Political observers are calling the sudden initial drop in Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s approval ratings “surprising.” They shouldn’t, because it isn’t.
For many Virginians — especially those of us who supported his candidacy in good faith — the moment feels less like a surprise and more like an affirmation.
Spanberger ran as a pragmatic, bipartisan problem solver. She positioned herself as someone who would rise above party squabbles, focus on affordability and restore a sense of stable, principled leadership to Richmond. That message resonated and led to his decisive victory.
And this is why his early governance approach has been so disappointing.
Instead of governing as the centrist she had promised, Spanberger took a strikingly partisan turn. Early executive actions and policy priorities leaned more toward national Democratic Party priorities, not the kitchen-table concerns that defined his campaign. For voters who expected balance and freedom, this change eroded trust, which once lost is hard to regain.
Policy disagreements alone do not explain the decline in approval. There is a deeper issue at play: credibility.
During the campaign, I was among Spanberger’s strongest supporters and financial backers. Like others, I raised serious concerns about his co-nomination for attorney general — concerns rooted in his past comments and broader questions of justice and character. At the time, Spanberger acknowledged those concerns. In a personal conversation, she went further, indicating that once elected she would address them directly — even suggesting the possibility of an investigation or leadership change if necessary.
That commitment was important to our family. This indicated that Spanberger was willing to put theory above politics. Since taking office, however, there has been no meaningful indication that he intends to follow through. The same concerns he had previously publicly denounced now appear to have been dismissed. The urgency is gone. There is a lack of accountability.
That disconnect is no small political inconsistency—rather, it cuts to the core of leadership. Voters can tolerate dissent. What they struggle to accept is the gap between what was promised and what was done.
This pattern is not new. During the campaign, Spanberger refused to withdraw his endorsement, despite acknowledging his problematic behavior from now-Attorney General Jay Jones. In other words, she prioritized electoral unity over moral clarity. Now in office, that same instinct seems to be guiding his decisions.
Similarly, his approach to governance has sometimes favored a public position in quiet, constructive engagement—a style that feels more partisan than practical, more performative than problem-solving.
Taken together, these choices paint a very different picture than the one sold to the electorate.
None of this means Spanberger’s condition is beyond repair. As even his critics note, this is early. Governors can reset, recalibrate and reconnect with voters. But it requires more than a better message or more press conferences. This requires a return to the core commitments that defined his campaign: independence, accountability, and a willingness to make tough decisions even when they carry political risks.
Right now, many Virginians are asking a simple question: Was the campaign the real Spanberger, or the governorship?
Until that question is answered with clarity and consistency, his approval ratings won’t just sink — they’ll continue to reflect a broader erosion of trust. Without trust, even early mistakes become lasting doubts, and Virginia deserves better than that.
Cayley Tull is an entrepreneur and co-founder and president of the Tullman Family Office.
Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, visit the Hill.
