What Virginians saw Thursday night was easily the most exciting gubernatorial debate in Virginia history, but exciting only in the sense that a train wreck is exciting.
I hope no high school civics teachers are planning today to show the replay to their students. This was an utter embarrassment that marks the end of any pretense that we still adhere to the mythical “Virginia Way” in our civic discourse.
The biggest takeaway from the debate is that Republican Winsome Earle-Sears spent almost the entire debate interrupting Democrat Abigail Spanberger — I counted at least 30 interruptions, but it was hard to tell where one ended and another began. I also counted at least nine times when moderators had to tell Earle-Sears to stop interrupting.
Ms. Earle-Sears, please.
Excuse me, Ms. Earle-Sears.
Ms. Earle-Sears, this is Ms. Spanberger’s time.
Ms. Earle-Sears, you must let her speak.
We can’t hear whenever you’re speaking over each other.
Who the heck counseled Earle-Sears that this was a good debate strategy? As someone who believes we must adhere to a higher standard of civility in our public discourse, I was appalled. At the Labor Day event at Buena Vista, Democratic supporters in the audience hooted and hollered whenever Republicans were speaking, drowning out much of what they had to say. I thought that was a bad look for Democrats and said so then (much to the dismay of some outraged Democratic readers who felt it was quite warranted behavior); what happened Thursday night was just as bad a look for Earle-Sears.
If any of you watched “Game of Thrones,” you’ll understand this reference: Euron Greyjoy and Yara Greyjoy had a more civil debate when they were contesting who should lead the Iron Islands. The astonishing thing is that on some key questions, Virginians might well prefer Earle-Sears’ positions, but she sabotaged herself with her unbecoming antics. What they saw in Earle-Sears was someone who wouldn’t adhere to the debate rules, or even basic decorum. This is supposed to help Earle-Sears how, exactly?
Let me reassure readers that politics doesn’t have to be like this — and isn’t always like this. On Thursday, I attended the Salem Rotary where House candidates Chris Obenshain (the Republican incumbent in House District 41) and Lily Franklin (his Democratic challenger) calmly answered questions — and outlined their policy differences — without ever resorting to the kind of performance that Earle-Sears put on. If this is where our politics are headed, God help us all.
OK, now that I’ve gotten that distaste for the style of this debate out of my system, let’s look at some of the key things the candidates said.
Spanberger on Jay Jones’ text messages: It’s up to voters
The key question going into the debate was how Spanberger would answer the inevitable question about the text messages of her party’s candidate for attorney general in which Jones fantasized shooting then-Speaker of the House Todd Gilbert. Spanberger was quick to condemn Jones’ texts last week and condemned them again, but pointedly declined to say anything more. Did she still endorse him? Did she think he should drop out? Spanberger wasn’t going there — and, to their credit, the moderators pressed her on this point.
Everyone knew this question was coming, so I’m sure Spanberger spent time crafting and rehearsing her answer. Or, rather non-answer: “The voters now have this information. It is up to voters to make a decision based on this information.”
There was no way for Spanberger to “win” on this question; no matter what she said, Earle-Sears was going to win this round. The question going out of the debate is what voters make of Jones’ texts, and whether that political damage is confined to his race or spreads. From a practical standpoint, Spanberger said nothing to make matters worse, which was the best the Democrats could hope for here. Now we wait to see what Jones himself has to say when he debates Attorney General Jason Miyares next Thursday.
Spanberger didn’t answer the question on transgender policy
She was asked (multiple times) whether she would rescind Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s executive order that is aimed at making transgender students use the restroom that conforms to their gender at birth, not their current gender identity. Spanberger said what she’s said before: This should be left up to localities. That would seem to be a “yes” but she never said “yes.”
I will cautiously offer one fact-check that gets lost in the emotion on this issue: The Virginia High School League, the governing body for sports and other scholastic competitions among the state’s public schools, already bans transgender athletes from playing on teams that don’t match their gender at birth. Out of 177,000 students taking part in VHSL-sponsored activities, only five last year were transgender. There may be places where transgender students are an issue, but they are not currently one on VHSL playing fields.
That may explain why, when the Washington Post/Schar School poll posed an open-ended question about which issues Virginians feel are important this fall, only 4% listed transgender policies.
Spanberger has no plan for eliminating the car tax, while Earle-Sears’ plan is based on fantasy
I devoted an entire column earlier this year to explaining why neither candidate will be able to eliminate the car tax. The reason is: This is a local tax. Any locality can eliminate that tax right now if they want. The reason they don’t is they need the revenue, so anyone who seriously wants to do away with it needs to come up with a way to replace that local revenue.
Spanberger doesn’t have a plan. Earle-Sears has an unrealistic one. She said the state could use money from its surplus to pay localities. Reality: The Auditor of Public Accounts says localities collected $3.9 billion a year in the car tax. Virginia closed its budget year with a surplus of $2.7 billion. That math is why the car tax hasn’t been eliminated, no matter how much people hate it. Earle-Sears’ answer is simply not a real one. The state’s budget surplus goes up and down; some years it’s big enough to cover that $3.9 billion, some years it’s not.
Please don’t base your vote for either candidate on the belief that they’ll get rid of the car tax; otherwise, you’ll be disappointed.
Earle-Sears repeatedly misstated Spanberger’s energy policy
The next governor — maybe the next several governors — will face an energy crisis. Our power demands are rising (mostly because of data centers but also the growing electrification of lots of things) but our energy production isn’t rising at the same rate. That’s one problem. Rising electric rates are another. And then there’s the requirement, from the Virginia Clean Economy Act, that Virginia’s major utilities convert to a carbon-free electric grid by 2050. That requires a serious policy discussion, which we didn’t get — not that we should ever expect that from a debate. Still, we ought to expect candidates to stick to the truth, which Earle-Sears did not on this issue. She said of Spanberger: “All she wants is solar and wind.” That’s simply not true. Spanberger has, on multiple occasions, voiced her support for nuclear energy and concedes that natural gas will remain part of our energy mix, along with biomass.
Spanberger is more supportive of solar and wind than Earle-Sears is, but she has never said those forms of energy should be our only ones. Earlier this year I interviewed both candidates on energy policy; you can read what Spanberger said here and what Earle-Sears said here. You can also read their answers on energy policy in our Voter Guide.
Neither candidate offered details on data centers
Spanberger said “it’s important they pay their fair share,” which gives us some sense of where her policy would lead, even if there are no details. Earle-Sears had none. Just as Spanberger didn’t really answer some of the questions put to her about Jones’ texts or transgender issues, Earle-Sears didn’t answer this one.
No, there’s not a nuclear reactor planned in Southwest Virginia.
Earle-Sears turned the question on data centers into an answer on energy. She faulted the Virginia Clean Economy Act for closing coal-fired plants (that’s true, although some of those would have likely closed anyway due to their age and obsolescence). She then turned to nuclear energy and said: “We have started in Southwest a microreactor program to see how we can bring energy to the Southwest.”
This is true but requires clarification in case anyone thinks we’re about to start splitting atoms in coal country. Earlier this year, the Youngkin administration announced $197,500 to “support work to position the region to apply for private investment and federal funding to bring the technology to the region.” The italics are mine to emphasize how conditional all this is.
There is no plan to build a nuclear reactor in Southwest Virginia, as much as some might like to see that happen. It’s not the state that builds energy generation anyway, it’s utilities — and not a single utility has proposed a reactor in Southwest Virginia. There’s a lot of hope in some quarters that small nuclear reactors will be an energy solution — but there is not a single small modular under construction (or even close to construction) anywhere in the United States. They may someday be an important part of our energy mix, but they are not an immediate solution because no one knows how long it will take to get them approved and built.
Our closest example is in Canada — where Ontario Power Generation proposed a small modular reactor in 2006 but didn’t start formal work until 2023 and isn’t expected to have it complete until 2030. Meanwhile, here in Virginia, we need power for data centers now. If we assume Canada’s 7-year timeline is the model, that means even if a utility said today it wanted to build an SMR, that means it wouldn’t be ready until 2032 — by which time the governor we elect after either Spanberger or Earle-Sears will be getting ready to leave office.
Is a ban on same-sex marriage discrimination?
Virginia’s state constitution bans same-sex marriage. That provision was rendered moot by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2015 that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, but that language would come back into force if the Supreme Court ever changed its mind. There’s a proposed amendment to the state constitution that’s moving through Virginia’s amendment process that would take that state ban out and instead add the guarantee that Virginia will recognize such unions no matter what the U.S. Supreme Court does.
The next step: The legislature will vote again next year and, if the measure passes, it would then go to a referendum in November 2026. The governor has no formal role in the amendment process but governors, by virtue of their role, do have a bully pulpit to advocate one way or another.
The two candidates tangled briefly over this. Earle-Sears has opposed same-sex marriage. When Spanberger brought this up, under a discussion about discrimination, Earle-Sears interrupted to say: “That’s not discrimination.” Ditto the ability to fire someone for being gay. For voters who feel strongly about this, one way or another, this may have been a clarifying moment.
Spanberger’s silence: Discipline or Dukakis?
Throughout the debate, Earle-Sears turned to Spanberger to question her directly. Spanberger just stood there and didn’t respond. This seemed a calculated choice by both candidates — Earle-Sears trying to rattle Spanberger and Spanberger refusing to take the bait. “What would you say?,” Earle-Sears asked at one point, “are you not going to answer?” No, she wasn’t.
There are two ways to look at this.
Here’s one way: What Virginians saw in Spanberger was a disciplined candidate who never seemed ruffled. Maybe this is her natural composure, maybe this is the product of her training as a CIA case officer, maybe this was good debate prep. In any case, if Virginians wanted to know whether Spanberger would be cool under fire, they got their answer. Near as we can tell, she’d be a good crisis manager.
Here’s the other way: Did Spanberger appear too unconcerned? During one of the uncomfortable silences while Earle-Sears waited for a response that never came, my mind flashed back to 1988 and Michael Dukakis’ much-criticized response to a debate question about whether he’d support the death penalty if his wife were raped and murdered. Dukakis stated his opposition to the death penalty but didn’t react emotionally to what TIME magazine called a “startling question.” TIME went on to say that to many viewers, Dukakis’ straightforward answer “seemed both dispassionate and dismissive.” Was Spanberger’s insistence on not replying to Earle-Sears’ the right decision? Stylistically, I think it was, but I also recognize others might disagree. Did she seem, like Dukakis, “dispassionate and dismissive”?
After the debate, both campaigns flooded in-boxes with their own spin on the debate. Democrats called Earle-Sears “unhinged,” while the subject line of one Republican email began: “Winsome Earle-Sears dominates debate . . .”
The question is what Virginians make of the way she dominated.
Want more political news?
You sent questionnaires to all the statewide candidates, all the House of Delegates candidates across Virginia and all the candidates for local office in Southwest and Southside. You can see how they responded on our Voter Guide.
You can also sign up for West of the Capital, our weekly political newsletter that goes out on Friday afternoons. This week I’ll have updated analysis on the early voting trends plus other political news.
