As Ken Cuccinelli rebounds, Terry McAuliffe warns he could lose

Washington Examiner ^ | OCTOBER 31, 2013 | PAUL BEDARD

[HokieMom]

As the polls tighten in the Virginia gubernatorial race, Democrat Terry McAuliffe is dropping his front-runner swagger and warning that he could lose.

In an email to supporters meant to inspire them to vote, he said simply: “Ignore the polls.”

Some polls show that the race is getting close, with Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli getting to as close as three points in one poll, though most still show McAuliffe with a significant lead.

But the former Democratic Party chairman is worried about turnout in a year when voters are turned off by both candidates and there is no other headline-grabbing election dragging voters to the polls.

[Still Thinking]

The polls are showing the race tightening and he advises supporters to “ignore the polls”? Wouldn’t that be the time to encourage them to work harder and get out their [crooked] vote? Liberals are beyond understanding.

[nascarnation]

Baraq and Biden coming in to campaign Sun and Mon.
God willing that will be the death star for McAwful.

[CMailBag]

I suspected that the “real” polls were much closer when the Clintons swooped in to save the day. Hopefully BigEars will give the Flimflam man the kiss of death on Sunday.

[Black Agnes]

‘Ignore the polls’ is dimocrat speak for ‘we’ve fraudulently got this covered.

[lee martell]

The Republican actually could win this. Popularity often builds then dissipates in waves. The momentum may be right for our side.

[GeronL]

The fact that Obama’s promises were all lies, bald-faced lies the whole time might actually have some effect on the opinion of voters?

[GeronL]

Expect at least 3-5% of the votes to be fraud

[apocalypto]

Exactly. At one point Harry Reid was far behind in Nevada but pulled out a win.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Add $20 to their EBT card, that ought to do it!

[Zhang Fei]

If Cuccinelli wins, the media narrative is gonna take a severe beating.

[Eagle of Liberty]

IDK, I’m not sure I want to fall for this. In the waning days of the 2012 Presidential Election, everything in the media was showing a floundering President. His campaign stops lacked any energy and he even seemed as if it was all lost. And then? He won.

[HokieMom]

Are you able to help Cuccinelli?

http://www.cuccinelli.com/

[forgotten man]

If Cuccinelli loses, Karl Rove and the GOPe should take a severe beating for not helping the conservative candidate.

[Husker8877]

Or have McAuliffe thumb a hunnerd bucks on their card.

(Semi-obscure BTTF reference)

[Eagle of Liberty]

Perhaps we should spread around this article?

Top 3 Reasons Libertarians Should Vote Cuccinelli

Let’s face it. Rob Sarvis is a spoiler for Ken Cuccinelli. He will not win, nor will his campaign do anything to establish a permanently viable third party in Virginia. Unless those inclined to vote for him come to their senses, the only practical accomplishment Sarvis will have will be to elect Terry McAuliffe.

It doesn’t have to be this way. I’ll be the first to admit that the GOP has done precious little in recent years to live up to its stated principles–principles which are, with a few exceptions, largely in line with mainstream libertarian thought. Sarvis himself is a disillusioned former Republican.

But the right way to fix that isn’t by electing liberal Democrats like Terry McAuliffe. Instead, as my colleague Brian Reynolds noted last week, libertarians should follow the example of Rand Paul and other libertarians who have worked to change the GOP from within. Clearly there is going to be a lot of diversity of opinion within a large political party, but together those who identify with the conservative party (i.e., the GOP) can defeat those who identify with the liberal party. When we’re divided, everyone loses.

So, here are the top three reasons libertarians should vote for Cuccinelli, not Rob Sarvis.

1. SARVIS DRAINS VOTES FROM CUCCINELLI

I’ve heard from some Sarvis supporters that Sarvis draws votes from across the political spectrum, and I’m sure that’s right. But what is more accurate to say is that Sarvis draws overwhelmingly from those people who are focused on limited government, individual liberty, and adherence to the Constitution.

This sense is borne out in recent polling. As visible in the snapshot below of poll averages from the Huffington Post, the gains made by Sarvis have a direct negative correlation with Cuccinelli’s poll numbers.

We know from past experiences that third party pre-election poll numbers always overstate support, as most voters ultimately decide in the voting booth not to waste their vote on a candidate who will lose. But still, this kind of a draw away from Cuccinelli’s core support could be very damaging. Which leads to reason number 2.

2. THE BUCKLEY RULE FOR LIBERTARIANS

William F. Buckley once famously said his rule in deciding for whom he should cast his vote was to vote for the most rightward viable candidate, the most conservative candidate who could win. I propose the Buckley Rule For Libertarians: vote in the general election for the most libertarian candidate who has a snowball’s chance of winning. After the election, work within the major parties to move their policies and focuses to become more in line with libertarian thinking, but at the voting booth don’t sacrifice your vote on the altar of ideological purity.

Ken Cuccinelli is the most libertarian candidate with a chance of winning. To be sure, there are some issues that some libertarians disagree with him on (e.g., marriage), but let’s not forget this is the man who was the first state-level plaintiff in federal court against Obamacare. He’s the guy who has a record of fighting against federal overreach, be it via HHS or EPA. He’s a conservative crime fighter who recognizes that our system puts too many people in jail for too long. He’s made a career out of seeking more limited government, and greater individual liberty. Is he the Italian-American Ron Paul? No, but he most certainly is the most libertarian-leaning major party candidate we’ve ever had in Virginia.

3. MCAULIFFE IS AWFUL

I won’t waste too much time on this one. I assume for a libertarian/conservative audience I needn’t do much to convince you that Terry McAuliffe is just about the American antithesis of the ideal libertarian candidate. But here’s another angle you may not have considered.

If McAuliffe wins, he strengthens Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the presidential race in 2016. Virginia would have a sitting governor who has, to date, raised over $400 million for Bill and Hillary Clinton, and who could as governor marshal significant resources for Hillary in Virginia.

So, in addition to being a partner of the Obama administration in overbearing environmental and economic regulations, including the expansion and entrenchment of Obamacare, a victory for McAuliffe means a tougher road to the White House for libertarian favorite Rand Paul.

Don’t waste your vote in protest.

[bigbob]

Ron Paul is speaking on behalf of Cuccinelli, and most places, I think he’d carry more weight than The Won right now. Virginia might be different, since so many gummint employees aren’t feeling the Obamacare Oppression.

[mikey_hates_everything]

I lied to the freak kid that came to my house asking who I supported in the upcoming election just to get him off my porch quietly. I don’t need some nutcase McAuliffe minion “in my face” and me using weapons will just cause more trouble for myself.

[spawn44]

I tell you, it’s getting bad for the socialist democrats when their scared even their CHEATING won’t be enough to win an election

[Defiant]

When democrats say ignore the polls, that means “get me some more dead voters.”