What the media can't prove about Youngkin's win
In their analysis, many in the press suggested Youngkin won because he separated himself from Trumpism. Did that ultimately matter?
As Glenn Youngkin’s groupies milled about in an almost entirely maskless indoor crowd, prepping to celebrate a victory over Democrat Terry McAuliffe, Sean Hannity was on Fox News on the big screen near the stage. Tuesday night into Wednesday morning, the media castigated McAuliffe for being out of touch with voters and focusing too much on Donald Trump, while Youngkin was lauded for his careful separation from Trumpist ideology. Network broadcasts claimed baselessly that if Youngkin welcomed Trump to rallies and gave him, say, a big ol’ bear hug—something Chuck Todd suggested oddly—the results wouldn’t have skewed as far in his favor. Never mind Hannity, the biggest pro-Trump guy in the media, bloviating in front of Youngkin’s most ardent supporters.
The private equity executive who was elected governor of Virginia on Tuesday admitted Joe Biden was legitimately elected and said he’d willingly concede if he lost. He waged a war against boogeyman critical race theory but didn’t criss-cross the commonwealth complaining about the porous border walls like other governors whose states aren’t neighbors with Mexico. He’s mostly limited himself to culture-war issues like abortion and public safety, ones he has control over changing.
This strategy could have ostensibly swayed never-Trump Republicans, but there’s no proof that’s what made the difference. A Slate story trying to argue that point used exit poll data that employs faulty logic. Fifty-four percent of respondents of the CNN poll stated they had an unfavorable view of Trump, and one in six of them voted for Youngkin. The piece infers Youngkin flipped those voters to the Republican side. It’s certainly possible many of those with sour views of Trump still voted for him in 2020, favoring his overall platform while criticizing his deranged rhetoric. In fact, a great deal of Trump voters—rallying sycophants excluded, wife included—have expressed feeling that way about the former president. And yet, tens of millions of Americans still voted for the guy…twice! What’s to have kept Virginians from voting for Youngkin if he’d gone full DeSantis?
Despite pinning the core of his campaign on a non-existent threat—the conspiracy that white children in Virginia public schools are being taught they’re evil—Youngkin was celebrated by the press for taking a more sensible approach than his more pugnacious Republican peers. McAuliffe, meanwhile, was criticized for erring in his messaging, flubbing a debate question about parent involvement in schools that helped derail his campaign.
Perhaps the post-mortem is simpler than that. Youngkin could have been even more buddy-buddy with Trump; he could have strolled into his rallies shooting “Let’s Go Brandon” T-shirts out of a cannon and promising to put an end to Faucism and thoroughly investigate any potential voter fraud, and he’d still have a decent chance. Claiming Virginia voters would support a pro-insurrectionist candidate isn’t a wild assumption. Two Republicans were voted into the Virginia House of Delegates Tuesday who attended the rally on January 6. (Two more Jan. 6-ers were elected to city council posts in New Jersey, where incumbent Democrat Phil Murphy has yet to be declared the winner at the time of this writing.)
Voter apathy on the Democratic side played a part in McAuliffe’s defeat, no doubt. Youngkin performed better than Trump in red counties and made a solid dent in left-leaning northern Virginia. But this is a routine occurrence in Virginia gubernatorial elections; partisan control has switched every two election cycles for decades. Polling shows McAuliffe didn’t pull nearly as many Biden voters as Youngkin did Trump voters. So then, should McAuliffe have done more to distance himself from Biden? Or was it Youngkin who enthused enough of the Trump base with his messaging? Either conclusion could reasonably be made, though the former question falls more in line with the mainstream media narrative while the latter cuts against it. The press is pushing the unfounded belief that catering to conservatives who are disgusted by Trump is the best way to win an election.
After January 6, it’s a human instinct for journalists to believe the best in the conscience of the electorate, to hope they have learned their lesson and are no longer lured en masse by demagoguery and overt prejudice. That just isn’t reality.
It’s a relief Youngkin didn’t claim he’d scorch the earth if he lost the election. His purported policies toward abortion and public education, while inhumane, aren’t as damaging as those already enacted in states like Texas and Mississippi. Still, the media can’t treat the relative tameness of candidates like Youngkin and New Jersey’s Jack Ciattarelli as poster children for a successful GOP campaign moving forward. As disinformation continues to drive prospective Republican voters to the fringes, extremist rhetoric will become an increasingly winning formula for conservatives.
Moreover, the media shouldn’t make inferences they can’t support. Youngkin didn’t piss off too many liberals on his path to the governorship, sinking his teeth into the propaganda surrounding education and leaving the election integrity paranoia for politicians in states redder than his. But what if he had more openly positioned himself as a Trump adherent? Maybe Youngkin would have lost or won by a little less. A more frightening possibility: maybe he would have won by much more.