top of page

Election 2019: How Political Assassins Took Virginia without Mandate (Part 2)

Updated: Jan 23, 2021

In the first part of this series, we presented what no other journalist reported – the Virginia gerrymandering details. Every other source mentioned that “the court hired a voter rights expert to draw the new map.”

They did not name the judges, the expert, nor any details about the districts they changed to favor democrats. In true Orwellian style, they inverted the truth by claiming the original map was racially motivated and used the unjust court ruling as appeal to authority propaganda. Case closed. No criticism. They did not mention that the black caucus, Democrats, and Republicans had agreed happily upon the original 2011 map, only years prior.

We pointed you to the court documents neglected by all other journalists, as evidence. We also reviewed the RPV’s troubled strategy and organization.

In this article we will review:

  1. Democrat cash superiority & The RPV Civil War (Points 8 – 17)

Cash Superiority & The RPV Civil War

8. In 2019, Democrats and Republicans spent $84 million combined on just the state house and senate campaigns. How was that fortune spent? Good luck getting an evidenced answer to that question.

Virginia is an atypical state for campaign finance, where donations by individuals, PACs, candidate committees, political parties, nonprofits, corporations, and unions are entirely unlimited. This is how it was even possible for so much cash to flow through entities into the $84 million trough. This would not be a bad thing if the donations were limited to Virginia residents.

9. In 2019, the state Republican Party (RPV) received $36,000 by June and had to take a $50,000 loan just to keep the lights on in Q3. By June, the Democrat Party received $609k.

Why did people trust the DPV with 20-times the cash that they gave the Republican Party?

The RPV has a history of internal subversion and betrayal by arrogant ideologues. To name a few:

  1. Social conservatism in any form, was rebuked in 2008 – RPV defectors endorsed Democrats

  2. The same”moderate Republicans,” who claimed fiscal responsibility as their raison d’être, ostracized the libertarians and TEA Party members

  3. This civil war in the RPV was playing out from 2008-2012, and its “reconstruction era” is still going on today

In summary, out of one side of their mouths, establishment Republicans of Virginia say “no social conservatism, only fiscal responsibility.” Then behind closed doors, they’re jamming shivs in the back of those who openly promote fiscal conservatism like the TEA Party and libertarian caucuses. Is it a wonder that Republican donors have starved them of cash?

Effective party leadership would insist upon engagements amongst caucuses, debates, and respectful interactions moderated by wise and erudite party officials of integrity and virtue.

Organizations that exhibit clear signs of bitter internal rivalries do not garner respect and trust from the ones they beg for support. Future Republicans need to devote their energy to producing respectful, truth-seeking interactions, rather than buzz, empty cheerleading, social cliques, and cults of personality.

10. The consequences of the RPV civil war was indicated by donation records all year:

At the end of Q2 2019, the Washington Post indicated:

  1. Democrat cash on hand: $16.2M

  2. Republican cash on hand: $14.4M

The final financial disclosures at the end of September indicated a complete obliteration of Republicans:

  1. Democrat total: $32M

  2. Republican total: $21M

The final surge of October donations brought the totals to:

  1. Democratic total: $46 million

  2. Republican total: $37 million

I extracted the data for the following charts from

11. As you can see, the Republicans spent more money on winning contests for the senate than the Democrats. They won 5 out of 7 competitive seats (those with less than 5% margin of victory). By contrast, the Democrats nearly doubled the Republican expenditure on winning seats in the house, at $20M. It paid off. Democrats won 15 of the 22 competitive seats in the house.

Overall, $46.6 million was spent on the 29 competitive seats. Only one-in-five races were competitive, and the parties spent over half of their money on those races.

12. Out-of-state (foreign) donations played a large role. Two rich Democrats – Michael Bloomberg and George Soros gave over $2.5 million combined. By the middle of October, foreign (out-of-state) donations contributed more than $13 million to Virginia Democrats.

13. Democrats leveraged technology (Blue Conduit) and national activist organizations to nearly quadruple the amount of money Republicans raised in small donations. They took $1.75 million from 61,000 donors, half of whom do not even live in Virginia.

14. The top 10 donors for Republicans and Democrats are an indicator of what to expect from the Democrat domination of Virginia for the next two years.

Dominion Energy supported both Republicans and Democrats.

The rest of the Republican donors were healthcare, tobacco, beer, shipping, and party organizations.

The rest of the Democrat donors were abortion providers, gun control advocates, environmentalists, and party organizations. Despite the Democrats’ persona of being a “party of the people,” they lacked support from businesses.

Instead, they drew donations from strict ideologues and organizations that exist only to advance sociopolitical agendas. Two of the top 10 democrat donors were husband and wife “fat cat” hedge fund managers. The couple is Michael Bills & his wife Sonjia Smith. Michael has an agenda to counter utility companies, while his wife promotes women’s privileges, abortion, and the arts (Bluestem Partners & Clean Virginia Project).

Emily’s List deserves special attention. They exist to “elect pro-choice female democrats to office.” Imagine if a national bigoted organization like Emily’s List existed to “elect pro-life male Republicans to office.” For a special interest group, their partisanship and misandrist female privilege agenda is opposed to federal discrimination laws. It’s not clear how anyone would support such systematic gender discrimination, while whispering “equality” out of the other side of their mouths.

15. Outside money favored the Democrats. Reports mentioned before indicated that out-of-state democrats pumped in $13M of their $46M. The VPAP report only accounts for 70% of their total cash, but it logged $9M in out-of-state donations, which tripled the amount Republicans got from out-of-state donors. The Republicans nearly doubled the donations that democrats got from businesses.

16. Scholarly research has shown that spending money to get voter turnout is an ineffective method. They estimated it costs $500 to get one voter to the polls who would not have otherwise voted. Using that estimate, the Democrats may have been able to buy 18,000 votes with their $9M cash advantaged, which is only a fraction of their nearly 200,000 lead in the popular vote tally.

While voter turnout and demographics will be treated in depth in a future article, we can assert this about the 2019 campaign cash:

It did not affect higher voter turnout, but it was effective at persuading independents to side with Democrats. The Democrats spent it intelligently, with information superiority, and with organizational cohesion.

The Republicans operated in disorganized silos, with a dearth of business intelligence regarding the pressure points. National organizations did not provide a fraction of the cash and organizational support that the democrats received.

Those national organizations will be treated in detail in a future article.

17. In summary, the Republicans need both finance and operational executive managers to take the reigns of their fundraising and organizational strategy, respectively. It would take a brilliant civic mind (not a political mind) to end the civil war in the RPV. Not all COOs and CFOs have such skill and knowledge. When Republicans assemble their new leadership, they should keep this in mind.

Revenues, leadership, and organization are critical features of any effective entity.

In future parts of this series, we will review:

  1. Subversive nonprofits

  2. Demographic shift

  3. Voter turnout

  4. The ex-felon vote

  5. Information & tech superiority

bottom of page