Posted on 10/31/2013 4:17:00 PM PDT by HokieMom
In a battleground state where Democrats label religious faith as too extreme, Republican candidate Ken Cuccinelli, known for his strong support of homeschooling, pro-life, and other values voter issues, has tightened the Virginia governor's race, nearly catching up to Democrat Terry McAuliffe and perhaps making the race "too close to call."
The new poll from Quinnipiac University, released Wednesday, found McAuliffe ahead at 45 percent to Cuccinelli's 41 percent, but it also discovered that if Libertarian Party candidate Robert Sarvis were not in the race, McAuliffe would only lead by two points – 47 percent to 45 percent – making the race "too close to call."
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
A perfect example of how Libertarians and Constitutionilists kill true conservatives instead of rinos. Last year Mia Love, Denny Rehberg and Vernon Parker a promising black conservative running in Arizona lost thanks to these parties.
Sarvis is a Progressive. He is not a real libertarian.
Just so. He’s one of those leftist “I’ll do whatever I damn well like” libertarians.
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk
McAuliffe 45% 5% 91% 46% 39% 50% 36% 85%
Cuccinelli 41 86 2 31 45 37 49 9
Sarvis 9 7 4 16 11 7 11 4
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 - - 1 1 - 1 -
DK/NA 4 2 3 6 4 5 3 3
LIKELY VOTERS WITHOUT SARVIS........................
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk
McAuliffe 47% 7% 92% 50% 41% 52% 38% 86%
Cuccinelli 45 89 2 37 50 39 54 9
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 1
DK/NA 7 3 5 10 7 7 6 5
The Democrats have been winning lately because they abandoned the compromise mentality of the DNC and moved hard to the left. In so doing they brought all the little splinter parties back into the fold. We can win if the Republican party moves to the right. There is no victory worth having to be found in the middle.
ping
Yep. That is why I support the runoff style system. If no one gets more than 50% we hold a runoff election between the top two. All states should seriously consider this model at all levels. It gave us Ted Cruz.
I question only what the unintended consequences of runoffs might be. It does seem a little suspect when someone with thirty five percent can run off with a close primary with for or five candidates all gathering less than fifty percent and in the example, less than thirty five.
The consequences is we don’t end up with diluted candidates. The current process discourages third parties while also allowing them to become spoilers. Run off systems take away the stigma of voting for the candidate you wish with allegations that they can’t win and conceivably would increase the chance that third parties as well as conservatives could end up winning more often in some cases. Either way individuals like Sarvis could run and then when they lose the other two candidates would then have a month to court those voters and win head to head. What I see now is a system that favors big money candidates and well connected candidates. A run off system at least allows new blood to have more of a chance and gets rid of the situation like we saw in 2012 during our primaries where conservatives split the vote and someone who simply because they had more money was able to become the nominee something that would not have happened had he had to run head to head against one conservative candidate.
I certainly don’t disagree. An example may be playing out in SD as the mainstream candidate who is also former governor won the governors race against two likely candidates who did one another in while the mainstreamer stood on the sidelines and won. I don’t believe he had fifty percent.
This race involves at least four candidates in a Republican primary for US Senate. Only one of the candidates is a true conservative, the primary is the race as the winner will win the general, and we don’t have a runoff. Votes are split four ways, instead of only two viable candidates we have two viable and two spoilers.
The RINO's running the party have given him little, if any, support. Same thing with Lonegan in New Jersey.
Sarvis a Libertarian? Nope (The Virginia gubernatorial candidate is a social liberal.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3085984/posts
You can download a copy of the Family Foundation Voter guide at this location: http://vavotes.net/guide/
The Faith and Freedom Coalition version can be viewed here: http://virginiavoterguide.com/
Do you know where a listing of the various state election processes can be seen?
Especially the nominating processes for each major political party. I know some use
primaries, maybe some use caucuses and LA uses the Jungle Primary system.
I’m not sure if there is one unified list. Primaries are governed by state party mostly which is why they are so fickle from state to state. I’ll do some poking around.
Well don’t dig that much. I’ve looked some and I think most states have some type primary
but I know they vary quite a bit in format. Some are closed, some are open, etc. Texas
uses an open primary in that you don’t have to be registered as a member of a Party.
You select a primary and vote and then you can only vote in in that party’s runoffs.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/primary-types.aspx
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.