Home 2018 Elections Poll: Who Do You Think Will Win the 2018 VA GOP U.S....

Poll: Who Do You Think Will Win the 2018 VA GOP U.S. Senate Primary?


I’m not asking who you support, or who you think would be the strongest (or weakest) candidate to go up against Sen. Tim Kaine in the general election. I’m just interested in who you think WILL win the 2018 Virginia GOP’s U.S. Senate primary on June 12. Thanks.

  • DCStrangler

    Stewart. Mostly because he’s the most despicable of the bunch. I might vote for him just to see him get picked and then lose in the general.

    • Laura Lee

      Careful I did that with Eric Canter

  • old_redneck

    Stewart. Because he is batshit crazy which makes him a match for the Republican electorate.

    • Yeah, although so are the other two…

      • woodrowfan

        but Corey is batpoop nuts AND an open bigot against more groups than the other two…

        • I take it you haven’t been following Ewwwww Jackson’s illustrious career of batshit insanity and vicious bigotry?

          • As for Freitas, he’s godawful in his own ways, also supported by anti-Semite/racist/etc. Ron Paul.

          • Turbocohen

            Ron Paul is NOT antisemitic, Lowell..

          • Google it.

          • Turbocohen

            Ron Paul had jews and people of other races working for him. The arguments are hollow. Same arguments were made of Hillary Clinton and they were BS too.

          • notjohnsmosby

            Donald Trump has lots of Jews working for him and the daughter he seems to really want to go full pedophile on married a Jew and actually converted. That doesn’t stop him from using every anti-Jew dog whistle in the book.

          • See https://bluevirginia.us/2018/03/va-gop-u-s-senate-candidate-brags-about-being-endorsed-by-5-worst-u-s-purveyors-of-antisemitism (VA GOP U.S. Senate Candidate Brags About Being Endorsed by #5 “Worst U.S. Purveyors of Antisemitism”)

          • woodrowfan

            and to print tons of racist crap in his newsletter for years…

          • woodrowfan

            I have, but Corey hates LGBT and immigrants, so that ties with Ewww. But he’s also a bigot against people of color more than Ewww seems to be. It’s like weighing which is worse, Cholera or Ebola.

          • Ha, fair point. I’d add that Ewwww is also a theocrat who says bizarre shit about Yoga and Satan. LOL

          • Yoga is of the devil lol.

          • woodrowfan

            just the stuff with all the added sugar, and that fruit jelly on the bottom. The unsweetened kind with some granola or fresh fruit is pretty good. The fact that Eww hates the stuff shows what a nut he is..
            oh, wait..

            never mind…

      • dave schutz

        Baffled why you put Freitas in the basket with the other two. He is a very conservative guy, but he does NOT read ‘crazy’ to me the way the others do.

        • Have you ever listened to that guy? Ee gads.

  • frankoanderson

    Frietas has become a superstar ever since he waxed poetic about guns on the House floor, and the video made it to Hannity. Corey is a has-been; he lost the primary last year and was dumped by Trump the year before. Republicans are attracted to the shiny new thing.

    Jackson also won the nomination in 2013 with a fiery speech, but that was in a convention with very few voters. Frietas will ride the wave from his viral speech all the way to June 12th.

  • Jason Peterson

    Assuming the one who squanders the least amount of time and money will be the technical “winner”, I’m going with that one, E.W.

  • Anthony Shifflett

    I live in Prince William County, so my views may be biased. Corey seems to dominate the news.

  • Now, now Dems. I know you all think we Republicans are a bunch of evil, cold-hearted, egotistical bastards, and therefore it would make sense that Corey Stewart would win our primary. But the truth is that most of us are freedom loving, compassionate, community and family orientated Americans who simply desire less government in our lives. Therefore, Freitas will win.

    • dave schutz

      Stewart has gone out of his way to portray any Reep who doesn’t toe his line as a squish, he has gone well past the idea that the past is not something to hide and into the idea that the Lost Cause was a noble one, and he has attacked the Reeps in the House of Delegates. I am utterly baffled that he thinks this is the way to win friends and influence people.
      It’s also worth noting that the two more or less Main Street Reeps in the gubernatorial primary, Gillespie and Wagner, got something like fifty-eight per cent of the primary vote between them. So I think a Freitas victory is a reasonable likelihood. I doubt he will win the general, but the primary, yes.
      The value of my views is probably somewhat diminished by the fact that I live in Arlington and thus in my daily life rarely encounter any Reeps. So this is a bit theoretical on my part…

      • dave schutz

        More! If he is nominated, and does okay, he goes from obscure state rep to The Guy Who Took On Kaine, and his stature increases a lot within the Republican party. So I think it’s a very reasonable thing for him to do, as far as his career trajectory. Still very hard for me to imagine that he could beat Kaine in the general, but do remember I am in Arlington.

      • notjohnsmosby

        Rednecks who grew up in the South with Southern ancestors are at least marginally sympathetic in my book. They didn’t really chose their worldview, it is what they were born into. Guys like Corey Stewart and George Allen, born and raised far from the South, willingly chose to be backward racists.

        If you are 7th generation Appalachian hillbilly, then I understand why you believe what you do. You were born and raised in California or Minnesota, and you adopt the veneer of a white Southerner? You’re mentally screwed up.

  • Philip Whitman

    Freitas is capable of putting a vaguely normal veneer over his craziness, so my money is on him winning the primary, losing the general, and using his effort as a springboard towards 2021.

    • I’d say Freitas is just as crazy in his own unique and wondrous ways as Corey and Ewwww, but agree he can seem semi-normal/non-crazy, while Corey and Ewwww can’t and/or won’t.

      • I’ve never quite understood why liberals found libertarians so crazy. We agree on a lot. Just not on all those big government programs. That’s not crazy, it’s a difference of philosophy.

        • Depends how you define “libertarian.” My definition includes the government not telling women what they can and can’t do with their bodies, for instance. Freitas has zero ratings from NARAL. Freitas is also terrible on the environment, with zero ratings in 2016 and a lifetime score of a pathetic 24%. On the other hand, he loooooves guns, with a 100% score from the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

          As for “those big government programs,” the top items BY FAR in the federal budget are defense/homeland security, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and interest on the debt. That covers most of the budget right there. So what would Freitas cut? Well, he did say Social Security is like a “Ponzi scheme” and that the federal government has “no constitutional authority” to “manage your retirement.”

          Another huge problem with Freitas is his absurd views on climate science, including that supposedly “immediately go into a policy discussion,” which of course is false and ridiculous. Oh, and of course the “free market” (which doesn’t exist and never has) is the answer to everything, including climate change, which is almost THE classic case of market failure and “negative externalities.”

          I wonder if Freitas agrees with another Virginia “libertarian” Republican, Dave Brat, who says stuff like…this.

          “The simplest kind of thing is to say you got two pizza joints. One is a greedy capitalist and the other is not. So one puts poison sausage on your pizza in order to have lower costs because it’s easier to make poison sausage. The other guy’s a good guy. He does healthy pepperoni, so you live. Well, rational people will figure out in about five minutes that if you go to this pizza joint, you die. Okay, so the so the free market is perfectly capable of sorting that out.”

          “It’s a common misperception. For all of human history just to put this in context people made $500 a year. For all of human history. Until 1750. What happened in 1750? We went toward freedom. The Founding Fathers. The documents. The declaration. The Constitution. Adam Smith. 1776 also was his book on free markets.”

          The hell?

          • True Blue

            Although I appreciated the “24 types of libertarian” editorial cartoon, these articles explain a bit more, and yes, it depends:



          • Some of these flavors of libertarianism (e.g., Civil Libertarian) appear to be (mostly) ok, but stuff like the following fall into the sociopathic category, paticularly the “minimal (or nonexistent) corporate regulation” part and the “nonexistent taxes” part.

            “Fiscal Libertarianism
            Fiscal libertarians (also referred to as laissez-faire capitalists) believe in free trade, low (or nonexistent) taxes, and minimal (or nonexistent) corporate regulation. Most traditional Republicans are moderate fiscal libertarians.”

          • True Blue

            Yes. That’s why when people announce they are libertarian, or in one’s words that they “split down the middle,” I have to question if they even know what type of libertarian they are. I think many of these skew right, and are definitely not middle ground.

          • A lot of these libertarian republicans fight against prohibition and asset forfeiture. Those are areas where we can all get along.

          • The abortion debate is between folks who argue that a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy supercedes a child’s right to life and liberty. Both a principled positions. I would view the liberal position as immoral, but principled nonetheless. Cutting the cost of government has become nearly impossible. Whole sub economies depend on the government now. But, we can start by reforming what we can through good policy decisions. You don’t even have to starve the beast. Just implement policies that allow businesses to hire more people at better wages and Target as much waste and inefficiencies as possible. In business, higher sales solves a lot of problems. The only real way to combat debt is with sustainable economic growth. But lets be honest, both parties have spent us into crisis.

        • woodrowfan

          because they are so focused on one possible source of oppression (the government) they ignore every other. Because they would leave those in society most vulnerable to oppression unprotected. Because Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” is basically sociopathy. Libertarianism is basically educated white guys having a toddler meltdown screaming “MINE!” and “NO, I DON’T WANNA!”

          • Agreed on Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” being sociopathic. Note that people like Dave Brat (and presumably Freaky Freitas) LOOOOVE Ayn Rand.

          • They are both very strong Christians. Less likely to love Rand and her atheism and lack of community values. I know them both and can tell you they prefer folks like Bastiat to someone like dear Ayn.

          • That’s a strange way of looking at what is essentially a principled position on property rights. You’re treating support for property rights as some kind of sociopathic greed. It isn’t. Property rights protect other essential liberties and allow individuals to maximize the efficacy and efficiency of their wealth. I agree, many libertarians turn a blind eye to corporatism, but they are few and far between. Most of us oppose regulated monopolies like Dominion and Aqua water as they purchase the very legislature that regulates them.

          • You cool with this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax

            A Pigovian tax (also spelled Pigouvian tax) is a tax on any market activity that generates negative externalities (costs not included in the market price). The tax is intended to correct an inefficient market outcome, and does so by being set equal to the social cost of the negative externalities. In the presence of negative externalities, the social cost of a market activity is not covered by the private cost of the activity. In such a case, the market outcome is not efficient and may lead to over-consumption of the product.[1] Often-cited examples of such externalities are environmental pollution, and increased public healthcare costs associated with tobacco and sugary drink consumption.[2]

            In the presence of positive externalities, i.e., public benefits from a market activity, those who receive the benefit do not pay for it and the market may under-supply the product. Similar logic suggests the creation of a Pigovian subsidy to make the users pay for the extra benefit and spur more production.[3] An example sometimes cited is a subsidy for provision of flu vaccine.[4]

            Pigovian taxes are named after English economist Arthur Pigou (1877–1959) who also developed the concept of economic externalities. William Baumol was instrumental in framing Pigou’s work in modern economics in 1972.[2]

          • No, because its completely arbitrary. How do you objectively calculate a social cost?

          • It’s absolutely not “completely arbitrary”; for instance, see https://cleantechnica.com/2011/02/17/cost-of-coal-500-billion-year-in-u-s-harvard-study-finds/

          • But if you exclude Pigovian fixes to market failure, not sure what other good options you have left (the options seems to be regulations, taxes on societal “bads,” mandates/tax incentives on societal “goods,” other?).

          • That’s true. There may not be any good options. One of the problems with any government action is the plethora of unintended consequences. I like that it’s an actual policy concept, as opposed to, “let’s just raise taxes” or “let’s ban x, y, and z”.

            Incentives don’t work, because doing nothing is almost always cheaper and incentives are usually less good than the penalties are bad. Penalties seem to work best. Sadly. Penalizing the harming of the person and property of others seems like the most effective way to go, but how to make it fair, standardized?

          • Environmental costs are different from social costs. I do believe that there should be accountability for harm caused to the property of others including their air, water, and soil. This would require environmental policy consistent with property rights.

          • Many environmental problems transcend “property,” in that air/water pollution that starts on one person’s property doesn’t stay on that property, but has negative impacts on everyone else – their bodies and/or their property. Global warming, acid rain, biodiversity loss, you name it…not sure how combating these things meshes exactly with a Brat/Freitas/Paul/Rand extreme view of property rights, but my view is they simply don’t mesh. At all.

  • Franklin Fogle

    As a conservative who plans to vote, Nick Frietas is the least polarizing figure in the primary, and is therefore the most likely to win in my not-so humble opinion.

  • Such that our neighbors gain a right to or over our lives? I prefer a model that expands. Individuals, families, communities, etc.

  • RobertColgan

    I would have to think like a Republican to vote in this poll.
    I tried.
    Really hard. For almost three whole minutes.
    But now I fear my moral sensibility is forever compromised and my immortal soul lost, never to be regained.
    You shouldn’t post stuff like this.

    • LOL, sorry. 😉

    • We aren’t that bad. I know we’re all like pro God and pro Life and pro Freedom and that’s just freaking evil, but beside that, we’re actually quite nice

      • RobertColgan

        I have Republican friends. Hard-working people, educated, well-to-do.
        They think they’re sane.
        I allow them that delusion….realizing they believe in such things as “The Free Market,” (“Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny wrapped in one”):
        “strong defense” (or, as historians like to call it—–the “bankruptcy of the American Empire”)
        and that “What’s Good For General Motors is Good For America” (“corporate profits over everything else, including life on the planet”)….
        but it’s nice to hear you’re nice, Tucker.

    • Franklin Fogle

      If you’ve lost your “immoral soul” due to thinking like a Republican, that’s a good thing and you should thank the GOP. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/immoral?s=t

  • True Blue

    Democracy in Chains by MacLean sounds informative:

    “Free market advocates push for eliminating government regulation of businesses, arguing that better public services will result. The ongoing water crisis in Flint, Michigan and the the parking meter fiasco in Chicago, just to name a few recent examples, denude that argument and show the real harm this line of thinking brings about.”

    “Rightfully, many writers have detailed how corporate lobbyists have pursued similar strategies for shrinking government, but far fewer explain the history of privatization and the undemocratic ideology that has driven it. Nancy MacLean’s Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America, however, does just that.”