This is excellent news for JD Vance

Nate Cohn gives us a classic example of a good data analyst providing sub-replacement level punditry:
And while Ms. Spanberger and Ms. Sherrill fared extremely well, it is not at all obvious whether their campaigns offered a solution to the party’s problems. They campaigned on the cost of living and against Mr. Trump, but they didn’t find what the party has been grasping for: a way to channel the energy of the party’s base without alienating — or better still, appealing to — swing voters.
Four years ago, Glenn Youngkin’s campaign for Virginia governor did a lot of what Democrats probably wish their candidates might have done. He campaigned on a new set of issues by capitalizing on the simmering backlash against pandemic era restrictions and “woke.” In many ways, it foreshadowed the struggles that Democrats would face in 2024 and beyond. And it let someone who might have otherwise been a Mitt Romney-like private-equity establishment type turn into the moment’s conservative hero.
So, to summarize, a Republican 2-point win in Virginia is a huge game charger, portending durable issues that would continue to help Republicans “beyond” 2024 (with apparently notably rare exceptions.) A Democratic 15-point win in Virginia, though, is excellent news for JD Vance, because Democrats were unable to identify an issue of long-term salience like, ah, “critical race theory” and COVID masking. Instead had to rely on a minor issues (high cost of living, Republican policy being extremely unpopular) that surely voters won’t care about going forward. And the fact that Spanberger’s opponent ran exactly the same kind of culture war campaign Youngkin did (with the transphobia dial pushed to 11) and fared about as well as the Commanders did on Sunday is surely central to this point.
As I joked about yesterday, the pundit assumption that all Republican wins are broad, durable mandates and all Democratic wins are contingent flukes of no broader significance is everywhere once you start looking for it.
