Submitted by Mad-Lad-of-RVA t3_11d2gcq in rva
Comments
Charlesinrichmond t1_ja6dm61 wrote
That is an insane landslide. You don't often see competitive races with blow outs like that
ThatChildNextDoor t1_ja6ef2f wrote
She is an outsider compared to Bagby.
SwanOverSunshine t1_ja6ei15 wrote
Tiny number of voters though
Mad-Lad-of-RVA OP t1_ja6es0x wrote
IDK, it seems pretty expected to me.
If you look at Bagby's district versus Adams' district versus the district of SD-09 that was up for grabs, you'll see that Adams' barely overlaps it, while Bagby's very much does. Rodgers has some name recognition because of the mayoral race, but so much of the district is outside of Richmond's city limits, where she's more of a no-name.
I would have been surprised to see a close result.
coconut_sorbet t1_ja6f1rv wrote
Wait, so now do we have a special election for his seat (after the general election next month)?
Charlesinrichmond t1_ja6f41j wrote
I thought Dawn Adams would get blown away. But Rogers actually really underperformed, look at all the support for her here on Reddit.
Of course another example that one shouldn't take online too seriously
Mad-Lad-of-RVA OP t1_ja6f5tq wrote
It's special elections all the way down.
(But technically, a challenger could still beat him in the actual election for SD-09. It won't happen, but still.)
Mad-Lad-of-RVA OP t1_ja6fegn wrote
/r/rva is far more representative of people in the city of Richmond proper than anywhere else, from what I've found. A lot of the Rodgers supporters on here probably couldn't vote today because they weren't in the relevant district.
opienandm t1_ja6gncr wrote
>But Rogers actually really underperformed, look at all the support for her here on Reddit
Or it could mean that Bagby supporters don’t post as much as Rodgers supporters.
The vocal minority skews perceptions when the majority does not speak up.
CBassTian t1_ja6ixci wrote
I guess all that robocalling paid off.
Stitchmond t1_ja6k1i3 wrote
What if when you die your seat isn't filled until the next normal election time? Dying means your party loses a vote. I feel like that'd end up with fewer old people in congress.
Mad-Lad-of-RVA OP t1_ja6kk6f wrote
That sounds stupid. If you want to get people to stop electing elderly candidates, then set a maximum age restriction, like the minimum age restrictions we already have on the books. We should never take away people's representation as a half-baked "punishment."
Stitchmond t1_ja6nasa wrote
I'm not advocating it, I'm just wondering what sort of affect such an act would have.
dg792 t1_ja6rfcw wrote
My union endorsed this guy, leading to a weird situation where since our hall was the polling place Henrico had to very quickly find a new one to avoid any perceived conflict of interest, which honestly makes sense.
Mad-Lad-of-RVA OP t1_ja6rmvv wrote
Yeah, I had to drive a little further because of that.
I could walk to IBEW Local 666. I mean, I don't, because crossing East Nine Mile Road there would suck with the lack of sidewalks on the IBEW Local 666 side . . . but I could.
sleevieb t1_ja6tq13 wrote
How can you even evaluate a 7k vote race as competitive?
​
The campaign was 4 days long.
ttd_76 t1_ja6wbvw wrote
Rodgers never had a chance. She does has Sonjia Smith behind her, so with a full campaign she can be dangerous.
But that's why I question if what she is doing. This is twice now she has entered into campaigns with low name recognition, not much time to campaign and where she cannot win.
There are plenty of elections she can win, but she won't run in them. I could see how maybe she's just trying to get her name out there, but I don't know if It's working.
Mad-Lad-of-RVA OP t1_ja740tv wrote
I still think that Rodgers gets way too much credit for far too little substance. Everyone (at least in this subreddit) talks about how progressive she supposedly is, but her actual policy positions are far and few between, and the ones that do exist have little depth to them.
She just seems to be Progressive Vibes ™ : The Candidate. At best, she seems incompetent for entering races at a significant disadvantage, as you mention, and for not listing policy positions on her website, like any other damn candidate does.
For the record, I don't think that there was a good candidate in this race. Bagby takes far too much corporate money for my liking. Rodgers was a 'no' from me for the reasons I just described, and Adams is, well, Adams. She had the staffer scandal and, while she's no Bagby, she's taken a few corporate bucks here and there. Ultimately, I was one of the 464 to vote for Adams, but I wasn't particularly happy about it. She also comes across as incompetent, but at least she has tangible policy positions.
I'm really glad that this election is about as low-stakes as it gets since the districts will be redrawn in November, because hoo boy, I think we can do better.
dr_nerdface t1_ja7drzb wrote
he has a lot of corporate backing. hope we're not looking at another democrat corporate shill.
lycosid t1_ja7e5gk wrote
Yea I imagine the only reason Rodgers jumped in was for the slight boost in name recognition in the region. She should have a better shot at winning Bagby’s seat.
adiscgolferp t1_ja7f1iw wrote
That’s what worried me and why I personally didn’t vote for him.
salawm t1_ja7g1p0 wrote
We are. Dominion lost Saslaw and gained Bagby
lycosid t1_ja7ifhs wrote
The Supreme Court’s composition is determined by when people die and the discourse is so ghoulish whenever a justice is sick or elderly.
Mr_Kittlesworth t1_ja7k2ew wrote
He’s the chair of the legislative black caucus and has voted with his party for progressive change when Dems held the house.
He got a lot of corporate money because the corporate donors thought he was going to win, and there’s no reason to turn down money when you already know your values.
Diet_Coke t1_ja7tkd5 wrote
This election was pretty poorly advertised and planned - I know there were external constraints. A snap election like this basically means whoever can mobilize the most reliable Democratic voters will get it. That seems to be Bagby who is more plugged into the Democratic party establishment. All around a resounding victory for Dominion and coal energy.
​
e: Just for some context, every single city council election in the last cycle had more voters than this one (6,525 votes). Mike Jones running uncontested got 7,200 votes in his district. Only two council members received fewer votes than Lamont Bagby, Ann Francis Lambert (3,900) and Reva Trammell (4,300).
[deleted] t1_ja7urtc wrote
[deleted]
Charlesinrichmond t1_ja7zo7o wrote
I really thought she did. I think it's pushback for all her "Defund the Police" stuff..
Charlesinrichmond t1_ja7zpul wrote
exactly. Online is not life
Charlesinrichmond t1_ja7zu4x wrote
I thought she had a pretty good chance. In fact, I wouldn't have bet on her, but I would have said it was 50/50 between her and Bagby. So I was shocked she was blown out of the water so epically
Charlesinrichmond t1_ja800z2 wrote
not going to happen - which is why all 3 ran now. You add incumbency and Bagby is a sure fire win, even with a changed district.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see someone run against Bagby, as long as it isn't Adams or Rogers. I think he's the best of that lot
Charlesinrichmond t1_ja805r3 wrote
it is, but that's not just the issue. Though I look forward to seeing some sort of city vs county breakdown. The online left is very vocal, but every study and poll and election shows it doesn't get elected
Charlesinrichmond t1_ja808m3 wrote
for all of them... So yeah, it's a meaningful data set. Not so much at 50/50, but the blowout, yes
Charlesinrichmond t1_ja80rc7 wrote
it probably skewed blacker and older. But that's not exactly a bad sign for Bagby in a bigger election
Charlesinrichmond t1_ja80vvx wrote
I'd assume so. Can't remember if his seat is one of the ones in play for redistricting though, that's what got Adams to do the hail mary
Charlesinrichmond t1_ja8100d wrote
yeah. I didn't really think holding it at the IBEW would have been a conflict, but I respect the being careful
CRothg t1_ja816cr wrote
First of all, people die from more than just old age or illness. Second, replacing a deceased representative isn’t really about maintaining a balance of power between two parties, it’s about ensuring that all constituents in every district have full representation in government.
CRothg t1_ja81xxd wrote
Do unions like this choose to endorse candidates by a collective vote of all union members, or is it a decision made by union leadership? It seemed like a pretty boneheaded move on the union’s part given that it resulted in the loss of a major polling place and probably suppressed turnout.
lycosid t1_ja83q78 wrote
Bagby has repped a delegate seat that covers close to half the district since 2015, he’s chair of the Black Legislative Caucus, and had endorsements from Kaine, Warner, and local IBEW. It was a lock.
Only a minor portion of the district is in the city, so most voters yesterday had probably never heard of her. As a quick check, about 30% of votes in this district in 2019 came from the city. Rodgers getting 21% in a 4 day campaign against two sitting delegates feels like a massive over performance. She also over performed by quite a bit in the mayoral race. I would bet on her getting into office soon enough.
Charlesinrichmond t1_ja84a46 wrote
we might. But Alexis Rogers is ALL hedge fund money, bought and paid for. Sonjia smith gave her all of her money, Bagby at least got it from different corporations
Charlesinrichmond t1_ja84cje wrote
leadership
Charlesinrichmond t1_ja84jjw wrote
city media doesn't stop a city lines, and Rogers ran for mayor with a lot of coverage. I really doubt no one had not heard of her.
This was a massive whiff
ttd_76 t1_ja85zos wrote
Basically, yeah.
I actually got to meet her. I definitely wouldn't call her a policy wonk. But she's not just a flaming radical shit-stirring idiot, either.
But she hasn't been able to translate this into her campaigns or public image. I think it is quite possible she could be good. But as you said, she appears to run largely on vibes alone.
That's why I wonder why she doesn't run for city council where it looks like she can win at least two districts. Or take a job in state or local government instead of just being a lobbyist. Show people that there's more to her than just slogans and memes.
heraus t1_ja88str wrote
Don't forget, lines were redrawn and there's a lot of shuffling going on. I believe his redrawn district will see Delores McQuinn *eyeroll* as the main contender.
Stitchmond t1_ja8addb wrote
Yeah I bet old age is one of the less likely causes of death for a congressperson. I'm not advocating for this I'm just wondering how it would affect government business and the division of power.
Charlesinrichmond t1_ja8g9wb wrote
I know nothing about her but the name. Anything interesting?
Mad-Lad-of-RVA OP t1_ja8gb02 wrote
Huh? I know Bagby's a shoe-in. Where did I ever say otherwise?
sleevieb t1_ja8gzcy wrote
The data is worthless as name recognition isn't the most important thing but arguably the only thing.
ttd_76 t1_ja8jkbl wrote
Bagby is pretty different than Saslaw.
Charlesinrichmond t1_ja8jrgm wrote
and Alexis Rogers had a lot. The only one hurting on that was dawn adams
lycosid t1_ja8m4ch wrote
And that polling place was right in the middle of Bagby’s base. If it had been a closer race he’d have probably been pretty mad at them. Of course, they probably knew there wasn’t much risk here.
Charlesinrichmond t1_ja8mf1i wrote
yeah that hurt Bagby no doubt
nfojones t1_ja8re8k wrote
Agree she overperformed and never had a chance at this seat.
Personally think her Mayor loss should have turned into a future City Council run. I do think she has a better chance at the House seat but wish she'd enter state politics with more experience.
dg792 t1_ja8zr53 wrote
He won with a 51 point lead over his closest opponent, if your idea is that it hurt him then are you implying that otherwise he would have gotten 80% or 90% of the vote?
dsm5lovechild t1_ja918ap wrote
Can’t speak to his politics, but he is one of my neighbors and a wonderful member of the community.
gocarsgo t1_ja96yvt wrote
Preliminary breakdowns by precinct have been calculated.
It looks like Richmond was the most competitive (45/43/11 B/R/A) and Henrico (East End) was the most lopsided (90/7/2 B/R/A).
sleevieb t1_ja99mo7 wrote
There was no substance to this campaign because it was 4 days long.
Bagby won because he had cash on hand and name recognition.
I look forward to him trying to win in a VASTLy different district in the very near future.
Charlesinrichmond t1_jaai5w1 wrote
Oh nice thanks. Roger's Richmond loss is more on the line of what I was expecting
ttd_76 t1_jaajvwg wrote
Alexsis Rodgers was basically running on a vague pro-labor/Dominion sucks platform. So if IBEW666 is endorsing Lamont Bagby, I feel like Bagby knew he didn’t need to sweat this election very much.
ttd_76 t1_jaamnuf wrote
Bagby was born in Richmond, graduated from Henrico HS, went to college at NSU, got his masters from VCU, served on the Henrico school board, served on NSU’s Board of Visitors, runs a non-profit in East End, and has represented a chunk of the district in the House.
How is he “buying” his way in? His name recognition comes from a lifetime of living and serving in the community his entire life.
At some point, you have to come to grips with reality. Dominion money or not, people voted for Bagby because they know him, they like him and they trust him.
Two_Far t1_jaauqfx wrote
Can someone explain Bagby's appeal?
This year he introduced two bills and then withdrew them both.
Last year he didn't introduce any bills.
A Democrat not introducing any bills seems kinda odd to me.
sleevieb t1_jaaxlra wrote
A 4 day campaign is not democratic and shame on the democratic party.
Mad-Lad-of-RVA OP t1_jab25sb wrote
Bagby appeals to the churchgoing crowd. People whose hearts are in the right place, but have somewhat outdated ideals. Their politics are mostly informed by their church's pastor, their fellow churchgoers, and their family. They value civil rights and they might have a few modern liberal beliefs, like being pro-gun control, but overall, they tend to be more conservative than most Democrats. They would clutch their pearls at the After School Satan Club or marijuana legalization, for example. They are likely to be pro-life. They scare when they hear the word "socialism."
They are also some of the most unfaltering voters. They never, ever fail to show up, and there are a shit ton of them in this district.
Unfortunately, they are not the type to pay very close attention to what bills get introduced, or to have a deep understanding of the intricacies of legislatures.
ttd_76 t1_jab8ixc wrote
They had to fill the seat. It would be un-democratic if one of the most Democratic districts in the state had no representation during a GA session.
sleevieb t1_jacmkfv wrote
They knew the time table when mcceachin died and left all of us in the dark.
The session is currently scheduled to be 1 day. Veto day.
ttd_76 t1_jaeh5iw wrote
You're acting like Bagby is a secret social conservative or something.
If we were going to stereotype Bagby's base, it's basically the people that progressives claim we all ought to listen to, but whom they never listen to.
Probably no one has suffered more under systemic racism than the older/traditional black communities he represents it. They have been personally screwed by the system due to their race, and they've are fighting against this.
They don't want their fight for racial equality subsumed into a class war, which is what the progressives/Socialists think has to happen.
Look at Bagby's voting record. It's not particularly outlandish. It's basically exactly the current mainstream of the Democratic party, which in terms of bills that could actually pass is virtually identical to the progressive platform.
The only thing is that he takes money from big business, which is a cardinal sin for a certain set of progressives but which his constituents mostly don't give a fuck about.
Mad-Lad-of-RVA OP t1_jaejxxl wrote
>Look at Bagby's voting record. It's not particularly outlandish. It's basically exactly the current mainstream of the Democratic party, which in terms of bills that could actually pass is virtually identical to the progressive platform. > >The only thing is that he takes money from big business, which is a cardinal sin for a certain set of progressives but which his constituents mostly don't give a fuck about.
That's . . . That's my point.
Bagby is the kind of guy that is perfectly happy to take corporate money and to vote in ways that don't rock the boat for either his constituents or his corporate sponsors. If he's not making the news, he's happy, because he knows that his constituents will keep voting for him as long as he maintains his "community leader" image. He gets votes by going to community functions and by cozying up to pastors—shit like that. He's not going to introduce bills, because what's the point? His constituents don't notice if he passes bills or not. They don't notice that he takes corporate sponsors, either, or rationalize it as "all politicians do it, but he's our politician."
So you basically end up with a candidate that will vote with Democrats unless it's too progressive or it goes against corporate interests (but specifically the corporate interests of his donors), and who isn't going to introduce any useful legislation.
ttd_76 t1_jaf3nrk wrote
No, what I'm saying is that as a practical matter, there is very little difference between Lamont Bagby and say, Dawn Adams.
Look up their voting scorecards on votesmart:
NORML-- 100% for both
Repro Rising Virginia-- 92% for both
LEAP-- 100% for both
Equality Virginia--100% for both
Social Conservative-- 5% VA Family Foundation for both, Bagby 31% Tea Party, Adams 28%
Labor Unions-- Bagby 100%, Adams 86%
The perception is that Bagby taking Dominion money must somehow inevitably corrupt him in some major way, but that's not really the case.
Like, they speak and behave in the ways their constituencies want. Adams voters might get mad if she isn't perceived as actively fighting for certain hopeless causes so the Democrats will let her waste a certain amount of everyone's time on stuff that will never pass. Bagby may not need the rub, so he does something else.
Honestly, I would be annoyed if anyone let Adams take the lead on a bill of any substance because she's not good at it.
Mad-Lad-of-RVA OP t1_ja6dgn8 wrote
Lamont Bagby – 4,726 (72.43%)
Alexsis E. Rodgers – 1,375 (21.07%)
Dawn Marie Adams – 424 (6.50%)