Quick take: new polling shows Virginia governor Abigail Spanberger’s approval is teetering, voters are souring fast after a big November win, her early-term net approval trails modern governors by a wide margin, and critics point to gerrymandering, permissive immigration moves, and a string of policy choices as reasons for the fallout. This piece lays out the numbers, reactions, and the implications for Virginia politics from a conservative perspective.
The Washington Post-Schar School poll released Monday landed like a splash of cold water for Democrats in Virginia. Abigail Spanberger’s approval sits at 47 percent with 46 percent disapproving, barely a +1 net approval just months into her governorship. For a candidate who won by about 15 points, that kind of early slide is striking and politically costly.
Those figures matter because governors usually enjoy a honeymoon period right after taking office. Spanberger’s near-even split between approval and disapproval stands out as unusually weak when compared to governors in recent decades. Voters are not rewarding what they were promised on the campaign trail once they see the governing choices being made.
The approval mark for Spanberger is 13 percentage points lower than the average for Virginia governors in Post polling since the 1990s. Her near-even split between approval and disapproval is a worse net approval rating than the early-term scores of her predecessors in previous Post polls.
It’s no mystery why Republicans and independent voters are unsettled. The new administration moved quickly on items that look and feel like classic Democratic overreach: proposals for new taxes and recycling fees, and a push to ban certain categories of firearms that many Virginians see as lawful self-defense tools. Those moves clash with the moderate image Spanberger projected while campaigning.
Spanberger’s stance on redistricting has been especially damaging politically. The administration is backing a referendum that would hand lawmakers the power to approve a congressional map, a step widely viewed as a power grab. Candidate Spanberger once said she opposed gerrymandering; Governor Spanberger is now endorsing a process that would likely reduce Republican representation in the state’s congressional delegation.
Immigration has also become a major flashpoint. On her first day, Spanberger reversed a previous agreement that allowed state law enforcement to cooperate more closely with federal immigration authorities. The move was sold as a protective step against federal overreach, but critics argue it removed practical tools to keep dangerous illegal immigrants off the street.
Republican leaders and law-and-order advocates point to a string of violent incidents tied to noncitizens and blame the new policies for creating softer enforcement on the ground. Local prosecutions and release decisions in some jurisdictions have added fuel to the fire, with conservatives saying the combination of policy choices and prosecutorial discretion is endangering communities.
Former state officials and opponents have been vocal, arguing that these governing decisions explain why Spanberger is hemorrhaging support. The consistent message is simple: promises of moderation don’t count for much when voters feel their safety and wallets are at risk. That message is resonating in the polls.
Beyond crime and gerrymandering, the administration’s legislative agenda looks to many like a rapid tilt left. Pushing for new fees and taxes on everyday items and moving to restrict categories of firearms are exactly the sorts of choices that erode trust among swing voters and independents. Those voters often decided the last election and now look increasingly tempted to punish perceived excesses at the ballot box.
Political consequences could be significant for Spanberger and for her party across the state. A governor who starts weak creates tougher headwinds for down-ballot Democrats in upcoming cycles, and a perceived abandonment of moderate principles hands Republicans clear material to use in campaigns. The short-term polling slump could translate into longer-term electoral pain if trends continue.
Spanberger’s critics are sharpening their lines: they see a candidate who campaigned in one place and governed in another, and they are betting voters will remember the difference. As the administration presses forward with its priorities, the test will be whether any of these policies can win over skeptical Virginians or only deepen the backlash.
Add comment