a thousand cuts. The receding radius refers to the effect a favorable election toward Republicans can have on the election results of Virginia’s suburbs. The most prominent example is what happened between 2020 and 2021 in the Biden and Youngkin elections. In 2020, Biden’s victories in Northern Virginia stretched out to Stafford and Loudoun Counties. However in 2021, an election favorable toward Republicans, the radius of Democratic vote share decreased immensely to a point where Stafford flipped in pretty heavy favor for Youngkin, and although McAuliffe still won Loudoun, the margins were significantly reduced from Biden’s. The same happened in both the Richmond and Hampton Roads metro areas as counties such as James City, Chesapeake, Chesterfield, and Virginia Beach flipped red. It seems like Abigail Spanberger and Jennifer Wexton have figured out how to navigate this problem for Democrats. Wexton is more fortunate than Spanberger due to the more Democratic nature of her district, however, her district could still be considered vulnerable in the right circumstances. Spanberger won by pivoting toward the center, advocating against the most unpopular aspects and characterizations of the national Democratic Party. In 2020, she became nationally recognized by media for her public criticisms against excessively progressive rhetoric that was adopted by much of the Democratic Party in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, disavowing messaging such as “defund the police” and directly positive references to socialism. She recognized that these two messages would turn off moderate voters in suburbs and exurbs, especially in her neck of the woods that is an hour away from DC, a prime target of the receding radius effect. 

Death by a thousand cuts, a rather vivid terminology, refers to when the vote share of lowly populated and rural counties add up to a point where it can threaten statewide margins for the Democratic candidate. Despite winning heavily populated areas such as Fairfax County, Henrico County, Norfolk, and Richmond, these winning margins can get nicked by 70 to 80 points in places like Tazewell, Rockingham, and Wise Counties. Although the rural vote share can not possibly be as large as what comes out of the heavily Democratic large areas, that rural vote share combined with competitive suburbs and exurbs can edge the Republicans to victory, as seen with Governor Youngkin in 2021. Approximately over five million people live along the I-95/I-64 corridor in Virginia, the rest of the state dwells amongst the hills and coastal plains. The Republicans just have to work hard to capture the swing-burbs and the rural vote will naturally follow.

 If Democrats not only want to secure elections but also govern more effectively, they need a better rural outreach strategy. Even if Democrats do win an election through sheer urban and bluer suburb turnout, there are still potentially capturable delegate and state senate states out in Western Virginia and the peninsulas that can help secure majorities and expand relationships in those regions. Serious economic and cultural resentment will occur, and sort of already is, if Virginia Democrats continue to be the Fairfax-Richmond-Hampton Roads party. Democrats risk not only exacerbating polarization among the statesmen of the hills, but also causing schisms in their party in more vulnerable places like Fredericksburg, Chesapeake, and Chesterfield Counties. Virginia Democrats do a phenomenal job fundraising for candidates, as well as picking them too. However, Democrats need to start extending an olive branch out toward the western part of the state. Although Democrats will not flip the Sixth or Ninth blue, Democrats can at least expand outreach so that Democrats don’t lose Tazewell County by 73 points. I can imagine a couple of satellite centers for Democrats to expand rural outreach. Operations for local candidates in Pulaski County, Roanoke County, Frederick County, and Culpeper County, would help expand their brand, but what about the message? What do Democrats even communicate to voters who are so set in their ways? Democrats will not flip the hearts and minds of staunch conservatives by having young people in dress shirts knock on doors and lecture them on the nuances of funding local schools or espousing climate justice. These Democrats are going to have to pivot toward the center, even the right on certain issues. These issues include gun rights, forbearance of identity politics, energy independence, and benefits for farmers. There are also cultural aspects of a Democrat capturing a rural area that transcend policy. Humility, problem-solving over partisanship, deep emphasis on local issues and regional economic trends, true empathy, community roots, and listening more and talking less are all attributes that are essential for rural Democrats. Every vote and every stance goes back to their base of voters in their respective states. They can not afford to constantly follow the party line, however, that does not mean they aren’t reliable. 

Manchin and Tester have mastered messaging rather left-wing pieces of legislation into a lens that is somewhat palatable for their incredibly conservative states. Tester has touted the benefits of the infrastructure package through a Montana-centric lens. Manchin has publically broken ways with the Biden administration on key issues that are salient to West Virginia voters such as environmental regulations and gun laws. Rural Democrats can point to their contentions with the national party as a way of amplifying their care and concern for issues pressing their district or state. Nothing says you care about West Virginia’s coal industry more than being willing to disagree, and even vote against, with your party grain for the sake of the people of West Virginia. These Democrats can also tout to voters that they are the only “sane” ones in the party and that without their involvement in shaping the party agenda, then they would alienate rural voters and push through legislation that hurts the state and further exacerbate an elitist and out-of-touch message. Although rural Democrats will certainly contribute more toward intraparty factionalism, they are utterly crucial during a time when Republicans are in power as they serve as lines of communication between Democratic leadership and Republican moderates. For example, Mark Warner and Joe Manchin have been critical in negotiations with Susan Collins and Bill Cassidy. They also can be reliable votes against tax cuts and scaling back social services as their bases generally do not agree with those policy proposals. 

In sum, the state of Virginia politics favors Democrats, yet rewards moderates. Virginia is an incredibly diverse state, both demographically and geographically; and the politics of the state reflect that. The suburbs define the results of Virginia’s statewide elections, as it includes critical swing counties in the Richmond, Hampton Roads, and northern Virginia metro areas. The state is more likely to continue to trend Democratic, making winning as a Republican statewide an uphill battle. That is why Glenn Youngkin had to conduct the image and messaging of his campaign with utter surgical precision. Democrats can continue to afford to have more rhetorical room when campaigning statewide for the more liberal points of their platform, especially on women’s and social issues. Republicans are in a tight spot with how they can campaign. Unlike the luxury New England Republicans have with taking liberal stances on social issues to encapsulate a sizable enough portion of moderate voters, Virginia Republicans do not have the same luxury. Many Republicans in Virginia are pretty right-wing. The state’s Republican congressional delegation reflects this, with the state’s only somewhat moderate Republican only considered to be Rep. Rob Wittman. Virginia Republicans can not go too liberal or moderate because they will alienate and anger a large portion of their base, and their efforts will be in vain as swing voters in Virginia would prefer the Democrat because they are more comfortable diving into social liberalism without the stench of characters like Donald Trump or Bob Good following behind them. For Republicans, less is more, and an emphasis on kitchen table issues and the incredibly precise calculation of culture war rhetoric will ultimately come to their benefit above other strategies. Youngkin mastered this, which is what propelled him to victory. With that being said, the future ultimately looks bright for Democrats in Virginia, and increasingly dreary for Republicans every time Ryan Homes plops down another few hundred townhomes in Stafford County. However, don’t expect to see any figures like Ed Markey or Markwayne Mullin come out of Virginia, as it will continue to reward moderation statewide.