We saw former congresswoman and Virginia Democrat gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger implode during her debate with the GOP's Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears last week.
She couldn't give any reasonable answer to whether she still endorsed Democrat Attorney General candidate Jay Jones despite his horrible remarks about "two bullets" for the Speaker of the House, Todd Gilbert, and comments about wanting the death of his children. If you can't even have the courage to say whether you support or do not support Jones, then how can you lead in Virginia?
Then, on top of that, she also fumbled on a question about boys in the girls' locker room. She wouldn't weigh in on whether she would rescind a measure signed by Gov. Glenn Youngkin that would require students to go only to the restrooms of their birth gender.
You would think that even if she didn't want to answer the questions, she could have had better answers prepared for subjects that she's obviously going to be questioned on.
However, she delivered an even worse response to the question about men in women's locker rooms when questioned by WSHV 3.
"What do you think of Earle-Sears' claim that you're fine with putting men in women's locker rooms?" the interviewer asked her. Now, that's a simple question, either yes, you are, or no, you are not. But Spanberger launched into an incredible, almost two and a half minute word salad that never gave a straight answer to the question.
This is painful. The debate clips and new polling must really be getting to them. pic.twitter.com/d2HhB4oz5Y
— Glen Sturtevant (@GlenSturtevant) October 12, 2025
She said there were "differences between the law of the land under Title IX" and "executive orders put out by the White House," then just spewed garbled nonsense. This was quite something, and a hat tip to commentator Phil Kerpen for an assist by putting out a transcript.
Spanberger: "The reality is that the federal government has the ability to change the letter of the law. Through Congress, through the Senate, bills go to the president's desk. Right now, what we are seeing is there are differences between what is the law of the land under Title IX, and what are executive orders put out by the White House. And in circumstances where there are conflicting evidence or conflicting interpretations, the reality is the federal government has to be clear in what is the real guidance available to our schools as it relates to use of locker rooms. The reality is that we have multiple jurisdictions who believe they are following the letter of the law and have their lawyers conveying why. And, at the end of the day, we have a President of the United States who is taking away and threatening federal funding. What I think is so egregious is that this is a tool that, that, unfortunately, this President continues to use, the threat of federal funding. Congress passed funding. It is not the president's ability. This is a basic Article I. If you believe in the Constitution, the president doesn't have the ability to just pull back funding. It isn't just to these public schools. It is to our research institutions. It's for cancer research. It is for funding to conservation programs under USDA that are vital, vital, vital to so many of the farmers and producers who employ rotational grazing practices and other conservation practices, voluntary ones on their land who've been promised investments, and the President just pulls back those funds. The real challenge that exists here is that we have a president who is using congressionally approved federal spending as a cudgel. And just as an issue of principle, right now it's coming after the schools. Before it was coming after conservation programs. It's also consistently across our universities and institutions of higher education and research. It's a dire circumstance. But when it comes down to understanding the implementation of how it is that our kids are co-existing in the classroom or on the sports field, yes, I do think that in many cases, it's the local community that knows their community best and can readily make decisions and provide guidance about how to ensure that all our kids are safe."
What the heck? Have you ever heard such an incoherent mess? How did that answer the question? It didn't.
Just as in the debate, she was too afraid to give a straight answer about what she really thinks.
As many pointed out, including Republican communicator Steve Guest, there is no real confusion when it comes to Title IX; it's Democrats who are confused.
There was no confusion about Title 9 until about 10 years ago when Democrats lost their minds and decided that men could become women. https://t.co/APdLNfEJC9
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) October 12, 2025
But as our sister site, Twitchy observed, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) had perhaps the best response.
Wow. I think even Kamala listened to that and said “that’s an absolute word salad!” 😬 https://t.co/PzYTwJi4QY
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) October 13, 2025
"Wow, I think even Kamala listened to that and said 'that's an absolute word salad!'" he wrote.
Great point. I almost expect Spanberger to start talking about "the passage of time." She might even be more rambling than Kamala.
This is where Democrats are at this point. They want you to elect them, but they can't even be straight about what they believe. So why would anyone elect someone like this? And it looks like the people are realizing it now, if the polling is any indication.
Earle-Sears has now largely closed the gap, and the race is neck and neck.
So keep talking, Spanberger, it's likely to tank you even more.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member