Did Joe Biden Just Cost Virginia Democrats 47,000 Votes?

by Chris Saxman

Full disclosure on this one: I hate cigarettes. I have never smoked one — ever. When I waited tables and tended bar, the worst part of the job was cleaning ash trays. And that includes the time I had to break up a bar fight after which the teeth swallowing loser had a tracheotomy performed on him.

Today’s front page of the Wall Street Journal had this article : Biden Administration to Seek Ban on Menthol Cigarettes Tobacco industry indicates court fight is possible over move, which would take years to implement. Going through the courts gets around the legislative process — again.

In the article one finds this nugget that should get the attention of any observer of Virginia politics:

In the U.S., 84% of Black smokers and 47% of Hispanic smokers use menthols, compared with 30% of white smokers, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health data.

Wow. Eighty-four percent of black smokers use menthol? Not exactly an answer for Jeopardy! but as Sheriff Buford T. Justice would say “that’s an attention getter!”

Election Nerd Disneyland Time.

45% turnout this year in Virginia would be around 2.688 million votes.

20% of that is a good estimate for this year’s black vote or 537,000.

14% of adult blacks smoke or around 75,264 votes.

84% of those black smokers who vote use menthol or 63,221 voters.

Say you set a target of 75% yield of 63,221 the GOP either dissuades from voting or persuades to vote for the GOP and you get 47,416 voters.

Terry McAuliffe won in 2013 by just 56,000 votes over Ken Cuccinelli and that was with spending 70% more in the process.

Do I think there are now 47,416 votes against this in Virginia? No, of course not. But do I think that the 2021 elections are going to be close and that this could be a serious problem for Democrats?

Yup.

How much did this ad cost the GOP?

Nothing. Nada. Niente. Rien.

Not to mention all those tobacco-related jobs as well as other smokers who could rightly surmise that an all-out ban on cigarettes is coming and it’s coming from Democrats. In THAT case, you’re talking about a potential cigarette ban for 376,000 smoking voters before you scratch the ol’ What’sNext?JustLeaveMeTheHellAlone! voters.

And all this comes at the same time Virginia is legalizing possession of marijuana.

Do you recall David Shor’s 2020 Election Autopsy in New York Magazine entitled Why Trump Was Good for the GOP and How Dems Can Win in 2022? In that piece, Shor laid out how much black and Hispanic voters moved toward Republicans in 2020 while college-educated whites moved to Democrats.

But wait! Is there more? YES. The ACLU has jumped into this on the side of racial justice which means even more voters could become activated to vote against this ban or support those who are being disproportionately affected by it. #WokeNonSmoker

Chris Saxman is executive director of Virginia FREE. This commentary is republished with permission from his Substack account, The Intersection.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

30 responses to “Did Joe Biden Just Cost Virginia Democrats 47,000 Votes?”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    One word – VAPE

  2. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Hmmm, menthol? THC? Menthol? THC? Tough choice.

  3. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    https://www.garrisonkeillor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/9780140131567_WeAreStillMarried_End-of-Trail.pdf

    One of Garrison Keillor’s better efforts….

    Good catch, Chris. One of many messages Republicans can tee up and use this year to appeal beyond our usual boring white bread base, should anybody be so inclined. Step one in winning somebody’s vote is just ask for it. How come it so seldom occurs to them?

  4. John Martin Avatar
    John Martin

    wanna keep grubbing money or do you wanna improve the general health?

    1. I wanna leave people alone to take their own decisions about how to live their lives.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Yes, we need to give people the freedom to gorge on high-fructose corn syrup and send the rest of us the diabetes bill.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          “Eric the half a troll WayneS • 19 minutes ago
          Yes, we need to give people the freedom to gorge on high-fructose corn syrup and send the rest of us the diabetes bill.”

          Sounds an awful lot like the arguments made by people who are against abortion to people who are for it.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            In upside-down land it does…

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            No, in logic land where your argument is the same that is used against abortion proponents.

            You indicated you don’t want to pay for the outcomes associated with an individuals behavior (i.e. HFCS consumption). That’s the same argument made for abortion, (I’m going to assume you want that procedure covered by insurance for the sake for brevity, you’re more then welcome to state otherwise).

            Perhaps if you spent more time understanding topics and less time talking out of your 4th point of contact you’d get somewhere.

            Which is where my opinion that it’s your body do what you want, as long as you pay for it works for both.

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Cost of abortion for unwanted pregnancy vs cost of gestation and hospital birth. Really, put on that thinking cap.

          4. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “Eric the half a troll 23 minutes ago
            Cost of abortion for unwanted pregnancy vs cost of gestation and hospital birth. Really, put on that thinking cap.”

            Please feel free to point out where I discussed that anywhere in my statement. If someone wishes to engage in unprotected sex they should be prepared to handle the consequences (i.e. if they want an abortion, pay for it). Just as you claimed if someone wants to partake in HFCS ingestion, they should be free to but be prepared to handle the consequences and pay for it.

            Also, note your invocation of a Red Herring Fallacy is admitting you believe that abortion should be covered under insurance, thereby running contrary to your initial statement.

          5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            First, the consumers of HFCS (like smokers) are not paying for the impact of their actions but are instead passing it to you and me. Likewise, those who wish to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term also pass the far greater cost associated with that action on to you and me. Please note that the pro-life argument is not “you made the decision to have unprotected sex now you must also pay for all associated healthcare costs associated with taking the pregnancy to term.” That may be your position but it is not reality in either case so it is not relevant.

          6. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “First, the consumers of HFCS (like smokers) are not paying for the impact of their actions but are instead passing it to you and me.”

            Clearly you aren’t aware that smokers pay a larger premium (so I take it you don’t read any of the yearly insurance elections you sign up for) for their insurance, as do those with other chronic conditions. That being stated, I don’t see where I said that they shouldn’t be paying for the consequences of their actions.

            “Likewise, those who wish to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term also pass the far greater cost associated with that action on to you and me.”

            If that were the case the Law would be currently being broken, the Hyde Amendment severs the ability of federal funds to be diverted to abortion (unless you want to acquiesce that money is fungible :P)

            Please note that I didn’t say pro-life, so now you’re generating a strawman on top of your previous red herring.

            Not relevant, not logical and not intelligent describes any and all of your ramblings. You can’t even make a cognizant argument invoking some form of logical fallacy, that stems for your utter lack of knowledge and or ability to read.

            Must be because your boss supplies you an opinion.

          7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “I don’t see where I said that they shouldn’t be paying for the consequences of their actions.”

            I never said you did.

            “If that were the case the Law would be currently being broken, the Hyde Amendment severs the ability of federal funds to be diverted to abortion”

            We are not talking about federal funds. In fact, you specifically wrote:

            “ I’m going to assume you want that procedure covered by insurance for the sake for brevity…”

            “Please note that I didn’t say pro-life, so now you’re generating a strawman on top of your previous red herring.”

            Your first comment:

            “… made by people who are against abortion…”

            aka, Pro-life, so no so-called strawman.

          8. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            The the point of your statement was what? Outside of it being very evident you don’t read the benefits elections you revise every year.

            https://healthcareinsider.com/health-insurance-smokers-42747#:~:text=of%20your%20pocket.-,Costs%20for%20Smokers%20Versus%20Non%2DSmokers,if%20you%20shop%20hard%20enough.

            Sure we are Medicaid is a public funded program and with the introduction of the PPACA the public fudning is most certainly intertwined with the Insurance world.

            One doesn’t have to be pro-life to be against abortion, that’s a false dilemma. Kerplunk, another fallacy you’ve invoked because you aren’t that smart.

          9. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Sorry, Sport, but I have never been asked if I smoke or not for insurance. No such questionnaire has ever been included in my benefits election paperwork in my 35 years of coverage. Employer-based group coverage deals in averages, so, yes, smokers increase my coverage by simply smoking and, yes, HFCS gluttons also increase my coverage by indulging.

            It’s been fun. Enjoy your weekend off. We’ll be here when you come back Monday, Slick. Over and out…

          10. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “Sorry, Sport, but I have never been asked if I smoke or not for insurance. No such questionnaire has ever been included in my benefits election paperwork in my 35 years of coverage”

            So you’re a liar?

            https://healthcareinsider.com/health-insurance-smokers-42747

            The tobacco surcharge is placed on the individual by the employer and or insurer (PPACA).
            https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-insurance-smokers/employee-health-plans-charge-smokers-extra-but-dont-help-them-quit-idUSKCN1GS1Y5

            “HFCS gluttons also increase my coverage by indulging.”

            Again, your point? That has nothing to do with my argument, something you can’t seem to understand (not shocked).

            “It’s been fun. Enjoy your weekend off. We’ll be here when you come back Monday, Slick. Over and out…”

            Who’s this “we” you’re speaking of? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Shouldn’t you be getting ready for your big court date?

      2. John Martin Avatar
        John Martin

        whatever that means. Can I cut the seat belts out of my car? Throw away the catalytic converter? Stop mowing my lawn? Keep my kids out of school?

  5. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    “Hey, Barack – you don’t smoke those methanol cigarettes, do ya? ‘Cause 23 skiddoo, I’m thinking about banning cigarettes dipped in methanol.”

    “I think you mean menthol, Joe. And yes, I smoke Newports when Michelle and the girls aren’t around.”

    “Menthol? No malarkey! You mean like in those cough drops sold by those bearded guys. The Jones Boys I think. Or Maybe ZZ Top. I don’t know. All guys with beards look the same to me. Menthol? That minty-assed stuff?”

    “Yeah, Joe. Menthol. That minty assed stuff”

    “Hell’s bells Barack! People will just grind up cough drops and sprinkle the stuff on regular cigarettes. You know, like they dip cigarettes in methanol.”

    “Nobody dips cigarettes in methanol, Joe.”

    “I need to rethink this whole ban. You know, our farmers make methanol out of corn. I guess for cigarette dipping. If I ban that we’ll lose votes in the farm states.”

    “That’s ethanol, Joe, not methanol. It’s added to gasoline sometimes.”

    “Gasoline? I’m surprised those smokers don’t blow their faces off. Maybe I better ban it. Did you ever blow your face off smoking an ethanol dipped cigarette Barack?”

    “Isn’t it time for you afternoon bowl of pudding, Joe?”

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Just switch to Vaping. We’re not banning that, right?

      1. John Martin Avatar
        John Martin

        we should

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Smoke red meat… oh wait, ya can’t. He’s gonna limit that too.

      1. John Martin Avatar
        John Martin

        idiot……..keep up

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Here’s the TRUTH, The menthol cigarette issue has been going on for years through several different POTUS administrations to include Trumps AND it has had the support of major African American groups for years regardless of who was POTUS.

    If we are going to write about it – how about the simple truth instead of misinformation, cherry-picking and just plain old anti-govt partisan blather?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menthol_cigarette

    This is how and why Conservatives and the GOP lack appeal to anyone beyond their hard base. They simply can’t seem to bring themselves to deal with the truth and realities on issues. It’s always got to be what the other side is doing wrong, never about what the right path forward is.

    The history of menthol cigarette marketing to the black community, including children is not hard to find.

    Headline: ” As Trump tackles vapes, African Americans feel stung by inaction on menthol cigarettes.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/as-trump-tackles-vapes-african-americans-feel-stung-by-inaction-on-menthol-cigarettes/2019/10/31/d06e93d2-e6ec-11e9-a331-2df12d56a80b_story.html

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      A fair point that this has been going on for a while, but there is probably a reason previous administrations have balked. It will be highly unpopular. It is also a half measure, in that those addicted to smoking are not going to stop just because the flavor changes. They are…addicted. I’m not even sure it will slow the addition of new people.

      Successfully ending smoking period would do far more for the long term health of the people than any step taken anywhere related to COVID. People accepted full on tyranny over COVID so not sure why they don’t just go full out and try to ban the products entirely. Oh, yeah, elections!

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        And a reasonable response!

        Consider this. Is it Menthol or nicotine that is addictive? If you can get nicotine via Vaping instead of cigarettes, is that worse or better or what?

        My understanding is that Black Groups themselves have advocated the ban on menthol.

        Shouldn’t that be acknowledged in the discussions more so than delving into partisan stuff?

        When we talk about “banning” and “elections” – are we doing so in a non-partisan way?

        Of all the discussions about folks having poor lifestyle choices – like obesity and diabetes, smoking needs to be in that discussion also.

        But we don’t “ban” a lot of things that are bad for us in the first place. We sell liquor and now weed…and vaping … and all you do if you ban them is drive them to a black market, way more so than any effect on elections IMHO.

    2. Not all black advocacy groups want to ban menthol cigarettes. This is from the link you posted:

      “Several black advocacy groups have voiced opposition to a proposed ban on menthol in cigarettes. The Congress of Racial Equality, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, and the National Black Police Association have urged the FDA to reject a ban on mentholated cigarettes due to concerns that banning mentholated cigarettes could spur an illicit market for the outlawed products in minority communities.”

      So, are we going to write about facts or are we going to listen to the black advocacy groups who say what we want to hear, and then assign those views to all blacks?

      You regularly post here about what “black folks” think, seemingly under the horribly misguided assumption that all blacks think alike.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Not miguided at all and misunderstood by you.

        When I say what black folks think – I’m asking what most do but you like to play semantic games… so I need to explain it to you.

        NO group or demographic thinks monolithically but from a political point of view, do enough of them think enough that it does make a political issue?

        The point I’m making here is that for those who just ignorantly called this “racist” that they’re wrong if actually a good number of blacks actually supported it.

        It’s about bogus claims that need to be corrected.

        And in this case – it’s not at all cut and dried that liberals want to ban something and it’s racist.

        Too much of the Conservative narratives these days are just flat out misrepresentations.

        We go through all of this because some folks can’t be honest to begin with about representing the issue.

        1. Please point out precisely how Mr. Saxman was dishonest about the issue.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            It starting going south here:

            ” Today’s front page of the Wall Street Journal had this article : Biden Administration to Seek Ban on Menthol Cigarettes Tobacco industry indicates court fight is possible over move, which would take years to implement. Going through the courts gets around the legislative process — again.”

            It’s an issue that preceded Biden.

            then went off the rails here:

            ” Do you recall David Shor’s 2020 Election Autopsy in New York Magazine entitled Why Trump Was Good for the GOP and How Dems Can Win in 2022? In that piece, Shor laid out how much black and Hispanic voters moved toward Republicans in 2020 while college-educated whites moved to Democrats.

            But wait! Is there more? YES. The ACLU has jumped into this on the side of racial justice which means even more voters could become activated to vote against this ban or support those who are being disproportionately affected by it. #WokeNonSmoker”

            where did he talk about some black organizations and prior administrations involvement?

            Is this partisan?

            yep.

            pro forma

            When can we have honest, non-partisan conversations about some of these issues?

Leave a Reply