Abigail SpanbergerelectionFeaturedJason MiyaresJay JonesMorning BellNew PollPoliticsPollViolenceVirginia

Polls Flip in Virginia Attorney General Race Following Scandal 

Virginia’s attorney general race has shifted since scandal struck Democrat nominee Jay Jones earlier this month. Polling released on Saturday shows likely voters are no longer standing with Jones following the release of his violent text messages regarding a Republican politician. 

In the Trafalgar Group poll, incumbent GOP Attorney General Jason Miyares now stands nearly six points ahead, reversing a six-point lead Jones held in a September poll. Miyares has support from close to 49% of likely Virginia voters compared to Jones’ 43%. 

On Oct. 3, National Review published leaked text messages in which Jones fantasized to another member of the Virginia House of Delegates about killing a Republican political adversary, former House Speaker Todd Gilbert, and Gilbert’s family. Jones has apologized to Gilbert and his family but calls for him to withdraw from the race continue. 

The poll was conducted Oct. 8-10 of 1,066 likely general election voters and has a margin of error of less than 3%. 

A previous Christopher Newport University poll conducted Sept. 29-Oct. 1 showed Jones at 49% and Miyares at 43% among likely voters, almost the exact opposite of the Trafalgar poll after the leak of the texts. 

According to RealClearPolling, Jones had maintained a lead in the race since June. 

Democrat gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger, Jones’ running mate, condemned the messages but has remained silent and avoided questions during a recent debate with her Republican opponent, Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, about whether she still endorsed him. 

Jones and Miyares are scheduled to debate Thursday evening at 6 p.m. at the University of Richmond Law School. As with the gubernatorial debate, Jones’ leaked messages and references to political violence are expected to be key topics. 

Virginia is almost four weeks into early voting with just 20 days remaining until Election Day. 

Source link

Related Posts

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 87