Juliann Ventura is a graduate student at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism and a reporter at Medill News Service, where she covers social justice.
ONE OF THREE VIRGINA REPORTS TODAY: As one of the key swing states for the 2024 presidential election, the Commonwealth of Virginia rightfully received considerable national attention. Today, we present three news stories all written by Northwestern University students participating in the university’s Medill News Servic e. We are proud to be partnering with the Medill News Service to present reporting written and produced by Northwestern University graduate journalism students reporting from Washington, D.C.
VIRGINIA– As election day in Virginia’s 31st District neared, Candice Skinker said that she became so overwhelmed with the number of negative political ads in her mailbox that she just started dumping them into the trash.
“We've been inundated with ads in the mail,” the Fauquier County resident said. “And a lot of them are negative ads that I just dump in the trash. I want to know what they [candidates] want to do or are going to do, not what they think the other guy is going to do.”
“I think they [candidates] pose as being about the issues but then as you know, there's the straight-forward name-calling,” said Barbara Pierce, a voter who works for the Fauquier County Democrats. “There are falsifications of the truth, there's exaggeration.”
Democrat Russet Perry, who won the District 31 senate seat with nearly 53% of the votes, had an ad claiming that Republican Candidate Juan Pablo Segura is “bad for women, bad for kids, and bad for Virginia.” Segura had an ad alleging that Perry lets “violent criminals walk easy.” Neither candidate responded to emails requesting their comments.
Lisa Sales, the president of Virginia NOW, a political action committee that endorsed Russet Perry, did respond to a comment request. She said she was really disappointed in the campaign ads and that this showed that there should be legislation protecting voters from misinformation and disinformation.
“I don’t know that I need to call anybody out,” Sales said. “But I think those folks who are disingenuous, know who they are, and they need to take responsibility for whoever wrote the messaging.”
Candidates in other districts also used “attack ads” in their campaigns.
Stephen Farnsworth, a political science professor at the University of Mary Washington, commented that this ad campaign strategy has been amplified by former President Donald Trump.
“I think that one of the consequences of the Donald Trump years in politics is that a lot of people think that falsities are actually an effective campaign strategy,” Farnsworth said. “And you're certainly seeing the demonization of opponents in a lot of these competitive races, including District 31.”
Farnsworth referenced The Washington Post Fact Checker’s database, which reported more than 30,000 false or misleading claims made by Trump while he was in office.
After redistricting reform was approved in 2021, District 31 became one of Virginia’s swing districts. Farnsworth said that large amounts of money are funneled into the competitive districts “that will determine the fate of the majorities in the legislature.”
In District 31 alone, Democratic Candidate Russet Perry and Republican Candidate Juan Pablo Segura spent more than $6.5 million combined on political ads– the most of any race in Virginia this past election cycle. Perry spent more than $3.7 million on ads. Segura spent more than $2.8 million.
“In really competitive races, you will see dozens of mailers going out for candidates, because there is so much money to be spent,” Farnsworth said. “But it's hard to argue that the 21st mailer is going to have much of an impact once you've already received 20.”
He said that political ads can be really effective for campaigns, but for a couple hundred thousand dollars at the most. Otherwise, candidates risk losing constituents, Farnsworth said.
“There is the risk that you just simply bombard the voters with so much material and so much falsity that they just say, ‘I don't want any part of this,’” he said. “And that's the potential risk of campaigns that spend millions of dollars.”
U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."