Spoiler Alert in VA Governor Race

Legal Insurrection ^ | 9/13/2013 | Laurel Conrad

[markomalley]

Spoiler candidate alert: Libertarian Robert Sarvis is a third-party candidate in the 2013 Virginia governor’s race. Although polling reveals that it is unlikely for him to win, will he split votes away from Republican candidate Ken Cuccinelli in the process?

Election day is less than 60 days away, and Republican Ken Cuccinelli and Democrat Terry McAuliffe are in crunch time.  However, neither candidate option fully satisfies voters. According to a recent poll of likely voters, only 34% of likely voters hold McAuliffe in a “favorable” opinion, and only 35% hold Cuccinelli in this regard.

Reflecting the mood of the Virginia race, Barton Hinkle likened the choice to “choosing between Sauron and SpongeBob Squarepants.”

For Virginia voters torn by this dilemma, Robert Sarvis may be an exciting prospect.  Born and raised in the Northern Virginia area, he possesses a background prime for Virginia politics. Impressively, he received his undergraduate degree from Harvard, went on to receive a degree in mathematics from the University of Cambridge, a J.D. from N.Y.U School of Law,  and a Master’s in economics from George Mason University.

Sarvis champions the campaign slogan, “Virginia: Open-minded, and Open for Business.” According to his campaign website, he espouses ideals of personal and economic freedoms. Having a mixed race heritage, he promises to bring diversity to the position.

However, despite his impressive background, it is unlikely that Sarvis offers Virginians a plausible alternative winner.

Notably, his greatest obstacle is that as a third party candidate, he does not command the same media spotlight or campaign spending dollars as McAuliffe or Cuccinelli. For example, he was not invited to a recent Virginia gubernatorial candidate debate.

But, will Sarvis be to blame if Cuccinelli loses the election?

At this time, Cuccinelli seems likely to lose whether Sarvis runs or not. For evidence, compare polling data that pairs only Cuccinelli and McAuliffe against each other, to data that includes all three candidates. When only Cuccinelli and McAuliffe are paired, McAuliffe is in the lead at 48%-42%. Meanwhile, data that includes all three candidates depicts McAuliffe at 45.2%, Cuccinelli at  37.3%, and Sarvis is a distant third at 9.5%.

Judging by this criteria, it appears that McAuliffe is the front-runner, with or without Sarvis, for the time being. However, as the momentum of his campaign picks up, this may change in the future.

[JRandomFreeper]

The establishment GOP. You know, the guys that changed the rules so that Romney got the primary. The ones that won't close the primaries. The ones that insist on letting the northeast and the media select the presidential candidate. The butt-buddies of the democrats. The go-along-to-get-along crowd that loves to compromise and ignore the conservatives.

/johnny

[amnestynone]

Id o get it the facts are that very few liberals ever run as Republicans any more and even back in the day when they did they were a step above the libs the dems put up. Most of what we lost were Republicans of various degrees of conservatism. Electing lib Dem's because some one isn't pure enough make sense if it is Lindsey Graham but not the ones we usually lose. If they are to feckless then they should be taken out in the rimary.

[amnestynone]

“If he is a strong candidate, then why is there concern about a 3rd party spoiler?”

Todd Aiken would be a perfect examaple of the kinds of strong candidate purists like you would nominate.

[GreyFriar]

thank you. Oh yes, my initial post was 110% sarcasm.

[amnestynone]

God help us if Cooch is a rino. He is probably to conservative for Virginia in a normal year. All you are doing is electing Democrats and wiping out the GOP that is about the most brainless thing you can do. Give the Dem's total control for a while and you will never take it back. The libertarians are the most self defeating thing you can have.

[JRandomFreeper]

I won't vote for a liberal(R). That's just the way it is. It's the new reality that the GOP is going to have to live with.

/johnny

[Dr.Deth]

I just can’t speak English, you’re right, no crook is a bigger crook = more of a crook. I’m on bad meds.

[Hoodat]

If we can only work out a trade giving up Fairfax and Arlington Counties and getting Western Maryland in return.

[amnestynone]

With the possible exception of Susan Collins I don't know of a single liberal in the GOP side of Congress. A few like Lindsey and McCain may be backstabbers and others may be feckless but they are not liberal. Most of the people who lost thanks to the libertarians were conservatives and good ones. All you are doing is helping the Democraps and frankly I suspect you are a troll Doing this to help the Donks.

[JRandomFreeper]

You've been here for 2 months, and I've been here for 13 years, and you are calling me a troll... Give me a break.

There are plenty of liberal(R)s in congress. They support the liberal agenda, including abortion, obamacare, and 2nd amendment restrictions. Cornyn is one of my senators that has supported the democrat's liberal policies one too many times, and I will be doing everything I can to make sure he gets primaried.

Take your automatic GOP support elsewhere, because I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative.

/johnny

[safeasthebanks]

He also ran on a crazy protectionist economic platform that would attract a lot of democrats.

You wrote: "No one can ever tell for sure how Perot affected the 1992 elections"

This kind of contradicts your original post about Perot costing Bush the election, more importantly, as we all should have seen back in 2000 - its the ELECTORAL COLLEGE that matters. It's been too long since I first checked to remember the exact results, but there were just way too many states where, even if Bush got 80% of the votes for Perot (not happening), Clinton still would win all that state's electoral votes. Hell, in my state - MAryland - even if ALL of Perot's votes are given to Bush, Clinton still wins the state.

[GreyFriar]

Dear Amnesty,

My post was unlabeled sarcasm. Like you, I’m mystified where the folks that are calling Cucchinelli a “RINO” are coming from. Are they truly ultra conservatives, or are they Dim0crit plants trolling FR to create chaos?

[amnestynone]

You will just end up creating a permanent left majority and that is the only thing you can do.

[JRandomFreeper]

Looks like that isn't happening in reality. The tide is turning, in spite of the GOP-E, and true conservatives are getting elected. That's why the GOP-E hates the tea party so much.

I expect liberal Lindsey will get replaced in the senate, for sure.

/johnny

[Gabz]

Please explain your reasoning that Cuccinelli is a liberal or GOP-e - without relying on this article.

[Gabz]

There are plenty of liberal(R)s in congress. They support the liberal agenda, including abortion, obamacare, and 2nd amendment restrictions.

You are correct, however, Cucinelli does not support any of those things.

[JRandomFreeper]

I never said the Cuccinelli is a liberal. I have said that people that blame 3rd party for their candidate's loss are looking in the wrong place for their failure.

/johnny

[JRandomFreeper]

I understand that the candidate was NOT elected in an open primary. That is a great thing, and more states need to follow VA's lead on that.

/johnny

[Popman]

If Virginia votes in that POS clintionista they deserve EVERY thing he will dump in their laps...

[Gabz]

You have continually said he was part of the GOP-e, even when given evidence to the contrary. This is the first article I have seen that is claiming the 3rd party candidate will hurt Cuccinelli, most articles, in the decidedly left press I unfortunately read, rarely mention him and just cheer lead for McAwful.

Since you wont be voting here in November, why are you attacking those that will be and are supporting the conservative candidate?