Last Sunday, the New York Times highlighted the GOP’s rightward shift in a dozen “safe or largely safe Republican House districts.” Included on the list? Virginia’s 10th congressional district.
Using data from Crowdpac, a site that ranks candidates on an ideological scale based on their statements and donation records, the NYT found that the 10th District would face a rightward shift if it chose Barbara Comstock to replace Frank Wolf as its representative. Using a scale of 1-10 with 10 being VERY Conservative, the shift would represent a move from Rep. Wolf’s 2.5 to Comstock’s 5.8, a difference of just over 3 points on the overall scale.
All this shifting generated a letter to the editor in the Washington Post that cited these results as proof that Del. Comstock is supposedly “too extreme” for the 10th District.
But using the same Crowdpac data, we see where Democrat John Foust falls on the same scale of -1 to -10 with -10 being VERY Liberal.
John Foust scores a -7.4. This is a far more “extreme” swing in ideological representation for the district than Comstock — in the opposite direction from Wolf.
Here’s how all the candidates stack-up:
Foust is actually closer in his ideology to the Green candidate. Which is amusing…
But it’s also something to consider when the Washington Post pushes a narrative like “Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing,” its attempt to say Comstock is no Frank Wolf.
Neither is John Foust, who by the Crowdpac measure is a bigger ideologue than Comstock and Wolf combined. That won’t stop the WaPo from endorsing him later this month. But it will force them to employ a series of exotic and potential dangerous acrobatic moves to do so.
