• In Virginia, a recent VCU poll indicated that 71% of respondents were in favor of eliminating the sales tax exemption for data centers.

• In Virginia and nationally, polls consistently show that approximately 2 out of 3 residents are uncomfortable with a data center being built in their own community. A Gallup poll indicated that people are far more supportive of having a nuclear power plant in their community than a data center- who would have seen this coming?

• In recent months, we’ve started to see leaders in avowedly conservative, pro-business states led by Republican governors such as Texas and Ohio call for “pauses” on data center development while audits and other activities are undertaken to establish the parameters that should guide any further buildout.

• In Virginia, we’ve seen several Senate Republicans begin to sing in the anti-data center chorus.

  -GOP Senators Richrd Stuart and David Suetterlein supported Senators Louise Lucas’ call for the elimination of the sales tax exemption.

  -Senator Glen Sturtevant asked the Governor to issue an Executive Order for a statewide moratorium.

  -Maga Congressman John McGuire sent Spanberger a letter asking her to halt the Valley Link transmission project, echoing the position of Tom Perriello, his progressive Democratic opponent.

  -Delegate Michael Webert labels the Virginia Democrats the “Data Center Doormats.”

• Just yesterday, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, said “no mas” to future data centers after getting an earful from their residents about the three Google data center campuses that a previous Board approved without public input.

Spanberger’s “Fair Share” Position

Spanberger’s “Fair Share” position on data centers attempts to threat the needle between supporters who who point to their substantial economic benefits and critics worried about their contribution to rising utility bills and environmental degradation.

• Spanberger opposes both the elimination of the sales tax exemption and calls for a moratorium on development, arguing that Virginia must keep its promises to retain its pro-business reputation and not discard the economic benefits that data centers provide the state.

• Spanberger recognizes that a very significant proportion of economic development investment in Virginia is currently tied to data centers. Her predecessor Glenn Youngkin proudly championed the billions of dollars in economic development initiative he brought to the Commonwealth, the majority were actually in data centers. Take this away and suddenly the billions of new investment in Virginia shrinks dramatically.

• Instead, she proposes a “Fair Share” approach that has data centers pay for energy consumption and concurs with the State Corporation Commission’s decision that data centers pay the costs of the transmission infrastructure that serves them.

• Spanberger also points to legislation she proposed that imposes stricter environmental regulations on data centers that responds to criticisms about water usage, backup diesel generation, and noise.

• The Governor also maintains that decisions about data center development should ultimately rest with localities, some that will eagerly welcome them while others will not.

Will “Fair Share” Work?

Politically, the “Fair Share” position is intended to preserve Virginia’s pro-business commitment to data centers while also becoming what Spanberger calls a “national leader” in regulating them.

I’m not sure, however, that this position can be fully sustained.

• At a minimum, my sense is that growing public opposition to data centers will compel the “Fair Share” proponents to up the ante and advocate that data centers pay an even “fairer share.” I don’t exactly know where the line will be drawn, but it’s certain that the share will be higher next year than today.

• The conceit that the decision to build a data center is purely local is becoming impossible to uphold. Why should a single locality have complete decision-making authority when the impacts increasingly extend across multiple jurisdictions?

  The opposition to the Valley Link transmission line is a perfect example. Farmers, residents, and boards of supervisors of locales far away from the NOVA data centers that the project serves are protesting against the huge transmission towers and lines placed on and over their land, their yards, and their communities without their permission.

• It’s doubtful that the “Fair Share” approach can actually insulate the public from rising electric bills. The Governor’s own energy czar noted that we expect them to rise for the next 20 years. There really is no plan for how the Commonwealth will meet its urgent energy generation needs, even without a massive influx of additional data centers, a point that Spanberger’s GOP opponents insistently emphasize.

Ultimately, the growing anti-data center sentiment is unlikely to be assuaged by “Fair Share” arguments. In the public mind, data centers have (rightfully or wrongfully) become associated with increased energy bills, environmental harm, decisions that were made by politicians who signed non-signed disclosure agreements, and bureaucracies that will use eminent domain to despoil their land and their farms.

Moreover, it should be noted that the AI needs that are fueling the massive expansion of data centers has been accompanied by the worst public relations rollout of any technological innovation in memory as a number of its most vocal proponents inflame public anxiety with pronouncements that their jobs and even their intelligence could become extraneous.

Spanberger and her Democratic supporters in the House of Delegates are hoping that a “Fair Share” consensus will emerge that can dampen the contentiousness of the data center issue.

This may be hope against hope.

Sturtevant’s argument for the moratorium maintains:

• the statewide consequences on data center growth in Virginiana on the electric grid, water resources, land use and the cost of electricity “cannot be adequate addressed through a series of isolated zoning decisions.”

• The Commonwealth has “no credible plan” to meet the enormous new demand for electricity. “The question is “no longer how to regulate more data centers, it is whether Virginia can accommodate data center development at all.”

• The Governor’ consumption tax does not address the problems associated with data center growth. “The tax does not provide the electricity or water these projects require, protect nearby communities, or answer whether Virginia can accommodate more of them.”

Data Center Politics in Chesterfield

There’s no chance, of course, that Governor Spanberger will be taking Sturtevant’s advice. But this doesn’t make Sturtevant's proposal politically irrelevant. At a minimum, it reframes how the data center issue will be addressed in the Commonwealth’s 5th largest jurisdiction.

Sturtevant himself is up for reelection to the State Senate next against a yet to be determined Democratic candidate. In recent years, Henrico, Richmond, and Chesterfield has been a hellscape for GOP candidates. Sturtevant is one of the two remaining General Assembly members who represent any of these jurisdictions in the Assembly. Spanberger carried the district by 11 points in 2025 and it’s obvious that his seat will be one of the Democrats’ prime targets next November.

Sturtevant has his finger on the pulse of the populist ire aimed at a Board of Supervisors that approved the zoning for 3 Google data campuses in the early part of the decade, but (as is frequently the case in economic development initiatives) kept the nature of the planned projects under wrap until contracts were finalized.

I’m certain that Sturtevant is also well familiar with recent polling showing that only about 1 in 3 Virginians are “comfortable with a data center being built in their community.”

The moratorium proposal is intended to make his prospective Democratic challenger uncomfortable: do they support his position or Governor Spanberger’s? Whether this will be enough to withstand the anti-Trump sentiment that is driving the Democrats’ success in RVA is an open question.

Concurrent with Sturtevant's reelection campaign, the entire Chesterfield Board of Supervisors will be seeking reelection and they are antsy about the rising level of anti-data center sentiment.

In response to public pressure, the current board has eliminated “By Right” development of data centers. Most members are also pledging to evaluate proposals for new data centers “very carefully” and one board member has already announced that she will no longer support any new data centers in the county.

Sturtevant’s proposal is likely to recast the 2027 Board of Supervisors campaigns around a simple yes or no question: do you support any future data centers in Chesterfield or not?

Beyond Chesterfield

I would be surprised if moratorium proposals don’t extend far beyond Chesterfield in the next few years. There will be several localities eager to obtain the tax revenues that data centers can provide. Yet the kind of trench warfare that occurred in Prince William County over the Digital Gateway is likely to be reprised many times over, locality by locality.

At the state level, the Governor Spanberger and Speaker Scott won’t give Sturtevant’s request the time of day. They want to identify a data center “accountability” consensus that takes the issue off the front burner. In their view, data centers will continue to drive economic development, but will be required to pay their “fair share” of electricity costs, and operate in a more environmentally sustainable manner while localities have the final say on location.

In my opinion, there’s no world in which such a consensus can emerge and be durable.

Thee are so many issues bubbling up- the proposed Dominion acquisition by a Florida-based energy company, the adequacy of the energy supply, concerns about the lack of water in the eastern Virginia aquifer, mounting public opposition, especially in suburban jurisdictions, to data centers- that a neat resolution seems a long way off.

While policymakers may not embrace Sturtevant’s moratorium, they won’t be able to skirt the questions in his letter.

What is the plan for the Commonwealth to meet the enormous new demand for energy and can the statewide impacts of data centers be adequately addressed through a patchwork of local zoning decisions?

Don’t be surprised if several primary elections in the 2027 Assembly elections turn on energy/data center issues. And if Speaker Scott runs for governor in 2029, don’t be surprised that if a Democratic challenger arises, he’ll be asked if still “loves” data centers.

Spanberger Behind Youngkin

Spanberger’s rating was a middling net -3, with 44% of registered voters approving of her job performance and 47% disapproving.

In July, 2022, a similar point in his first term, Glenn Youngkin’s rating was +11, with 49% approving and 38% disapproving.

What makes this even more striking is that Spanberger had won her election by 15 points and Youngkin had won his by only 2.

Youngkin’s July approval rating was a net +8 compared to his November electoral margin, Spanberger’s is -18.

Approvers are Lukewarm, Disapprovers are Dug In

The poll also measure the intensity of Virginian’s opinions about Spanberger’s job performance. It indicated that those who disapprove of her performance feel more strongly about it than those who approve it.

20% of the survey respondents “strongly approve” of the job that Spanberger is doing and 24% “somewhat approve.”

Among disapprovers, however, 35% “strongly disapprove and 11% “somewhat disapprove.”

How Did This Happen So Quickly

In November, Spanberger had won by the largest margin of any Democratic gubernatorial candidate in more than 60 years. In essence, she had the largest victory since the Republican Party existed as a genuine competitive entity in Virginia.

What explains her middling numbers today? I’ve seen several explanations

• The election was less a personal affirmation of Spanberger than a negative response to Trump that was evident in Democratic overperformance nationwide.

• The Virginia Democrats redistricting referendum heightened partisan divisions. It mobilized Republicans and troubled a sizable number of independents who thought it was unfair.

• Spanberger had a rocky legislative session, marked by rookie mistakes and repeated clashed with fellow Democrats over collective bargaining, gaming, and data centers.

• The Spanberger team was caught unaware by the intensity of the post-election attacks on Fox News that portrayed her as Mandami leftist, including arguments about tax increases she never proposed or endorsed.

• Republicans point to matters such as paid family and medical leave, reentry into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and increase in the minimum wage, as policies that will increase costs for business and consumers.

• Criticism of Spanberger is related to a double standard that judges the first woman Governor more harshly than her male predecessors.

I tend to agree that the Spanberger team made several rookie mistakes in dealing with her fellow Democrats, but most first year Governors do this and I doubt that most of the public pays close attention to the inner workings of the session.

I also don’t place much credence in the double standard argument, largely because the only other Governor elected in 2025 was Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey and the most recent polls there have her with a +14 positive approval. Sherrill is rated more highly than Spanberger with Democrats (90% to 83%) and and with Republicans (22% to 7%).

I do think that the Spanberger team over-read how personal the 2025 election results were. Democrats everywhere were overperforming by large numbers and Virginia was experiencing the brunt of federal employee and contracting cutbacks and Elon Musk’s DOGE chainsaw.

While the Spanberger campaign has focused on her commitment to ”lowering costs, it is very difficult for the Governor of a single state to lower costs when the national economy is inflating. In addition, that affordability agenda that Spanberger touts is relatively thin gruel, more nerdy than populist and doesn’t contain a signature priority that most Virginians could identify today.

‘Lowering costs” also ignores that specific policy priorities that Spanberger and legislative Democrats strongly support- paid family and medical leave, raising the minimum wage, rejoining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative- may be essential components of the party’s commitment to social equity and environmental protection, but are not short-term affordability measures. (as Virginia Republicans regularly tell us).

Finally, Spanberger’s approval was certainly hurt by the Democrats’ 11th hour 10-1 redistricting plan intended to counter what Trump was doing in other states. While it made sense on a national level for Virginia Democrats to play political hardball, it damaged Spanberger’s brand as someone less interested in party advantage than in bringing people together across partisan lines. I doubt that Spanberger really wanted the referendum, but the result was to mobilize Republicans and reduce her support among those independents who didn’t think it was fair.

What’s Next

In the short term, the 2026 elections should provide an opportunity for Spanberger to regain some ground.

The constructional amendments on the ballot (assuming that the courts allow these to proceed)- automatic restoration of rights for those who have served their time, guaranteed access to abortion and reproductive freedom, protection for same sex marriage- are broadly popular not only among Democrats but independents as well.

I expect that Spanberger will be very visible during the campaign on behalf of the amendments. .

I also expect with all 140 Assembly members up for election in 2027, Spanberger and Democratic legislators will do much more to get themselves on the same page prior to the session.

But an underwater approval rating less than a year after an historic triumph, one that was touted by national media figures as a model for the Democratic Party, is a flashing yellow light.

Publicly, Spanberger has suggested that there is not much to see here and national polarization is the driving factor with her negative rating. But Virginia is a blue-leaning state and, in April, even the highly polarizing redistricting referendum received almost 52% of the vote.

I would think that privately Spanberger and her team have to be thinking about what the appropriate adjustments and course corrections should be.

The NCAA permanently banned Sorsby after he acknowledged wagering more than $90,000 while at Indiana, Cincinnati, and now Texas Tech. After the NCAA started its investigation, Sorsby admitted that he had a gambling addiction and enrolled in a treatment program.

Texas Tech, which is said to have paid $4 million in NIL money for Sorsby to play this year, insisted that addiction should not be grounds for banning the quarterback and found a friendly state court judge who reduced the ban to a 2 game suspension, a position supported by Texas Attorney General and Senate candidate Ken Paxton.

The Big 12 lawsuit has been filed in federal court and asserts that “almost everyone seems to agree other than TTU and the Attorney General” universities should not field players who have bet on their own teams in college athletics.”

The Sorsby controversy reminded me of an incident that occurred in 1976 when I took a one year teaching job at Texas Tech while I was completing my Ph.D. dissertation at UNC.

It’s an attractive campus with distinctive southwestern architecture. I had congenial and talented colleagues. And while moving from Chapel Hill to Lubbock was the definition of culture shock, the music scene with Joe Ely, Jimmie Dale Gilmore, and Butch Hancock was Americana at its finest.

Professors at Texas Tech were instructed to administratively withdraw students from courses in which they had enrolled but never attended for the first weeks of class.

It was a common practice and had not generated much controversy until a faculty member withdrew a student from his course who happened to be the quarterback of the football team. The quarterback was taking the minimum number of class hours to remain eligible and the withdrawal effectively made him ineligible to continue playing.

He appealed the withdrawal.He did not argue that the professor’s attendance records were inaccurate. Instead he asserted that he had a right to an “F” in any class where he had enrolled. In fact, he said he planned to leave the university after the semester in order to prepare for a potential pro career.

The President upheld the appeal and the quarterback’s right to receive an “F” rather than a withdrawal.

The stakes today with Brendan Sorsby are much higher and the money far larger than in 1976.

But some things stay the same.

It’s not merely the offensive line running protection for Texas quarterbacks.

I have my IPad open catching up on political news, one eye on the Master’s playing on a tv set, finishing up a salad.

I have a credit card out ready to hand to the waitress as she’s bringing the check when someone comes up and says “are you Bob Holsworth?”

I say yes, he grabs the check, informs the waitress that he’s buying lunch, that I taught him Political Science in 1987, and that he keeps up with current events to this day because of the class almost 40 years ago.

I tell him that he really doesn’t need to buy lunch, but he waves me off and repeats that he’s buying.

We talk for a few minutes about what’s happening in the world and about the legislation that Abigail Spanberger is signing. He tells me about his son who went to VMI and is friends with a young woman in the military who is the daughter of another former student who was a colleague of his in Chesterfield County.

As he’s leaving, he thanks me again for the class.

Buying lunch was truly generous.

But reminding me why I loved teaching was priceless.

In last November’s gubernatorial election, Winsome Earle-Sears and Governor Youngkin refused to distance themselves from Trump and instead defended his policies that had an evident detrimental impact on Virginians.

Very bad move.

The Virginia GOP has done a 180 for the upcoming redistricting election- working to de-Trumpify it and shape the campaign around the concepts of fairness and protecting the “Virginia Way.” There’s nary a mention of Trump and how the entire mid-decade redistricting craziness was kicked off by his demand for 5 more GOP seats in Texas.

Do Virginia Republicans have any reason to be optimistic that this strategy can work?

Maybe.

• The 10-1 map that the Democrats have drawn is obviously a brutal gerrymander and could lead some independent voters who supported Abigail Spanberger last November to vote no or sit this one out.

• The 4 Republican members of Congress who could lose their jobs if the redistricting succeeds are working very hard to remind their voters what is stake in the upcoming referendum and the early vote in these congressional districts has been relatively strong.

• GOP “Vote No” events are drawing better crowds than the statewide ticket did last November. This is, of course, a very low bar but it does seem that the GOP is more enthusiastic about the redistricting election than the gubernatorial campaign.

• The anxiety level in national Democratic circles has ratcheted up in recent weeks as party leaders expressed concern that Governor Spanberger was not front and center in the campaign and there was insufficient recognition that a referendum in Virginia was a tougher sell than California.

All of this may well be true, but the Vote No campaign still must overcome a daunting set of obstacles.

• The money behind the “Vote Yes” campaign far exceeds what the opponents have been able to muster. While groups apparently affiliated with GOP donor Peter Thiel have sponsored an ad targeted at African-American voters suggesting wrongly that Barack Obama is against the referendum, the GOP has been at a massive funding disadvantage. I’ve been surprised that Speaker Mike Johnson has not tried to match the Democratic effort.

• In recent days, Governor Abigail Spanberger has became more involved in the “Vote Yes” campaign and is featured in a campaign ad running in the major media markets.

• Several other early vote analyses, ranging from the national organization L2 to the Virginia-based forecaster Chaz Nuttycombe, suggest that the partisan composition of the early vote is at best only slightly more Republican than last November. (One caveat is that this does not mean that the actual vote would mirror 2025).

• But more than anything else, almost election in Virginia is, in large measure, about Donald Trump. He lost the Commonwealth every time he ran for election, his national approval rating is terrible, and it is even worse in the Commonwealth. Moreover, Trump’s numbers are not only bad, but they continue to crater as voters are heading to the polls with gas prices skyrocketing in the middle of an unpopular war.

De-Trumpifying elections will be necessary for Virginia Republicans to become more competitive. I’d be surprised if they could pull this off in less three weeks from today. As of 8 a.m. today, the prediction market Kalshi gives it a 90.1% of passing.

If the referendum passes, it’s possible that the Virginia Supreme Court decision on its legality could be another story. I’ll be interested in seeing how the Justice react to a 10-1 map that throws into the trash bin the non-gerrymandered one that the Court itself approved.

Either one against the Hoos- No issue whatsoever.

But Carolina v. VCU- Painful!

So many of my fondest bball memories are from Carolina.

• I was in Carmichael Auditorium when the Heels came from 8 points down with 17 seconds left in regulation to tie Duke and then win in overtime. This was before the 3 point shot- If you dislike Duke, just youtube “8 points and 17 seconds” and you’ll enjoy it.

• I’ve downsized and parted with many of my favorite books, but I still have the Sports Illustrated article written by the incomparable Curry Kirkpatrick when a freshman by the name of Michael Jordan hit the game winner to give Dean Smith his first NCAA title over Patrick Ewing and Georgetown. Jordan made the big shot at the end, but it was James Worthy’s inspired play throughout the game that enabled UNC to defeat the powerful Hoyas.

• I was living in Richmond when Carolina had blown 2 leads in regular season games against UVA and Ralph Sampson only to defeat the Hoos in the NCAA semifinals when Al Wood went ballistic and scored 39 points.

There have been, of course, an equal if not greater number of excruciating memories- losing to Penn the first round of the NCAA’s, untimely injuries right before the tournament to Phil Ford, Kendall Marshall and now Caleb Wilson, and Villanova’s last second shot to win the NCAA championship. But I spend more time remembering the remarkable wins.

VCU hasn’t always been in the same stratosphere as Carolina, but it has ALWAYS played above grade.

• When the games were at the Richmond Coliseum, the backcourt of Rolando Lamb and Calvin Duncan could equal any team in the country. And Lamb gave VCU its first NCAA tournament win with a buzzer-beater against Northeastern.

• Was there a Carolina fan anywhere who didn’t take great pleasure when Eric Maynor led the Rams to a tournament win against Duke.

• And no one will ever forget Shaka Smart’s magical run to the Final Four when VCU ran roughshod over a blueblood Kansas team in the Elite Eight and zippered the smack-talking Morris brothers.

• There’s almost nothing that seems to be able to halt VCU’s momentum- 3 coaches in 4 years and, remarkably it all keeps ticking. In fact, I hope someone tells Coach Martelli that every coach who has left VCU (Capel, Grant, Smart, Wade and Rhoades) has faced significant adversity upon departure and it might be wise to emulate the career of Mark Few at Gonzaga instead.

So this week its Carolina v. VCU.

If Caleb Wilson was playing, I might have pulled for Carolina simply because the Heels would have been more likely to make a deep run. Without him, UNC is a good but by no means a great team and if they get by VCU, will be a decided underdog against Illinois.

VCU is a very good team and I was shocked that the chair of the NCAA selection committee said that the Rams were the last team in. Was anyone watching the last 15 games?

Carolina is big and the inside game could pose a challenge for VCU. But the Rams are quick, athletic, and have the capacity to go on demoralizing runs. They also shoot the 3 ball relatively well, an issue that has been a vulnerability of UNC all season.

After a few days, I’ve come to the conclusion that my conflict of interest may not be all that bad.

There’s no way I can get a win-win, but at least I won’t have my 2 favorite teams eliminated in the first round.

UNC is a 2.5 point favorite , odds that a few Carolina-oriented blogs think is much too low. In Virginia, you can’t go a sports book and bet on a game with an in-state team. But if I had to choose, I’d take VCU and the points.

Every year the Virginia, Maryland, & Delaware Association of Electric Cooperatives sponsors the “Gaff-N-Go Rodeo”- an event where more than 350 of the best lineworkers from around the country compete on a set of daunting challenges that test their skills.

It’s a wonderful contest that celebrates a group of men and women who are community heroes, individuals and teams who regularly perform difficult tasks under the most trying of circumstances to get our lights and heat back on.

Over the years I have had the pleasure of getting to know the leaders of several cooperatives and I’ve inevitably found them to be down-to-earth, customer oriented and committed to serving their mostly rural communities.

How could this have anything to do with the resignation of Ohio State University President Ted Carter from his $1.5 million dollar position?

The New York Post reported that Carter’s resignation came after he admitted he gave inappropriate access to Ohio State leadership to someone who wanted help with her personal business.

An Ohio economic development group, Jobs Ohio, sent a letter out noting that the “situation is possibly connected to a relationship between him and the host of a podcast for veterans, which we sponsored.”

Carter, a retired vice-admiral with a 45 year marriage, had been what he called a “frequent flyer” on Krisanthe Vlachos’ podcast and who had called him a “dear friend and mentor.” The N.Y. Post reported that Carter supposedly returned a favor by “using Ohio State as a sponsor for Vlachos’ weekend-long event titled ‘Gaff-N-Go Rodeo’ aimed at connecting military veterans to power linemen in Richmond, Virginia.”

There’s certainly nothing wrong with a university sponsoring an event with a significant veterans presence. And it’s perfectly reasonable that VMDAEC would be supportive of having the President of a major American university speak to the attendees.

Ohio State is still investigating the extent of Carter’s “inappropriate relationship” providing access to the university’s leadership and public resources. Having served 2 terms on VCU’s Board, I have to believe that the issue is far more extensive than the sponsorship of a single conference and that this was one instance among many cited by internal whistleblowers.

But for Carter and his $1.5 million compensation, the “inappropriate relationship” was obviously a “Gaffe and Go.”

Did anyone predict that the General Assembly’s final budget negotiation would come down to the conflicting views that 2 Democratic legislators from Portsmouth hold on data centers?

Speaker “I Love Data Centers” Scott v. Senate Finance Chair Louise “I Won’t Back Down” Lucas.

The Speaker’s professed love for data centers is clearly related to his promise that the Assembly wouldn’t be doing anything reckless to alter the Commonwealth’s pro-business climate.

Scott also knows that one reason that the Democrats did SO well in the November elections was the financial advantage his prodigious fundraising gave Democratic candidates. No reason to stop the gravy train by making enemies of companies with the world’s deepest pockets, especially if the Speaker might himself be considering a 2029 gubernatorial bid.

So the House maintains the exemption, but does require data centers to meet more stringent clean energy requirements.

Senate Finance Committee Chair Louise Lucas has thrown down a gauntlet that no saw coming by producing a budget that completely eliminates the sales tax exemption that data centers receive for purchasing and then refreshing the computer equipment in their facilities.

Lucas and her Senate compatriots (including several Republicans) argue that the exemption that was established to jump start an industry is now costing the Commonwealth almost $2 billion per year and growing in lost revenue for an industry that is fully mature.

She notes that every small business has to pay sales tax and it doesn’t make sense to continue the data centers’ sweetheart deal. If anyone has any question about her commitment, she posted yesterday that “I won’t back down.”

Governor Spanberger’s position, however, makes it difficult to see how the exemption is eliminated. In her opinion, the issue is one of credibility and trust- if the Commonwealth had previously passed legislation extending the credit to 2035, rescinding it now would be sending the wrong message to businesses considering investing here.

Spanberger is obviously worried that Virginia’s ranking in the “best state for business” category would be negatively impacted by the early elimination of the exemption, a consequence that she does not want to own.

I don’t know what the ultimate compromise will be here, though I suspect that it will tilt toward the House and the Governor, at least in the short term.

But the Senate’s passage of eliminating the exemption illuminates two emerging trends.

The first has to do with public attitudes about big tech. I don’t know if it’s the tech billionaires throwing in their lot with President Trump or the uneasiness in large swatches of the public about AI, but I don’t see the same kind of fascination today that accompanied the advent of cell phones and the invention of the internet. There is far more concern about what big tech means for matters such as privacy, employment, and youth mental health. Policies that provide favorable treatment for big tech are no longer reflexively endorsed.

Second, we are beginning to see cracks in the consensus that being the best state for business should be a primary goal for the Commonwealth. The array of labor and environmental legislation put forward this session is a clear example of this trend. In her opening speech to the Assembly, Governor Spanberger noted that Virginia could be the best state for business AND the best state for workers. But on issues where the AND becomes OR, there is a growing cohort of Democrats choosing the latter.

But I could go on the two major “prediction markets,” Polymarket and Kalshi, today and bet on:

• The winners in tomorrow’s Texas Senate primaries

• Will Arsenal beat Bayern Munich in the Champions League

• How many earthquakes 7.0 or above in 2026

• Whether the U.S. will have a ground invasion of Iran

• Will the Iranian regime fall by March 30

With the exception of college teams in Virginia, there’s almost nothing that you can’t wager on these days. In fact, since Polymarket is currently an overseas exchange and the federal Commodity Future Trading Commission defines betting on it as a “futures contract” and not a form of gambling, you could probably find a wager on whether the Cavs will make it to the Final Four.

One concern with the explostion of sports betting and “futures contracts” on Polymarket and Kalshi is the incentive that has been provided for all kinds of insider trading. On sports betting platforms, which are regulated, there have been several scandals where gamblers have paid professional and college athletes to ensure a certain outcome (typically a loss by a specified margin).

The latest outage has been the revelation that “Magamyman” made more than $533,00 as one of six Polymarket wagers on “Khameinei Out” that returned more than $1.2 million dollars on the weekend. The bets have raised suspicion that individuals with access to U.S. or Israeli military plans were behind the wagers. Critics have pointed out that the venture capital firm one of Don Trump Jr. has invested millions in Polymarket. And it has prompted ethical objections to the practice of betting on death and destruction.

U.S. commodity trading laws actually already ban the practice but since Polymarket is technically an overseas exchange, the wagers are in a gray area and may not come under its purview.

Ironically, the other major prediction market, Kalshi, refused to pay out the winners among the $54 million that was wagered on its “Khameinei Out” proposition. In a belated expression of conscience, Kalshi’s CEO said that the company would be refunding the wagers because “where there are markets where potential outcomes involve death, we design the rules to prevent people from profiting from death.”

As you might imagine, the winners were apoplectic.

Proposed legislation in Virginia’s General Assembly this year would establish a new agency, the Virginia Gaming Commission, to bring all legal gaming under one entity. Given the proliferation of sports betting sites, fantasy games, casinos and so-called skill games this makes sense,

The legislation also includes a provision for a major 3 year study of “prediction markets” and what, if any regulation could and should be implemented at the state level.

If you can’t legally wager on the Cavs, should you be able to bet on death?

At least until Senator Louise Lucas and her Appropriations Committee endorsed a budget that eliminated the state sales tax exemption for data centers, an item that previously had been on the books until at least 2035. The exemption for the nation’s Big Tech companies is fast approaching $2 billion per year and growing.

The Senate’s populist bombshell quickly revealed deep divisions, not only between Senate Democrats and most (but not all) Republicans but within the Democratic trifecta.

Governor Spanberger expressed her disapproval in relatively in relatively mild culinary terms noting that the Senate budget was a chicken not fully cooked. House Speaker Don Scott was less circumspect announcing that he “LOVED” data centers and the jobs they provide.

The House’s budget maintains the exemption, but adds new clean energy requirement to data center operations.

Game on!

Senator Lucas has plenty of experience playing chicken. She single-handedly derailed Governor Youngkin’s plan to build an areana that would bring the Wizards and Capitals to Virginia. And her insistence on a 10-1 redistricting map carried the day over other Dems who felt that 9-2 or 8-3 was a safer bet.

Since the Senate approved her committee’s budget, Lucas has doubled down. She told reporters that her position was as “strong as steel,” and she casually dismissed the prospect that the data center developers would move to other states, noting that they “can keep building them, they just have to pay their fair share of taxes.”

I don’t see a path by which Lucas can be as successful as she was in scuttling Youngkin’s arena plan. The forces and arguments against the immediate elimination are just too politically powerful.

• The organized business community notes that every other state that has data centers provides some form of incentive/exemption- often focused on sales taxes for equipment. Business groups believe that the elimination of the exemption would disadvantage Virginia’s competitive position.

• Business leaders also note that removing the exemption 8 years prior to when it was supposed to expire would undermine Virginia’s standing as a business friendly state. I believe that the potential of Virginia falling in the “best state for business” rankings weighs heavily on Spanberger’s assessment.

• While data centers provide a limited number of jobs inside the facility, the construction and maintenance jobs associated with the construction and servicing the centers are considerable. More data centers are one priority where large corporations and unions are in agreement. And Don Scott “loves” it.

• Data centers have been an extraordinary gold mine for local governments. At first, this was primarily limited to Loudoun County, but in recent years the location of data centers in more rural communities such as Mecklenburg County have resulted in large increases in tax revenues in less affluent localities to support enhanced services.

At the same time time, I think that Lucas and the Senate Democrats have raised an issue that can only become more prominent.

• When the tax exemption was put in place, no one foresaw that it could reach a couple of billion dollars per year with no end in sight. Every time a new center is built it adds to the amount and every time time an existing center upgrades and refreshes the equipment in the facility, the exemption also increases.

• Multiple states are beginning to look at the size of the exemptions/subsidies that are being offered to the data center industry. It’s hard to imagine that the pushback against data centers we are already seeing in Virginia’s larger suburban communities and from those concerned about the environmental implications of the facilities will not keep the size of these exemptions front and center politically.

What about Republican populism?

I’m watching Glenn Sturtevant

• Most GOP leaders, from former Governor Youngkin to their major spokespersons in the Senate, have been strong suporters of data centers and highly critical of removing the sales tax exemption. Mark Obenshain, for example, called the elimination “economic destruction.’

• Senator Glen Sturtevant, Republican from Chesterfield, is a notable exception to the GOP consensus. Unlike Obenshain, Sturtevant stood up on the Senate floor and thanked Senator Lucas for a budget that removed the “Big Tech” sales tax exemption in the interest of affordability.

• Since the Democrats are likely to target Sturtevant’s seat in 2027, his immediate purpose may be to defend against an expected Democratic challenger. But watching his this session and paying attention to his social media presence, I think he has grander ambitions. I believe that Sturtevant sees a relative vacuum inside the GOP and is positioning himself for a possible statewide contest, either for Governor or Attorney General. He’s taken conventional Republican positions on lowering taxes, but has also publicized his concerns about data centers and nursing home conditions.

• The Republicans in 2029 will have to find some way of reinventing the party if they are to become more competitive. Sturtevant may be on to something. In the next few years, uneasiness about the implications of Big Tech, AI and issues such as “surveillance pricing” could provide an opening for a GOP populism that has more appeal in suburban Virginia than the GOP has recently mustered.

After the Democrats took full control of Virginia state government in the November elections, the business community’s major concern was the preservation of Virginia’s “right to work” law.

The concern was put to rest quickly. Governor Spanberger made it clear that she would not sign a bill eliminating it. And Senator Jennifer Carroll Foy’s legislation to remove it gained no traction and was widely perceived as an effort to solidify labor support for a prospective statewide campaign.

I’m not sure anybody was thinking that Louise Lucas’ Senate Appropriations Committee would bring forward a budget that would, as Michael Martz of the RTD reported, “ditch the state sales tax exemption for data centers, adding more than $1 billion in tax revenue that could fund individual tax cuts and critical spending priorities.”

By contrast, the budget from the House Appropriations Committee left the tax exemption intact while imposing new conditions in a bill introduced by Delegate Rip Sullivan to reduce pollution and incentivize the use of clean energy.

Lucas’ bombshell introduces a populist component to Virginia politics that we haven’t seen since Henry Howell’s broadsides against Virginia Power decades ago in his effort to “keep the big boys honest.”

• I think most people will be surprised that the largest corporations in the country (including Meta, Amazon. Google and more) are receiving a tax break that that began in the millions but reached $1.9 billion in 2025.

• Lucas is also appealing to the emergent discontent with data center growth that has become evident with increased community pushback and with criticism from environmental groups.

• It might also be noted that Lucas is from Portsmouth and it is not evident that Virginia’s landlocked urban cities have benefitted from the Commonwealth becoming the data center capital of the world. It’s not surprising that she would want to reallocate tax break dollars to other priorities.

Lucas downplayed the potential negative economic consequences consequences of eliminating the tax break for data centers, asserting that “they will continue to build in Virginia…but it will be a different playing field now.”

Lucas told reporters that her position is as “firm as concrete.” Several important constituencies, however, will not be so sure that the businesses will “continue to build” and will be readying their political jackhammers to break through her concrete barrier.

• The organized business community in Virginia has been interested in extending the sales tax exemption beyond its original 2035 sunset to 2050. It will see Lucas’ proposal as detrimental to Virginia’s competitive position vis a vis other states in attracting data centers and damaging to the state’s overall “best in business” reputation. In the economic development community, incentives are crucial to a state’s economic competitiveness.

• The equipment taxes that data centers do pay have been a gold mine for Virginia local governments. In recent years, many smaller, more rural localities have begun to attract data centers and have reaped a tax windfall that have enabled them to provide enhanced core services.

• While data centers do not employ many people inside the facility, the construction jobs in building the centers and the trade services that are used to maintain the facility are substantial. There is likely to be visible union opposition to removal of the tax incentives.

Senator Lucas has been extraordinarily successful in putting down a marker and tilting the outcome in her direction, whether it was her opposition to Governor Youngkin’s plan to bring the Wizards and Capitals to Virginia or her insistence on a 10-1 redistricting map.

But I’d be surprised if she can bring the House of Delegates to her side in the budget negotiations and get Governor Spanberger on board with her plan.

It’s also hard to think, however, that there’s not a growing populist appetite for Lucas’ basic point that the Commonwealth shouldn’t be providing more billions to billionaires.

• A mentally competent resident of Virginia over the age of 18 with a confirmed terminal disease (likely to die within 6 months) can voluntarily request medical-aid-in-dying.

• An attending health care provider (physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner) may prescribe a self-administered controlled substance to an eligible patient for the purpose of ending the patient’s life.

• No health care provider or health care entity will be required to participate in medical aid in dying.

The legislation also contains several guardrails designed to protect against possible abuses of the process. These include:

• Individuals would have to make 2 requests to their health care provider (unless already in hospice care) separated by 15 days before receiving the controlled substance as well as a signed and witnessed request.

• The conversation with the health care provider must take place in a on-on-one setting (with the exception of circumstances that require an interpreter) to minimize any external pressures on the patient. In addition, the patient tmst be informed that medical-aid-in-dying may be refused at any time prior to taking the substance.

• If the provider is uncertain that the individual can make an informed choice on their own, the provider will refer the patient to a “capacity reviewer” (psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker) who is trained to evaluate an individual’s capability of making informed decisions.

• The witness to the request cannot be a relative, the health care provider, the owner or a employee of a facility where the individual is living, or anyone who might stand to benefit financially from the patient’s death.

• The bill also has provisions to prohibit insurers from refusing to pay life insurance benefits for individuals who choose medical aid in dying.

The effort to pass a medical-aid-in-dying bill has been 7 years in the making. Bills were introduced in 2019, 2020, 2022, and 2023, but all failed in committee. In fact, 2022 was the first time that a legislative committee even held a hearing on a bill. In 2025, however, then Senator Ghazala Hashmi’s bill was passed by the Senate, but the House did not pass the companion bill that had introduced in the chamber and a committee then rejected the Senate legislation by voice vote when it was considered.

Public support for medical-aid-in-dying has increased substantially over the past few decades. Survey research consistently shows that 65%-80% of the public are in favor of it. A Christopher Newport University poll in 2022 indicated that 2/3 of Virginians support a medical-aid-in-dying option.

But it is not an issue, at least in Virginia, where the supporters have been able to elevate the issue to a prominent place on the political agenda in the manner that gun safety advocates are translating support in public opinion to legislative success in the Commonwealth.

At the same time, while opponents of medical-aid-in-dying are in a minority, they do come from a broad cross-section of the political spectrum, ranging from religious conservatives with moral reservations to advocates skeptical of how it might be employed with disadvantaged and marginalized communities. (This morning the Richmond Times Dispatch published an op-ed by a communications director from the Heritage Foundation who has a child with cystic fibrosis.)

For these reasons, I am not certain what will happen this year to the bills that have been introduced, though it does appear that-inch by inch- proponents have been gaining traction.

Perhaps the fact that one of the bill’s long-time supporters is now the Lieutenant-Governor will be helpful to passage. It’s also possible that the dramatically increased Democratic margins in the House will overcome the opposition that has existed in the chamber. Yet it’s also possible that focus on the high profile issues that were central to the 2025 campaigns will convince legislators to set the matter aside (without recorded votes) for at least another year.

There’s no doubt that this was one of his major goals from the outset of his administration. A sampling of Youngkin’s initial efforts to roll back DEI include:

• Rejecting the work of a commission led prominent Virginia historians Ed Ayers and Cassandra Newby-Alexander that had spent two years developing standards for teaching African-American history in K-12 schools.

• Banning the teaching of “inherently divisive concepts” about race in Virginia schools and establishing a “tip line” to report on teachers who were doing so.

• Rescinding the Northam administration’s model guidance for the treatment LGBTQ+ students in Virginia schools.

• Renaming the Commonwealth’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion office by replacing Equity with Opportunity.

Youngkin’s effort to remove all vestiges of DEI was turbocharged by the 2024 presidential election and the Trump’s administration’s simultaneous crusade against DEI in all its forms, especially with respect to Virginia’s colleges and universities.

• Youngkin asserted that UVA President Jim Ryan “repeatedly violated the law” and was reported to have told UVA Board member Paul Manning that Ryan should resign when the institution was being threatened with severe financial sanctions from the Trump administration.

• He did not take any public steps to defend George Mason University President Greg Washington when he was under attack for promoting and defending diversity and refusing to apologize for it when the Trump administration demanded that he do so.

• The Youngkin administration demanded that GMU and Virginia Commonwealth University not approve mandatory curricular requirements that addressed teaching about racial justice and racial literacy,

• The Youngkin administration was aggressive in supporting the shuttering of DEI offices at colleges and universities, even when there was no evidence that any discriminatory or illegal actions were being undertaken and promoted. At VCU, for example, the university president not only dismantled the DEI office, but then hired a law firm to identify for removal what one board member said was the infiltration of DEI into “every nook and cranny” of the school.

By contrast, Abigail Spanberger’s inaugural weekend was a pageantry of diversity and inclusiveness from the Governor-Elect’s introduction of the hip-hop artist Pusha T on Friday evening to the performance of “This Land is Your Land” at the inauguration by Adams Beat, a Muslim-American youth choir from northern Virginia.

One need only look at the composition of the Democrats in the Assembly, the makeup of Spanberger’s Cabinet and the early steps taken by the Governor and Assembly members to understand how quickly the anti-DEI crusade is being unraveled.

• The 2026 House of Delegates has more Democratic women than the total number of Republicans in the chamber.

• Slightly over 40% of the Democrats in the House of Delegates are African-American.

• In the General Assembly, African-Americans control the Speakership, The Senate President Pro Tem, the House Majority Leader position, and chair House Appropriations and Senate Finance, the two most influential money committees, as well as Senate Privileges and Elections that has had an outsized role in rejecting Youngkin’s nominees to the Boards of Visitors of the state’s colleges and universities.

• 50% of Governor Spanberger’s Cabinet appointments are women and 33% are African-American.

• Governor Spanberger placed “Equity” back in the title of the Commonwealth’s Chief Diversity, Equity and Inclusion officer.

• The Governor asked for the resignation (a polite form of removal) of the Rector and Vice-Rector at UVA who had played significant roles in Jim Ryan’s forced resignation, appointed a new majority of Board members at GMU and let it be known that the ideological crusades against DEI were over.

• Governor Spanberger appointed former Governor Ralph Northam to the VMI board who had ordered an investigation into the college’s culture when he was in office. Three northern Virginia delegates led by Dan Helmer condemned VMI’s celebration of the Confederacy and proposed a resolution to study whether it should remain a taxpayer-funded institution.

• The new Governor expressed strong support for three constitutional amendments passed by the Assembly that would enshrine the principles of Roe and Obergefell on abortion and same-sex marriage in the Virginia constitution and enable those who had served their time and paid their debt to society to have their voting rights automatically restored.

To be sure, DEI initiatives will THEhave to be consistent with the constitutional premises that the Supreme Court has articulated. Virginia universities that depend on federal funding will still have to navigate potential attacks on DEI policies from the Trump administration. And there are board members who have been aggressive in attacking DEI policies who are likely to continue serving until their appointment runs its course. It’s also not clear how fast institutions that proactively bent the knee will unbend it.

But one thing is clear. The proclamation that “DEI is dead in Virginia” hasn’t survived the first week of the new administration.

Earlier this week, Governor Kathy Hochul of New York signed into law a medical aid in dying bill making it available to terminally ill New Yorkers with less than 6 months to live. In signing the bill, Hochul noted that it will “extend freedom to terminally ill New Yorkers to die comfortably and on their own terms…to shorten not their lives, but their deaths.”

The bill contained several safeguards intended to prevent any form of coercion and to ensure that religiously-based physicians, providers and hospices would not be required to provide the service. The protections included items such as a mandatory 5 day waiting period, a mental health evaluation by a licensed professional, and making anyone who could financially benefit from the death of the patient ineligible to serve as a witness or interpreter.

New York joined 12 other jurisdictions that have passed similar legislation. Oregon was the earliest to legalize medical aid in dying in 1994, but it has been in the last fifteen years when the issue has gained true momentum. The 13 jurisdictions where medical aid is dying in legal are California, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

All states with the exception of Oregon and Vermont have residency requirements. Montana is the only deep-red state that has medical aid in dying and it was enabled by a state Supreme Court decision there, not by legislative action.

2024 Virginia

In 2024 then state Senator Ghazala Hashmi sponsored a medical aid in dying bill that would have enabled qualified adults facing terminal illness to end their own lives with a self-administered drug prescribed by a health care provider.

There was a highly emotional moment that accompanied the announcement of the bill when state Senator Jennifer Boysko read a letter from her close friend U.S. Congresswoman Jennifer Wexton and Boysko’s predecessor in the Senate, who had been diagnosed with progressive supranuclear palsy, a terminal disease that had devastating impacts on mobility and speech. Wexton’s letter endorsing the bill asserted it “would return control over when, where and how our stories end to us, not to our diseases.’

The bill passed a closely divided Senate on a 21-19 party line vote but failed when a House Committee did not support it on an unrecorded voice vote.

Public Opinion

Public opinion polls have shown strong majority support for medical aid in dying. There is some variation depending upon the terms such as assisted suicide or euthanasia employed in the question, but whenever the process is described as enabling individuals with a terminal illness to end their lives with medical assistance, support is in the 65% to 75% range.

In a 2024 Gallup Poll 66% of respondents agreed that doctors should be allowed to “assist patients to commit suicide” if they have a terminal disease and are living in severe pain.

In the same year, a Wason Center poll at Christopher Newport University found that almost 70% of Virginians supported medical aid in dying. Majority support was evident across partisan identity, religion, and race, ethnicity, although the level of support did vary among groups, sometimes in unexpected ways.

• Partisanship: 79% of Democrats, 76% of Independents, 56% of Republicans

• Religion: 77% of Catholics, 56% of Protestants, 64% of “Other Christians”

• Race/Ethnicity: 74% of Whites, 72% of Hispanics, 54% of Blacks

I was surprised that support among Catholics was so strong, but did expect that that Democrats would be more supportive than Republicans and that African-Americans who historically have been subjected to eugenic practices would be less supportive than white Virginians.

Politics

Despite huge majority support, the politics of medical aid in dying is complicated.

We don’t see many individuals seeking office making the issue a central feature of their campaign. In Virginia right now, for example, the affordability issue is far more prominent because it has a more immediate impact on larger numbers of people.

In addition, the institutional groups that oppose medical aid in dying represent significant constituencies that could be mobilized against it. I am thinking here of communities and institutions that oppose it on religious grounds, certain medical groups that believe the Hippocratic oath is antithetical to physician-assisted dying, and advocates who raise “slippery slope” arguments about how the policy could be utilized unethically with groups such as individuals with severe disabilities.

At the same time, the issue has the potential for garnering significant media attention. So many families have coped with a situation where a loved one has a horrible terminal illness. It’s also an issue where almost everyone has a relatively well formed opinion. I’m certain that more Virginians know where they stand on medical aid in dying than on whether a requirement that power companies build more battery storage will lower electric bills.

I presume in the next 4 years the matter will emerge as a major issue in the Assembly. And I wonder if Ghazala Hashmi, who sponsored the bill as a legislator, will see its passage as perhaps the major achievement of her Lieutenant-Governorship.

The conventional wisdom among political insiders is that Michelle Mosby, former President of the Richmond City Council, would win in a walk. Unfortunately for her, it was Schmidt who strolled to victory with more than 55% of the vote in a low turnout on a frigid December Sunday.

Here’s a list of some of the notables who endorsed Mosby- it’s a Who’s Who of Richmond politics.

• Mayor Danny Avula

• Former Mayor Dwight Jones

• Delegate Mike Jones

• Senator Lashrecse Aird

• City Council President Cynthia Newbille

• Councilwoman Reva Trammell

• Richmond School Board Chair Shavonda Fernandez

• Richmond Commonwealth Attorney Colette McEachin

• Richmond Councilwoman Nicole Jones

• Delegate Delores McQuinn

• Henrico County Supervisor Tyrone Nelson

• Black Leadership Council Executive Director Tracy Hardney Scott\

• Pastor Lance Watson

• Former Councilman Chuck Richardson

Charlie Schmidt had no such list. Instead, his campaign website noted that he’s a progressive Democrat, former ACLU attorney, and community activist who “throughout my life …(has) worked to protect the vulnerable, seek justice and ensure our government is accountable to the people.”

Schmidt ran a what I might call a mini-Mamdani campaign, promising to bring the issues that motivated his community activism to the General Assembly.

And like Mamdani, his major organizational support came from the Democratic Socialists of America (Richmond chapter) that noted “he has fought against Dominion Energy, deportations and evictions…, He aims to bring the fight to the General Assembly where he can better support migrant rights, housing justice, reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and labor organizing across the state.”

It’s probably smart not to read too much into a firehouse primary with 1100+ voters. If it was a full fledged primary in the spring, with a month long campaign, Mosby might well have won. But I didn’t speak to anyone yesterday who thought it was a nothingburger.

It was one more example of Democratic primary and special election voters thumbing their nose at the Establishment. One couldn’t imagine a larger disparity among endorsers attempting to give a signal to the electorate than we saw in this contest. It’s tempting to say that if everyone who endorsed Mosby had brought 10 voters to the polls she would have won easily.

I think that there is also something else going on with engaged voters, especially young ones. There is far less deference to positional authority. They don’t really care what titles and roles you’ve held. Instead, they want to know what you’ve done and what you plan to do. In this election, someone who has defended families targeted by ICE, assisted a variety of nonprofits, and worked with climate groups to clean up coal ash sites was more appealing than an impressive resume on Richmond City Council.

There are many Democrats concerned that electing individuals like Charlie Schmidt will ultimately be detrimental to winning statewide contests where the electorate is far more moderate. On a national level, they worry that 4 of the party’s most effective communicators- AOC, Mamdani, Bernie, and Graham Platner- are either avowedly Democratic Socialists or lean in that direction.

I understand the concern. But it seems to me that centrist and center-left Democrats are better off not lamenting their popularity inside the party but understanding why they’ve gained a following. You don’t have to be a Democratic Socialist to connect with voters, but you have to communicate in a manner that resonates with their concerns. It’s a lesson that Charlie Schmidt seems to have understood- less time with the Who’s Who and more concern with Who’s Hurting.

• Governor-Elect Abigail Spanberger’s letter to the UVA Board of Visitors calling on it to put the search to succeed Jim Ryan on hold until she can fill the five current vacancies and restore the community’s trust and confidence in the search process prompted both an immediate denunciation from Governor Youngkin and letters from Board Chair Rachel Sheridan and Ryan himself explaining their perspective on his departure from the presidency.

• Youngkin’s missive was an unvarnished dressing down of the Governot-Elect. He accused her of writing without knowing the facts, of ignoring protocol, and of making an unprecedented intrusion into the workings of the Board of Visitors.

• Rachel Sheridan, the Board’s Rector, sent a letter to the Faculty Senate detailing her role (or lack thereof) in the events that led to Ryan’s forced departure as the body was readying to consider a resolution endorsing the immediate resignation of both Sheridan and the Vice-Rector Porter Wilkinson. Sheridan describes herself as a reluctant participant in the drama who met with DOJ at Ryan’s request and whose goal was to protect the university from the dire consequences that were being visited upon Columbia and other higher ed insttutions.

• Former President Ryan released a 12 page letter to the UVA faculty that had been principally composed earlier in the summer. It’s a deeply personal account of his forced departure.

  In Ryan’s telling, he was a hostage in a Kafkaesque situation in which several board members (especially Sheridan and an attorney she hired on behalf of the Board) are telling him that DOJ and Governor insist that he must resign or UVA would be “bled white” by the Trump Administration’s withdrawal of federal funds.

  Ryan notes that DOJ attorneys have said that his resignation was not part of any negotiation with UVA and, if it was, he wonders why the board members simply did not say that pressuring the president to resign was off the table.

Responses to the Spanberger-Youngkin letters have come from multiple individuals involved in or on the periphery of the events.

• The conservative activist group that had been engaged in the efforts to remove Ryan from the presidency, the Jefferson Council, published a response accusing Spanberger of a “striking act of political amnesia.” The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal defended Youngkin and warned that Spanberger might be tempting more punitive sanctions from DOJ against UVA.

• Two individuals now serving on Spanberger’s transition and inauguration committees also issued responses.

  • Robert Hardie, the former Rector of UVA, who apparently was not included in the discussion with Department of Justice about Ryan’s resignation, told a reporter that he agreed with Ryan’s account (and not Sheridan’s) of the events leading to his departure.

  • Tim Heaphy, the former Council at UVA, who was removed by Attorney General Jason Miyares as UVA Counsel and became the Chief Counsel to the congressional January 6th Select Committee, sent a scathing letter a to Governor Youngkin taking issue with his claim that “UVA had repeatedly ignored the law.” Heaphy asserted that the assertion had no basis in fact and advised Youngkin not to persist in making false accusations as he “returned to private life.”

• The UVA Faculty Senate voted to approve a resolution that Sheridan and Wilkinson resign immediately and endorse Spanberger’s request to put the presidential search on hold.

• Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell tweeted that Ryan’s letter “details a shocking abuse of power by UVA’s Board of Visitors and collaboration between a Governor and AG who betrayed the state.” For good measure, Surovell noted that Youngkin’s assertion that universities are “agencies of the executive branch was a “truly embarrassing” misunderstanding of the basic structure of Virginia government.

While the new round of letters provide greater clarity about the perspectives of Ryan and Sheridan, the details about what the actual demands of DOJ were, the timing and extent of Youngkin’s involvement, and how much communication Sheridan had with other board members prior to Ryan’s resignation are still unclear.

But I do think that we can make reasonable assessments of the raw politics that shaped the events leading up to the Governor-Elect’s letter last week.

Even before DOJ involvement, it is evident that there was an organized and determined effort to remove Ryan as President of UVA by his conservative critics. Initially, the intent appeared to focus on convincing Youngkin’s appointees on the Board to vote for his removal, a strategy that never appeared to gain sufficient traction.

But the effort took a different tack with renewed intensity after Donald Trump’s election and his administration’s priority on bringing leading universities to heel. Ryan’s critics fed various complaints about UVA’s DEI policies to Trump’s DOJ that commenced multiple investigations with a direct threat to reduce federal support and impose sanctions on the university.

These investigations led to “negotiations” with DOJ by several board members and outside counsel approved by Attorney General Miyares. Ryan was not only excluded from the negotiations by members of the Board of Visitors and outside counsel, but he was also informed that both DOJ and Governor Youngkin believed that his resignation was required to prevent the Trump administration from imposing the harshest possible penalties- “bleeding it white”-on the university.

From the perspective of Democrats in the General Assembly, this was nothing short of an organized coup in which Governor Youngkin, Attorney General Miyares, the Jefferson Council, Rachel Sheridan and long-standing Ryan opponents now serving at Trump’s DOJ were the plotters. Assembly Democrats believe that Ryan was an effective President who was unusually popular with students and who had made commendable progress in making UVA financially accessible to low income families and first generation college students. They found the irregular and opaque process that led to his removal entirely corrupt.

While they could not prevent Ryan’s forced resignation, Democratic leaders developed a strategy to block Ryan’s critics from executing what they considered to be the second element of the coup: replacing Ryan with a new President before Governor Youngkin left office.

Senator Majority Leader Scott Surovell ingeniously utilized the Senate’s confirmation powers to erect a major obstacle to choosing a new permanent President. By refusing to confirm five members of the UVA Board that Youngkin appointed, the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee left UVA arguably out of compliance with the statutory requirement for the composition of its Board of Visitors.

Senate Democrats and now Governor-Elect Spanberger maintain that the Board cannot proceed with selecting a new President because it is not legally constituted to do so.

(As an aside, Surovell skillfully employed the same hardball tactic to ensure the survival of President Gregory Washington at George Mason University, leaving its Board of Visitors without a quorum to conduct official business.)

At one time, I thought that there might be a compromise available: make the Interim President Paul Mahoney permanent for a limited period of time and have Spanberger-appointed board members begin a search for a new president in the second year of her term.

But it’s hard to imagine that this can occur.

In practical terms, it’s difficult to see how Spanberger loses. With the possible exception of the Interim President Mahoney, its inconceivable that any serious candidate could accept the position knowing that the validity of the search would be legally contested, that they would be taking a job where the Board members who did the hiring against the wishes of the incoming Governor would be promptly removed, and where leaders in Assembly have vowed serious repercussions if the search proceeds.

Equally important, the Governor-Elect has reiterated her position in several interviews since her letter to the UVA Board last week. Spanberger has noted that Youngkin has harmed Virginia by politicizing one of the nation’s best systems of higher education and she will be appointing board members on “Day One” who will adhere to a more traditional role.

In effect, the Governor-Elect has made it known that she plans to deny the outgoing Governor a final victory in his quest to remake Commonwealth’s flagship university. Her decision to immediately appoint new board members (and possibly remove some current ones) will make it one of the more memorable “Day One’s in recent gubernatorial terms.

They blew off Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell when he told the Board that Governor Youngkin’s appointees that had not been confirmed by the Senate’s Privileges and Elections Committee could not legally continue to serve.

They blew off Speaker Don Scott when he told the Board that proceeding with a presidential search before a new Governor was elected would have repercussions for the University’s funding.

Instead, the Board proceeded with its plan to name a new UVA president before Governor Youngkin left office. In recent weeks, the Board announced that the search was moving faster than expected and that it would be interviewing finalists by the end of November.

Governor-Elect Spanberger entered the fray today with an unmistakably direct message:

STOP!

She let it be known that she had no intention of simply being a bystander while the Board was rewarded with the privilege of appointing Ryan’s successor after it had coordinated with the Youngkin and Trump administrations to remove him.

During the campaign, Spanberger indicated that events at UVA were on her radar screen. She noted today that Ryan’s compelled departure was an example of federal overreach and a Board that had lost the confidence of the UVA community and the public.

It’s inconceivable that the UVA Board will blow off the Governor-Elect as well.

Even if it wanted to go forward with an act of defiance, it would undoubtedly be futile. Who could possibly take the position knowing that it was offered as a direct repudiation of an incoming Governor?

It’s possible that Spanberger’s message will extend beyond just STOP. As Governor, she will decide whether she will ask sitting UVA Board members, especially Rector Rachel Sheridan, to resign. And we will see what stance she takes on the “agreement” that the UVA Board has signed with the Trump administration with regard to diversity and inclusion issues that has been widely criticized by Senate Majority Leader Surovell.

For today, however, Spanberger has let all Virginians know that she intends to be a Governor unafraid of making decisive decisions.

I learned in my Poli Sci 101 class that the primary purpose of a political party is to win elections. Virginia Republicans appear to believe that supporting Donald Trump at whatever cost to themselves takes precedence.

In 2017, Ralph Northam won the governorship by 9 points and captured 15 House seats. One would think that a political party focused on winning elections might have taken this into account when Trump’s approval in the Commonwealth was double digits underwater this summer. Not here. Last night Abigail Spanberger wins by almost 15 points and the Democrats pick up 13 seats in the House.

In the 9 years since Trump came on the scene, the Virginia GOP has gone from holding 66 seats in the 100 member House of Delegates to 36. Perhaps a remedial Poli Sci 101 class with Larry Sabato is in order.

The Underwhelming Undervote

In almost every election, there is a drop-off in the total number votes cast for Governor to the Attorney General. In 2017, there were 3,288,318 votes for Governor and 3,270,647 vote for Attorney General, a drop-off of 17,671. votes.

This year, there were 3,361,569 votes for Governor and 3,325,274 votes cast for Attorney General, a drop-off of 36,295.

There were also 13,341 write-in for AG, compared to 6,694 for Governor, an increase of 6,647 write-ins.

But when you add up the total drop-off and additional AG write-ins, you wind up with 1.3% of the total vote.

At almost every talk I gave across Virginia the last 6 weeks, Democrats in the audience came up after the event to tell me that they couldn’t vote for Jay Jones, though they were not voting for Jason Miyares either. I must have met half of the drop-offs, because I certainly did not expect such as underwhelming undervote, an outcome very helpful to the AG-Elect.

Is RVA Becoming Mini-NOVA?

The Democratic Performance in Richmond-Henrico-Chesterfield is starting to resemble the party’s success in deep-blue NOVA. Here are the Democratic gubernatorial percentages.

Richmond, 86.% Henrico, 69%, Chesterfield, 58.8%

Arlington, 83.6% , Fairfax, 73.5%, Prince William, 66.7%

It’s no surprise that the map the Democrats will propose if their mid-term redistricting plan succeeds will rely heavily on the party’s growth in RVA.

Don Scott’s Perfect Game

Speaker Don Scott will never have another evening like last night. The Democrats had 13 potential targets in the House of Delegates’ races. It would have been a great night to win 6 or 7 of the contests. But Scott pitched a perfect game and won them all, having raised enough money to give his candidates huge financial advantages across the board.

It was the culmination of one of the most extraordinary rises ever seen in American politics. Scott spent nearly 8 years in federal prison after a drug conviction in 1994. Because Virginia does not automatically restore voting rights upon release, he did not have his rights restored until 2013. At that point, he as able to pass the bar exam and was elected to the House of Delegates in 2019. A few years later, he orchestrated an intra-party coup and became Speaker of the House.

Scott’s political savvy and extraordinary fundraising prowess has made him an exceptionally powerful Speaker. If his ambitions extend beyond the House, he has to be the favorite to be the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, in 2029.

What does Joe Biden’s age and Donald Trump’s negative poll numbers have in common?

The answer is simple.

Leaders in both parties have tried to pretend that the obvious implications really wouldn’t impact their electoral chances.

In 2024, the Democratic establishment stuck with Biden until a disastrous debate performance compelled them to acknowledge what Democratic voters had seen with their own eyes for the previous two years.

In 2025, the Virginia Republican leadership have stuck with Trump despite his inability to carry the state in 2016, 2020, and 2024, his decision to make NOVA Ground Zero for the cutbacks in the federal workforce, and poll numbers that have him double digits underwater in the Commonwealth.

It’s often said that we live in a “post-fact” world where spin, deepfakes, and repeating the same lie with enough repetition and conviction can carry the day.

Maybe.

But every now and then the adage that “facts are stubborn things” makes a comeback.

The Virginia Republicans really have no excuse because they’ve been here before-

in Trump’s first term.

In 2017, Ralph Northam was elected by 8.9%, the largest Democratic margin in a generation. The Democrats also picked up a whopping 15 seats in the House of Delegates.

The Democrats are poised for a repeat tomorrow evening.

Abigail Spanberger is likely to win comfortably, perhaps matching or possibly exceeding Northam’s margin. And the Democrats should pick up several seats in the House of Delegates. The only remaining question in the Governor’s race and the House contests is just how large the Democratic margins will be.

The one potential GOP bright spot is that Jason Miyares could retain his Attorney General position, largely because Jay Jones exhibited his own form of denialism, running despite knowing that his 116 mph reckless driving ticket, the subsequent sweetheart community service deal, and the revelation of his emails to Carrie Coyner would be disqualifying in the minds of many Virginians.

Neither Governor Youngkin nor Lieutenant Governor Earle-Sears has ever honestly acknowledged the structural challenge that Trump’s losing performances and rapidly declining poll numbers in the Commonwealth posed for the Republican campaign.

Instead, they pretended it wasn’t a serious concern. The Governor blithely labeled the chainsaw-like DOGE cuts a “rebalancing.” And Earle-Sears suggested that she couldn’t understand the big deal here, since all of us have lost a job at some point.

The Earl-Sears campaign flailed from issue to issue, at time calling for a full repeal of the car tax, focusing most of October on anti-trans issues and accusing Spanberger of wanting men in girl’s locker rooms, and, lately, arguing that her refusal to call for Jay Jones’ withdrawal should be disqualifying for Spanberger as well as for him.

At no point, however, has Earle-Sears seriously competed with Spanberger on her dominant theme of affordability. Perhaps even worse, however, the Youngkin, Earle-Sears’ reluctance to put any daylight between themselves and Trump has reinforced the central argument of Spanberger’s Virginia-centric campaign that she’ll “put Virginians first” and fight against the damage that Trump is bringing to the state.

In one of the GOP’s final rallies this weekend, they doubled down on the Trumpian rhetoric. They decried the “radical Islamists ..on the march” who are supporting Ghazala Hashmi and it appears that Governor Youngkin, after suggesting that Abigail Spanberger should “just go home,” would like Hashmi to self-deport out of the Commonwealth, telling the audience “I don’t even want her in the state.”

I doubt that the Democratic candidate for Governor will be going home tomorrow evening or that Ghazala Hashmi will be making arrangements to leave Virginia. It’s more likely that the GOP’s denial of the lessons of 2017 will simply result in confirming George Santayana’s famous quote: “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”