Virginia Attorney General Candidates Clash Over Violent Rhetoric in Debate

This is a routine state-level attorney general debate with candidates clashing over rhetoric - standard electoral competition. A-score is minimal (1.01): election driver gets 1.5 for campaign discourse, violence 0.5 for discussing violent rhetoric, rule_of_law 0.5 for AG race context. No mechanism identified, single state scope, narrow population yield heavy modifiers (0.7 × 0.6). B-score moderate (8.24): media_friendliness 4 (debate coverage), outrage_bait 3 (violent rhetoric angle), timing 2 (election season). This is classic campaign noise - candidates debating law and order in AG race with no constitutional damage vector.