Dr. Jatia Wrighten: What happened between Terry McAuliffe and Glenn Youngkin in the final debate?
Democrat Terry McAuliffe is running for Governor again. This time he faces Republican Glenn Youngkin. The two faced off in a second and final debate moderated by NBC's Chuck Todd and hosted by the Schar School of Government. Recent polls show them nearly tied. Princess Blanding, the Liberation Party candidate, interrupted the debate to protest her exclusion from the debate.
Dr. Jatia Wrighten is a professor of Political Science at Virginia Commonwealth University. She helps the Transition Team make sense of arguments about COVID vaccines and mitigation strategies; School censorship and Critical Race Theory; Attitudes toward Afghan refugees; and the choice to exclude Princess Blanding from the debate.
Finally, Michael Pope shares his room audio from the moment that Youngkin's team announced he would avoid the standard post-debate press gaggle backstage.
Michael Pope
Welcome to a special edition of Transition Virginia. I'm Michael Pope.
Thomas Bowman
And I'm Thomas Bowman. In this special edition of Transition Virginia, we'll talk about the race for Governor, and what lies ahead now that the second, and final, debate is behind us.
Michael Pope
And we've got a dynamite guest here to help us dig into this issue. We're joined by a professor at Virginia Commonwealth University who's returning to the podcast. She was on a previous episode about Critical Race Theory, which was one of our most popular episodes ever. So you should definitely check that out if you haven't already heard it. Heck, you could listen to it again, too, if you already heard it. She's returning to the podcast to help us understand the race for Governor and what happened in the debate this week. Professor Jatia Wrighten, thanks for joining us.
Jatia Wrighten
Hi, thank you for having me. I'm excited to be here again.
Michael Pope
Professor Wrighten, what is the state of the race right now, and what are your main takeaways from the debate?
Jatia Wrighten
Generally, the takeaway from watching this debate is that both candidates were probably pretty effective in maintaining their base votes. McAuliffe probably didn't convince any moderate who was sort of on the fence, or maybe already thinking about voting for Youngkin, to vote for him. And vice versa. I don't think Youngkin did a, you know, efficient job in trying to convince any moderates that were maybe on the fence, and leaning towards McAuliffe, to vote for Youngkin. They did hit on pretty hot topics in terms of things that are both nationally important, but well as important at the state level. One of the things that I think is actually a takeaway, in terms of our two party systems, is the the appearance by Princess Blanding. She was clearly very upset during this debate. And it has a lot to do with the fact that she wanted to be included in the debate and the rules surrounding who can debate is such that because her vote, her during her primary, didn't gain the needed threshold. She wasn't able to be on stage. And I think that's where a lot of the anger and frustration that you hear her expressing in the, you know, in the audience, and then being escorted out, comes from. And so I think that also, you know, suggests maybe we should be taking a look at how effective our two party systems, how representative are they, and what Princess Blanding represented as a third party member, and how effectively our systems and our institutions really are at suppressing this other voice.
Michael Pope
One of the flashpoints in this debate was the discussion over vaccine mandates. Former Governor Terry McAuliffe, of course, is in favor of vaccine mandates, Republican Glenn Youngkin is not. And so I want to play some sound here, where Youngkin is sort of explaining his position on this. And then the moderator of Meet the Press, Chuck Todd, asks a follow up question. And it prompted a very interesting discussion about vaccines and vaccine mandates. Here's that exchange.
Glenn Youngkin
I believe the vaccine absolutely saves lives. I think the last 20 months has been an absolute tragedy. And I look forward to working with Virginians to get people vaccinated, and to help people live their lives.
Chuck Todd
A quick follow up to you Mr. Youngkin. Do you believe getting vaccinated for measles, mumps, or rubella is a personal choice for Virginians?
Glenn Youngkin
I think I think that the that the data associated with those vaccines is something that we should absolutely understand the difference between this vaccine. And we have a moment here. We have a moment here to help people understand the real information, in this vaccine.
Chuck Todd
So you would keep those vaccines mandatory?
Glenn Youngkin
So that we could so that...
Chuck Todd
Those vaccines mandatory but not COVID?
Glenn Youngkin
Those vaccines, those vaccines can be mandatory. I do believe the COVID vaccine is one that everyone should get, but we shouldn't mandate.
Michael Pope
"Those vaccines can be mandatory," is what he said prompting this response from McAuliffe. McAuliffe actually, in the press gaggle after the debate was over with, reacted to that moment by saying this.
Terry McAuliffe
He didn't believe that people should get a measles vaccination, which has been around for decades? He wouldn't answer that question? It's a pretty easy question. Yes. "I think that should be mandated." He would not say that tonight.
Michael Pope
Thomas, I know in your day job, you look at COVID policy. What did you make of this exchange between McAuliffe and Youngkin?
Thomas Bowman
Yeah, you know, the reason he couldn't answer the question and wasn't prepared for it, is because he wasn't actually saying what he believed, he was saying talking points. And so when he got that follow up, he wasn't ready for, it was very clear. And then he gave an answer that's really inconsistent. And, to me, it's like saying, "Well, we want to have fire codes to prevent fires. But if your house is actually on fire right now, we shouldn't have to send out the fire department." Like, to me, it just seems like the silliest thing in the world. When new things occur, new science is made available, you add it to the list of the things that we need to do. And whether it's a measles vaccine, because the measles vaccine works, or the polio vaccine, or the smallpox vaccine before it, the most patriotic thing you can do is to be prepared to keep your countrymen healthy. And so, you know, get that vaccine from, from my perspective.
Michael Pope
Professor Wrighten, what did you make of this exchange on vaccine mandates?
Jatia Wrighten
I think Youngkin made it clear that he is still peddling misinformation about the effectiveness of the COVID vaccine. And I think the statement that really highlights that point is his comparison to the research on smallpox and measles, versus the research, or the understanding, behind the COVID vaccine. And we know from past media statements that he's made, but also the misinformation that's surrounding the COVID vaccine, is one of the pieces of misinformation that's being peddled is this idea that there's not a lot of research, or support, or evidence that the COVID vaccine is safe and effective. And so for all of his sort of posturing about his distinctiveness from President Donald Trump, I think what Youngkin shows is that he is absolutely aligning himself with the Trump presidency and Trump's stance, past stance, on the COVID vaccine. I think I think anyone would have a hard sell to try and convince the public, or the medical field, that one of the major hesitations surrounding getting the COVID vaccination is the Trump presidencies, you know, hesitation and misinformation that they peddled for most of the pandemic. And so I think it's it's absolutely what Thomas is saying is that, it doesn't represent his real stance on being vaccinated and the mandates that need to be in place surrounding COVID vaccinations, it is absolutely a talking point. And I think he made that very clear by alluding to this idea that the research is not there, or not reliable.
Thomas Bowman
Yeah. And, Michael, if I could just follow up real quick, it's important to understand, nobody wanted to have to mandate these vaccines, they're required to mandate them because we need at least 90% of the population vaccinated and we weren't getting there by hoping people will do the right thing. This actually mirrors something called the tragedy of the commons, where you leave it up to people to try to take care of something and do the right thing. People always take advantage of it, or you have free riders on that policy. So you have to, it's the same reason we have regulations, to keep other companies in line with whatever is in the public interest. You need to regulate sometimes in order to protect public goods.
Jatia Wrighten
Right.
Thomas Bowman
And that, in this case is, people need to get vaccinated.
Michael Pope
So another part of the debate that became a flashpoint was about the issue of whether or not parents should be notified when sexually explicit books are taught in the classroom. The Republicans have already taken some video from this debate and cut a television commercial about this moment, and it's about a bill introduced back in 2016, by Republican Delegate Steve Landis, prompted by parents who were concerned their children were reading the Toni Morrison book, "Beloved." The bill would have required schools to notify parents when sexually explicit books were being taught in the classroom. Listeners of the podcast might remember, recently, we had former Minority Leader David Toscano on the show, in his new book, "Fighting Political Gridlock." He actually begins chapter seven with an anecdote about this particular bill. I want to read a little bit from David Toscano's book, and then we'll talk about the debate. This is how Toscano talks about this 2016 bill. "It was a relatively quiet day in the Virginia State Senate when Hb 516, a bill that would give parents the right to object to explicit reading materials in their children's classroom, came before the 40 member body. After 20 minutes of spirited debate, Tom Garrett, a Republican legislator from Buckingham County, took the discussion to another level by reading aloud sexually explicit passages from Toni Morrison's Pulitzer Prize winning novel, 'Beloved,' that included graphic descriptions of rape, sex, and beastiality. The senators listened in shock, as did several adolescent page boys and girls who occupied the chamber on daily basis to assist senators with everything from photocopying to obtaining lunch." So that was the scene on the Senate floor that David Toscano gives us a window into. Now, that bill, requiring notification, ended up on Terry McAuliffe's desk back in 2016, he vetoed that bill, which led to a very interesting exchange during the debate this week.
Glenn Youngkin
You vetoed the bill that would have informed parents that they were there. You believe school systems should tell children what to do, I believe parents should be in charge of their kids education.
Terry McAuliffe
So first of all, this shows how clueless Glenn Youngkin is, he doesn't understand what the law's were, because he's never been involved here and helping Virginia. But it was that, the parents had the right to veto bills, veto books, Glenn, not be knowledgable about it. Also take them off the shelves, and I'm not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decision. So the bill that I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach. You know, I get really tired of everybody running down teachers. I love our teachers, and what they have done through COVID, these are real heroes that deserve our respect. And you keep running them down.
Michael Pope
So there's a lot in that sound clip to unpack. From the Republican standpoint, the idea that McAuliffe would say, "[he] doesn't think parents should be telling schools what to teach," is something they want to highlight. And then from the Democratic standpoint, Terry McAuliffe standing up for teachers is something they probably want to highlight. Professor, Wrighten, what did you make of this exchange?
Jatia Wrighten
Yeah, so I don't think that there's a coincidence that while we are so focused on banning material, you know, literature and material, at the same time, we have a pandemic, where one of the major sources of this pandemic are Americans inability to read and process information, because of the amounts of misinformation and access to all different types of sources, that makes it very difficult for Americans to really discern what's true and what's not. And at the same time, we have a movement, where we think the appropriate response to this is to remove material, reading material, from public schools. Maybe we should all start reading Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, again, to see the disadvantages of being an uninformed society as it relates to literature. And then more importantly, you know, the legal definition of obscenity was established in the 1973 decision of Miller v. California. And they they decided, the Supreme Court decided, that there was three basic guidelines. But I think the third one is the most important as it relates to this debate. And the third guideline is whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. As we all know, the literature that's, you know, sort of reference to it in regards to this, is, "Beloved," by Toni Morrison. And she won a Pulitzer Prize for her work. So the idea that this is not a serious, you know, literary work of some sort of value, that is really off the table. And so as it relates to obscenity, that does not belong, that identification of this piece of literature, does not belong to the title of, "Beloved." And more importantly, I absolutely agree with Terry McAuliffe in this idea that parents should not be able to go into public schools, and I emphasize that word, 'public,' to determine what their students should or should not be reading. If a parent would like to minimize the sort of literary works that are available to their child, they should place their child in a private school setting, or a homeschool setting. I actually do not see the difference between trying to do something like that, and mandating vaccinations. And what I mean by that is that as we know, when you have a child who you put in public school, there are certain vaccinations that are mandated for that child to be in a public school with other school children. And if you don't get those vaccinations, your child cannot attend public school. I think of it in the same way, right? We have, we have allowed the state to offer this public good and service to its people. And if you have an issue with that public service, or that public good, there are other options. And I don't think one of them is to then alter that public good in the way in which it's set forth or outlined in state codes, and the Virginia State of Education, to suit your individual need and your individual child. I understand if you have an issue with some of the material, or you think your child, specifically, is not prepared to understand, or read, or interpret that material, but I don't think that the right response is to go into a public school and remove those resources from other children. And so I do think, you know, in terms of the policy itself, it's problematic, right? I mean, obscenity is such a vague definition or, or determination, even in its legal understanding. And so do we really want to leave it up to individual parents to determine that for us, I think that's why we have a state legislature. That's why we have a department Board of Education.
Michael Pope
So that's kind of a educational based analysis you just gave us, I'm wondering, Thomas, what's the political analysis here? Do Republicans have some room here to criticize Democrats for saying parents shouldn't be deciding what's taught in Virginia classrooms?
No. And as somebody who's, my mom was a teacher, and I'm married to a former classroom teacher. I've heard a lot of stories about parents of children. And I'm just going to be able to say, as a blanket rule, obviously not in all cases, as a blanket rule, parents are not qualified to make educational decisions about what schools teach. They're not policy experts on education, they don't understand pedagogy. They need to really let the teachers make the decisions from that perspective. And also, literature teaches us about the human experience. As far as the literature goes, if you're trying to ban books, it means that you're afraid of what's inside of them. And not always Republican and not always Democrat, but conservative ideologies throughout human history, have sometimes tried to ban books as a way of prohibiting information from getting to people. And honestly, there is nothing you can write in any book, that is any more offensive than the things that happen to people and humanity on a day by day basis sometimes.
Jatia Wrighten
And Michael, just to follow up on that, in terms of the political ramifications, I think that this was really an underlying conversation surrounding Critical Race Theory, as well. Because in the same clip, if you played it a little bit longer, Youngkin talks about not trying to look at everything through race to pit students, you know, against each other, "Let's talk about, let's teach real history." That's what he says. So in the same sentence, he says, "Let's teach real history and not look at everything through race to pit students against each other." And then McAuliffe says, you know, "Let's teach a full history." And right before that conversation, you know, he mentions that he banned the Confederate flag from the license plates. And that really like lends itself to the previous conversation about taking down monuments and things like that. And so even though the words, "Critical Race Theory," was not used, I do think that this is a nod to their supportive base, right? So Republicans are looking for Youngkin to bring up Critical Race Theory when it, you know, education, as it relates to education. And banning books, in my opinion, sort of aligns itself with this idea about whether or not Critical Race Theory is going to be used as some sort of framework in the schools, right? Because similar to what Thomas is saying, and sort of expanding knowledge and exploring, you know, or examining our understanding of human behavior, Critical Race Theory is one such, you know, framework, although it's not being taught, at all, in any primary, secondary school level. I do think that this conversation, as it relates to banning books, does lend itself to the larger debate between Republicans and Democrats as it relates to Critical Race Theory. And so I do think that their support, their base group, heard what they needed to hear as it relates to that.
Michael Pope
Alright, let's take a quick break. When we come back, we'll talk about Princess Blanding, heckling the candidates, and bringing the debate to a standstill. We'll also touch on Glenn Youngkin's comments about vaccinating refugees from Afghanistan. And Michael Pope will tell us what happened at the press gaggle after the debate. We'll be right back.
And we're back on Transition Virginia, we're joined by VCU Professor Jatia Wrighten, and we're talking about the campaign for Governor. Now in that second, and final, debate this week, within a bit of universal politics that actually transcends Virginia. One time honored tradition in politics is the fear of the refugee. We've seen this in American history going all the way back to the fear of the Irish, to today's fear of Haitians, you see this, of course, in European history, you see this today in European politics. There was this very interesting moment about a discussion of refugees from Afghanistan, coming to America, and this is what Glenn Youngkin said about that.
Glenn Youngkin
Have they had a COVID vaccine? Terry, you want everybody else to get one, have Afghan refugees got one?
Michael Pope
So McAuliffe clearly does want the refugees to get a vaccine. Professor Wrighten, what do you make of this exchange?
Jatia Wrighten
Youngkin is really good at double talk. So he opens that with this idea about open borders, right? So that's really his argument. He's like, "You know, we are failing at our borders, there's open borders in terms of the South," which of course, is going to bring up images of Mexican refugees, but also more recently, you know, the Haitian refugees. And then he says, "Open borders, plus the idea that they shouldn't be here because they aren't vaccinated." And so he does this double talk where he says, like, "I don't want to mandate vaccinations or COVID vaccinations. But then at the same time, we're letting in all these Afghani refugees, and they're not vaccinated." And so hopefully, you know, a person watching this is saying, "Well, how can you have both? You don't want to mandate vaccinations, but you do want Afghan refugees to come, you know, to the United States, because he does seem to be sympathetic to this idea that the United States government has basically abandoned Afghanistan and its citizens who helped during the war." And so in one sentence, he's like, he seems to convey that he's sympathetic, and he is pro military. And he was obviously anti, you know, leaving Afghanistan, but in the same exact breath, he talks about open borders, and this really this fear of Brown people, right? So if you hadn't made that connection before, about the possibility of refugees coming in, and then actually bringing COVID, well, here's another, you know, sort of thing to consider. And so in terms of politically, I think this is actually pretty genius, right? He almost gets to do all of his policy platforms in sort of one sentence. He's pro military, he's anti leaving Afghanistan, he's pro helping our allies, but not through immigration and open borders. And at the same time, he's able to do a dog whistle with the fear of Brown people in this influx of refugees.
Thomas Bowman
Yeah, I mean, if you are afraid of refugees, you are not thinking clearly about what the United States is. The reality is that when refugees come to United States, the United States wins. And that's how we've been strong for, at least through the 20th century, and the beginning of the 21st century. The other thing too, as the most patriotic thing you could do, is to want more refugees, because that's literally the words engraved on the Statue of Liberty, right? "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." So if you're anti refugee, you're anti American. And it's as simple as that.
Jatia Wrighten
And can I just also note, how very hypocritical it is to sort of suggests that refugees- there should be mandated vaccinations for COVID, for supposedly a vaccination that you know nothing about, but the American people should not? Right? So that's also problematic, right? So what you're sort of suggesting is that you don't trust the vaccine, but you trust it enough to give it to Brown people?
Thomas Bowman
Yeah, I in fact, at that moment, I tweeted out, "Youngkin dunkin on Youngkin."
Jatia Wrighten
Yep.
Thomas Bowman
Because it was the biggest self- own of the entire debate.
Jatia Wrighten
Yeah, he did a lot of double talk, I mean, it was such a loaded response, right? Because similar to most of this debate, Youngkin was not genuine. Now on the other hand, that doesn't mean I thought McAuliffe did a good job, because honestly, I think McAuliffe did a terrible job, in terms of, it seemed like he was always on the defensive. He seemed quite flustered with Youngkin in the attacks that he made against McAuliffe. He doesn't, you know, McAuliffe doesn't come off as like this professional, years experience, you know, I'm calm and cool, I collected, I got this. I've been here before, I've done this. I'm not saying that McAuliffe comes off that way in this debate. But I will say that Youngkin did not come off as genuine, in terms of his actual policy stances. And I do think McAuliffe, you know, did state that, and pick up on that, but I'm not sure if that point was really...you know, I don't know if he really landed that point in the way that it should have been landed. Or if that point was lost, just because McAuliffe was always on the defense, right, versus the versus the the offense. And so, McAuliffe makes that point, that Youngkin doesn't seem genuine, and can't just come down to Virginia and, you know, say these talking points. And it, it's clear, that's what he's doing, by the way in which he, you know, responds to many of these questions.
Michael Pope
You know, it's interesting that you use the phrase, "talking points," there, because one of the things that has always struck me about these kinds of events, is people call them, "debates." That's the word that people use, and and I use that on the radio. But in reality, they're not actually debates at all. There's very little debating that actually happens in these events. You know, I'm tempted to jokingly call them, "joint press conferences," where we have two people who are holding kind of simultaneous press conferences. And that's because they come with their talking points, and they say what they have expected to say the whole time, and then they walk out the door. Yeah, sometimes though, in these events, the unexpected happens. And that is something that happened in this debate, there was something totally unexpected that happened, which was the third party candidate, who was in the audience, but not on the stage, started heckling Chuck Todd, and Glenn Youngkin, and Terry McAuliffe, by basically yelling at the stage for an extended period of time. NBC had to cut to a commercial, and I was in the room, and got some audio of this, I'm going to play now. It's really chaotic, because you hear Princess Blanding yelling toward the stage. Princess Blanding also had several of her supporters there. So you will also hear supporters of hers saying things. I'm not going to play too much of this because it's very chaotic, but you will actually catch some language right at the end of this clip.
(Blanding protest)
So there you hear it from Princess Blanding, "You're not gonna win, Terry, I'll tell you that." You did not see that on television. In fact, the people that I've talked to that watched the debate on television, they knew there was a heckler, but they had no clue it was Princess Blanding, who was doing the heckling. They had no clue the person who has basically stopped the show was in fact, a candidate for Governor whose name will be on the ballot. Jatia Wrighten, what did you make of this exchange?
Jatia Wrighten
So historically, you know, if we think about the history of Black women's role in institutions, and their purposeful exclusion from, Princess Blanding's reaction, and her protest at the gubernatorial debate is, in my opinion, completely acceptable and should have been expected, because what happened and she you know, what happened was, she's the Liberation Party candidate, she is on the ballot, she will be the third party candidate that is running for Governor. And as you can see, they- the institutions that be, have effectively silenced and oppressed her candidacy. And she is saying that that censorship is racist, sexist, and very oppressive, and she's not going to sit, you know, silently while it happens.
Michael Pope
Professor, actually, can I just bounce something off you here. So in the last two elections for Governor, there was a Libertarian candidate, a white male Libertarian candidate in the last election cycle. And then in the previous election cycle, there was another white male Libertarian candidate, they also were excluded from this process. Is she getting the same treatment that they were getting or is there something different about these treatments?
Jatia Wrighten
Do you remember if they were on the ballot?
Michael Pope
They were, yes, they were on the ballot.
Jatia Wrighten
So they were on the ballot. So they're, so yes, that's also problematic. They're getting, I mean, that's, I think, to the larger point of, you know, there's really this place only in our Constitution, in our government for two parties, which is absolutely problematic. If they reach that threshold to be included on the ballot, they should absolutely be, you know, have been included in the debate. In terms of Princess Blanding, I think what separates you know her from these these two white men that you speak of, is her history and experience of oppression, and racism, and discrimination, which we know is different for candidates, especially Black women. And so that would be the only, you know, place where I separate, is that her experience, and I'm sure if we sat all three of them down to interview them and ask them about their experience with racism and sexism and discrimination, I'm almost certain that the stories would be quite different, as it relates to those experiences. And so when I'm saying that her experience, or her censorship is racist, sexist, and very oppressive, those are her own words. So it's not me putting that on her or saying, you know, saying that that's what it is, I am just quoting her actually, and that, quote, appears an NPR, those are her own words, that she feels that she is being censored based on race, and sexism. And what I'm saying is that there is absolutely a history that would support that statement, and that, that feeling of, you know, being oppressed based on these identities, this intersectional identity. And what I'm suggesting in terms of her, you know, her protest is, first of all, let's think about where she started, right? She is not a politician that comes from large lobbying, and she wasn't a lawyer. And you know, she doesn't come from all this money. She started as a protester and a grassroots organizer. And so the idea that, because she wasn't included in the debate, that her go to would be protest, makes complete sense for who she is as a candidate, and where her skillset lies, right? And so that's why I'm saying is that we probably should have expected that. But more importantly, you know, Black women have always worked outside of the institutions that have been set up, because there have been laws in place that has excluded them purposefully. And so Black women have always had to find a way to be political, and to be included in the polity, outside of government institutions, you know, and that's also probably a major consideration as to why she decided to run as a third party, instead of a Democrat, right? We see what happened with the two Black woman who ran against Terry McAuliffe. They both lost, in my opinion, didn't deserve to lose. But you know, so we see with the two party system, there's a lot at play in terms of party politics, and Princess Blanding is suggesting that as a third party candidate, that she would not have to follow those rules, or so to speak, be under this party machine, or party politics, she wouldn't have to play that game. And so I know people found that disruptive, or whatever the case may be, but protests are disruptive. Protests are supposed to make you uncomfortable. And protests have been effective in creating change in, you know, making progression towards equality. And so I don't know, will this increase her chances of winning? Probably not. Because unfortunately, at the state level, we know that raising money in campaign finance is actually a larger indication of who's going to win, especially as it relates to like incumbency. And so will her protests, you know, get her the gubernatorial seat? Probably not. But does it bring attention to, you know, her, her purposeful exclusion? Absolutely.
Michael Pope
So the people that organize these kinds of debates always struggle with this issue of whether or not to include everybody who's on the ballot, or that there should be some kind of threshold for who's on the stage. Thomas, should NBC, and the Chamber of Commerce, and organizers of this event, in particular, but you know, debates in general, you know, even all the way down to the House of Delegates candidates, like when the League of Women Voters is putting together a panel, is it a good idea to include all the candidates or should there be some kind of threshold for who's appearing on the stage?
Thomas Bowman
You know, as somebody who understands both sides here of the institutional challenge that they're facing, but also the human and the policy aspect to this, I think that it's a missed opportunity not to include this. And I think this is consistent with our desire not to have books banned, for example, because we believe in a free exchange and a free marketplace of ideas. And from the point of view of the producers of the debate, honestly, being on the ballot is a really good threshold, because it takes effort and an amount of organization to get on the ballot. And we're not in a situation, especially in this case, where there's 50 people on the ballot, right, and it becomes practically impossible to hold, not really a debate, but an organized joint press conference, as you put it, Michael. The reality, though, in this case, there's a political reality, too. As we said earlier, it wouldn't matter if she were on the debate stage, or not on the debate stage, because this third party candidate cannot win in a two party electoral system. It doesn't matter if it's a Liberation party or the Libertarian Party. Right. But from a political perspective, I think this is a huge missed opportunity for the Democratic Party. And here's why. There would not be too many things that Princess Blanding would say, that would be out of line with things that the Democratic party would also find to be its moral home, so to speak.
Michael Pope
Qualified immunity would be a point of contention between the two of them.
Thomas Bowman
Sure, and I want to hear that debate. And I think the people want to hear that debate, because it's an opportunity to educate the public on qualified immunity, and then to move, potentially, some of the other mainstream, or I should say, leading candidates on qualified immunity. And I think of the case of, it's not just qualified immunity, where she's got a notable policy distinction. She opposes police unions, which is like a very nuanced pro union view to have, that I don't think that many mainstream Democrats are exposed to right now. She also wants to legalize sex work. And I think what you would see if these ideas were brought up at a debate in a context with people watching, is somebody like Terry McAuliffe would say, "That's not so scary, I actually support that too," and would be able to move the public toward an outcome that everybody supported, frankly, and I the tradition, though, is that they're scared that that third party candidate would be able to pull enough support away from the front runner, in this case, all Princess Blanding, voters would otherwise be voting for Terry McAuliffe. I think there's polling that would demonstrate that, I don't think anybody is...there's nobody saying, "Oh, I like Glenn Youngkin enough, but I think I'll vote for Princess Blanding instead, right?" Like that voter doesn't exist. So the fear is that she would be so popular enough that there would be a threshold that she would take from Terry. The fear on the debate organizer's side is that, "Well, we don't want to waste time hearing from somebody who will be confrontational and can't win." And that doesn't, that's not necessarily just Princess Blanding, that's any third party. But in my opinion, just as a Virginian, I want more Virginians exposed to alternate ideas, and if they are really good or really bad, Terry McAuliffe and Glen Youngkin should have an opportunity to say what they have to say about that idea.
Michael Pope
Okay, one more sound clip before we go. So this was a bit comical. After these debates, what usually happens is there's a press gaggle. So, and they do them one at a time. So the Democrat will come in and answer questions from the media, then the Republican will come in and answer questions from the media. This particular debate was actually very well organized. And so I got ahead of time, all the guidelines about, you have to show your vaccination card to get into the building, and here's the address, and that sort of thing. So the gaggles actually were set up ahead of time, and the order of like McAuliffe was going to come out first, and then Youngkin was going to come out second, and McAuliffe is going to come out at 8:15 and Youngkin, was going to come out at 8:30, and Princess Blanding was initially scheduled to also come out at 8:45 to do the gaggle. She, of course, was escorted from the building, so she did not do the gaggle. So at 8:15 or so, McAuliffe comes out and he answers questions from the media. And then the media is like sitting around waiting for Youngkin to come, which would have been exciting, because you know, he's actually very difficult to get into a room where you can ask him questions. So I was actually excited for the opportunity to ask Glenn Youngkin a question. And so the so the so picture the scene here, so you got this roomful of media people waiting for Glenn Youngkin to arrive, and this is what happened.
Kristen Davis
Hello, hi, my name is Kristen Davis and I'm one of the strategists with Glenn Youngkin's team. I'm taking two or three questions from you guys. Oh, Glenn's not coming out? No, winners don't spin. So he's, we feel really good. Won, two for two on debates. And so he is on his way. If he feels like he won, why wouldn't you want to come here and explain why he won? He just talked for an hour and swept the floor with Terry McAuliffe.
Michael Pope
Thomas, "Winners don't spin," what did you make of that?
Thomas Bowman
Oh, speaking of spin, Michael, winners run victory laps. They don't turn tail and run.
Michael Pope
Jatia Wrighten, is it, I mean, people in the media, of course, care because they want to ask questions of the candidates. Is it important that Youngkin didn't appear at this gaggle? By the way, he also did not appear at the media gaggle at the first debate out in Grundy. He did not appear for the media gaggle there either. Is that significant or important?
Jatia Wrighten
Yeah, I mean, I think it sends...Yeah, I think it sends two signals. So I think the first signal is that Youngkin, if elected, maybe unreachable, and that is problematic. However you feel about the media, at a state level election, and a state level seat, the media and your ability to really get your platform out there, is really your best bet, right? The local media especially, because I know Virginia is sort of particular in that it's like a purple- purple-ish state now and we have one of the more diverse state legislatures. And so more often than not, you know, our stories are picked up in this national news media. But very often, you know, once the election cycle is over, that news cycle ends, right? It really ends, like the focus, the attention, you know, we won't talk again about this until, you know, you know, nobody will reach out to me again, probably, you know, not until the next few years.
Michael Pope
Oh we'll call you, we'll call you Professor Wrighten.
Jatia Wrighten
Well, what voters should be considering is, you know, how willing then is Youngkin going to...how willing is he going to be to talk to constituents, but also how easy is he going to be reached, right, or available to either discuss, like his policy platforms, or the different laws that he wants to pass or, you know, things that he's thinking about? We, as voters, don't have a lot of insight to who he is and what he stands for, because he is the challenger. And even though, you know, Terry McAuliffe was a past Governor, people are a lot more familiar with the types of policy he passes and, and the things that he's done, because he's run previously. And so I do think it's a disadvantage for Youngkin to sort of walk away from these opportunities to get his message and his platform out. I think that's, I think that's problematic. Second of all, in terms of determining that he's the winner, or that's the reason that he didn't show up, I think it is a tinge egotistical, and constituents want someone who is more like them, right, who is relatable. And when you have actions, or when you do things that sort of suggests you feel like you are above the fray, and what I mean by fray is like sort of these institutional expectations, I think that can rub voters the wrong way, right? You know, we are all held to a certain standard in our jobs and our careers, and we don't get to just decide that we're not going to do something that's expected of us. And so I think that's something else that he should be considering, as you know, what is this, what is the message that he's sending, right, these unintended messages by these actions of not being available to the media, and not sort of following what is institutionally expected of him?
Michael Pope
Thank you again for being on the show Dr. Wrighten. Alright, so if you watched the debate, tell us about a moment at the debate that stuck out to you. Hit us up on social media or get in touch at transitionvirginia.com. There, you can check the transcripts for this episode, and find the links to support the show on Patreon. Special thanks to Emily Cottrell, who transcribes every one of these so they're accessible to everyone.
Thanks for listening to Transition Virginia. If you like what you heard, give us a five star review, it helps other people find the show. We'll be back next week, so subscribe to the show so you don't miss a single episode. Transition Virginia is produced by Jackleg Media, LLC.
