If you have time, please keep us current on what is really happening...those of us who have to rely on the biased MSM don't always get the true story...but what else is new?
Cuccinelli was an unpopular candidate. Part of it was understandable, part of it was exacerbated by the McAulife campaign's messaging. While Virginia is definitely a socially red state outside of the NOVA area, it's never seemed to be one that likes a ton of huge focus on social issues. The "anti-women" messaging with Cuccinelli worked; in large part because he made his career focusing on social issues despite not making it a huge part of his campaign. There was a lot of fodder for the TM campaign to utilize. My mother's actually a great example of this....she's FAR more towards the right than me, especially on social issues (where as my father is more of a libertarian hawk). Even she wasn't a fan of KC and basically indicated a desire to hold her nose and vote for him. I saw her more excited to vote for McCain in '08 than KC in '12.
She's hardly the only person like this I know in the state. I have a friend whose been part of the VA GOP establishment since a very young age in support roles, and from all I can gather KC was a VERY polarizing figure even in those circles based on how he acted, how he campaigned, etc.
I did not see, nor get the feeling, of significant "tea party" angst towards KC. Rather, outside of the media and a few ads towards the end of the campaign, I didn't even hear the Tea Party talked about with him a ton. KC became viewed more in the vein of "social conservatives" than "Tea partiers".
McAulife's campaign massively outspent KC; I believe it was somewhere close to 10 to 1. The media campaign hit early, and often, and buried KC. The narrative QUICKLY became one of social issues, and that was more the doing of the Democrats in terms of the campaign than Republicans. The TM campaign focused on a "Social radical" and "anti-women" narrative of KC that he wasn't able to shake both because it was rooted at least partially in fact (though arguably spun and exaggerated) and because the financial disparity was too much.
McAulife, also, was hardly a well liked figure. An out of state guy, close with the Clintons, with no significant experience in politics other than fundraising. This was a case where BOTH candidates weren't exactly well liked. As such, it largely came down to exterior factors. Those factors would be:
1. Scandal - The former Governor was embroiled in a gift scandal that also touched upon Cuccinelli. This had been going on for some time before the election and kind of started things off on poor ground for the Republicans.
2. The Government Shutdown - This was undoubtably a huge factor. 50% of the state blamed Republicans for the shutdown, and undoubtably a large portion of that 50% were situated in the Northern Virginia area. This has exponentially became the highest populated area of the state, and traditionally leans somewhat more left than right in general. More than any other area, outside of Maryland, Virginia's northern reaches were hit the hardest by the shut down. This was a MAJOR impact to their lives just a month earlier. Not only did this cement a very anti-republican mentality, it also created an angry and thus motivated voting base. I work in a law enforcement agency with a number of co-workers that are clear (even though never explicitly stated for understandable reasons) Republicans who were apt to either stand home out of anger towards the Republicans OR even vote Democrat because of how upset they were with the shutdown. I doubt this was an isolated thing
3. The Obamacare "keep your insurance" fiasco. KC managed to spend the last bit of his money during the last week to two week focusing on the Obamacare message and his staunch defense of it. Prior to this point he was down massively in the polls, but this is probably a large reason he was able to close some of the difference by the time the election came.
4. The Libertarian candidate. There's a lot of questions floating around about this candidate. KC won more independents than TM, and the largest amount of support for Sarvis was independents. At the same time, while moderates were the highest ideology supporting Sarvis, there were more liberals than conservatives supporting him. So it's hard to say for sure where those votes would've gone, but both sides could make an argument that it could've swayed the election either completely or making an already small margin all the more razor thin. Not to mention, after years of watching third party candidates essentially "spoil" elections (perot, nader, etc) there's the potential for a dampening effect in turnout for the side that assumes it's going to "spoil" their guy...especially when their guy was already way behind in the polls.
5. Finally, as I said...Money. You can't ignore the amazing money disparity and act like that didn't have a huge factor in the race.
I'd say that all five of those factors were of a larger consequence in this election than Cuccinelli's notion of being related to the "tea party" and are equal with his issues on Social matters largely because the Democrats were so successful (understandably and intelligently so) at forcing that issue massively into the campaign.