[88keys]

Personally, I have been very interested to see how the Sarvis factor would play out...and you've confirmed what I suspected. 10% is a huge factor in a 2% victory by the "opposition", and no doubt Sarvis's place on the ballot affected all the counties across the state to some degree. It also seems that those votes came from the conservative-leaning side, all parties.

Is there any kind of a lesson to learn here? Or am I thinking unfairly that some conservatives and genuine libertarians actually voted for the LINO Sarvis, mistakenly thinking that that would result in anything other than McAuliffe being elected?

Or was that the point? In which case, why not just be honest and vote for McAuliffe in the first place?

/ rant...this whole business makes my head hurt!!

[cherry]

freepers who didn't vote for Romney are Sarvis voters....plain and simple...you either are with us or against us....

Sarvarians......evil corruptable sheeple voting for a candiate finaced by the Rat party....good going...