Thank you for being a subscriber and supporting this newsletter as it continues to grow in readership.
As we step into 2025, I want to make sure we’re delivering the content that matters most to you. Your thoughts and feedback are invaluable in shaping the direction of this newsletter, and I would love to hear from you about what’s working, what could be improved, and what you want more of!
What Do You Like? What topics, stories, or features have you enjoyed the most? Do you like the in-depth political analysis, the local Virginia updates, or something else that keeps you coming back?
What Don’t You Like? Is there anything you think could be improved? Maybe you’d like to see less of something or feel that some areas could be explored in more detail?
What Do You Want More Of? Looking ahead, what would you like to see more of in your Virginia politics coverage? Whether it’s more coverage of local races, deeper dives into policy issues, interviews with politicians, or something else entirely, I want to hear it all.
Your feedback will help me make this newsletter even more relevant and engaging for you. I am committed to keeping you informed and ensuring that we cover the stories that matter most to you.
Please reply to this email directly, or to me at Brandon@virginiascope.com, with your thoughts, suggestions, or any ideas you’d like to share. I’m excited to hear from you.
Thank you for your continued support!
It would be helpful to have more substantive tracking of where key bills stand and what hurdles they need to pass to succeed. The General Assembly session goes by in a blur and it’s really hard to follow much. Otherwise, interviews with candidates in major races are usually worthwhile. .
Brandon,
I enjoy the content. I've commented a few times that the reporting is not always reporting the full story or appears biased. I subscribe because I want to understand the positions of both parties in an effort to make informed decisions going forward.
An example is a recent article on the VA Constitution Amendment regarding Contraception. The article only reported that there was a tie invote and Sears voted opposed to the amendment. In reality the voting was twisted as two democrats voted against it to force the tie. One Sears voted to oppose it they re-tabled the amendment, and the Democrats then flipped their vote to push it through. This was not reported. I am curious why we did not tell the whole story as that is what we as subscribers want to know about.
It would also be helpful if we explained more detail of what is in the bills/amendments. The above amendment is a perfect example. The bill contained some language that was in conflict with the religious rights of Virginians as it forced religious medical providers to Plan B contraception. This in the view of religious entities as not being contraception but actual abortive measures. The amendment also had punitive measures if entities failed to provide this form of contraception. the Youngkin administration had offered language that was less specific and also not in conflict with the religious freedoms covered under our constitution. This was the basis of Sears opposing it. None of this was mentioned in the reporting that I recall.
This is information that would be helpful in understanding the positions taken by all parties and would help voters to understand all the information versus a partial story that paints a picture that the Youngkin administration is against contraception.
I look forward to your articles so I can understand what our local VA government is doing, and I commend you for taking on the task. I continue to seek non-partisan news to fully get the picture as I'm fully tired of twisted partisan news from bigger corporate media entities. Substack is the platform for this. Keep up the good work.
Bill