Posted on 11/06/2013 12:24:33 PM PST by GrootheWanderer
So it turns out Terry McAuliffe and Ken Cuccinelli were able to draw away enough votes to keep Robert Sarvis from winning Virginia’s governor’s race. I hope the folks who put those guys on the ballot are happy.
Last night, my Twitter feed had quite a few conservatives laying the blame on Sarvis for costing Cuccinelli the election (which really isn’t true according to polls, and it probably wouldn’t even had been a close outcome but for the Obamacare mess). So in the spirit of reconciliation, here are some tips from a typical third-party voter to major party movers and shakers who are trying to figure out how to approach us. Note: I live in California and therefore did not vote in Virginia’s gubernatorial race. If I had, I probably would have voted for Sarvis.
You need to make an actual case for your candidate. Once you wade out of the red team versus blue team fight, you have to set aside the mentality that comes with it. Too many folks were still making the argument that Cuccinelli was better than McAuliffe when they needed to be making the argument that Cuccinelli was better than Sarvis. Timothy Carney at the Washington Examiner took on this task later in late October and made some good points about Cuccinelli. It probably wouldn’t have been enough to get my vote, but it was at least enough to make me think it over.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
So you don't know who he is (his name is Sarvis, not Saris). You don't know what his positions are. The Republican lost, so the non-Republican also ran should be tarred and feathered. That's an interesting political theory.
I'm not from VA and I don't vote there. I was hoping Cuccinelli would win and didn't know a thing about Sarvis. After reading all the hoopla about him not being a real libertarian, I looked up his website to see what his positions were.
While I don't agree with some of them, they all appear to be fairly standard libertarian positions.
I have voted for third parties in the past, although I doubt I would have in this particular case had I lived in Virgina. Republicans don't automatically get my vote because of a party label. If you think that makes me a toady for the Democrats, enjoy losing elections. You have to earn my vote based on positions, not party labels. BTW, those who vote for a party label are toadies for RINOs, plain and simple.
I really wish you guys would make up your damned minds. I swear y’all go from (l)ibertarians are totally irrelevant, unimportant nutters before an election and the day after they become the all powerful king makers who spoiled your election ruined everything for your establishment hack at the polls. A little consistency would be nice.
I read a couple articles about the Hispanic vote.....that doesn’t mean they alone were responsible...but one cannot overlook the political power they have attained legal or illegal...it changes the landscape of elections.
In other states you will find the Asian and MiddleEAstern vote matters equally as much....
I listened to a Globalist speaker today...in fact several who speak and teach of the Global trends etc..... I think it’s important to know what they are saying...and also teaching in our Universities....obvious and striking were 75% of the audiance were Asians....and they definitely segregate themselves.
People can say we are “all one”...but the natural movement and placement of ones self is always voluntarily segregation from others even if it’s not consciously done...
The invasion of our country by immigrants, both legal and otherwise has already changed the landscape of elections...and will moreso. The Globalists have them engaged and with that to “populate” the business and industrial areas across the globe, via the trends they present to them on how they should plan their path after college....and it isn’t here in the USA....rather to the emerging countries which are already surpassing us.....
Our elections are only to keep us sustaining the Global march....it is far more invasive in this country then most realize...but all the foreigners are well aware who come here...our people and our youth are basically in the dark.
Exactly
Why did Cuccinelli lose?
Stupid voters, ignorant voters, and fraud.
We need a study to find out how many close races are won by demonrats and how many by pubbies.
That's not possible nor desirable in these elections....the ever changing “rules” and “regulations” are never consistently held by most... so there can be no consistency either in ones stance and or the supporters. Heck we see this right here on FR.! People are still in the learning curve of how to change with the political climate, and adapt, in order to win. And our guys still need a lot of work in that area....
Wrong. When Ron Paul urged Libertarians to vote for Cuccinelli instead of Sarvis, Sarvis dropped from poll numbers of 13% to votes of 6%. Meanwhile Cuccinelli polled from ~10% behind to an election result of just over 1% behind.
Those who voted FOR Sarvis may have been more inclined to support a democrat if they didn't have another choice.
Why should we not blame the voters? Who decides the election results, anyway?
The Libertarians from Reason magazine voted mainly for Obama in 2008. They had an issue where each described how he or she would vote, and they were almost all actually voting for Obama. In other words, they didn’t seem to be following their own beliefs. Libertarians voting for a Marxist? These people are not just occasionally nutty, but they are impractical when it comes to making important decisions.
That is when I stopped subscribing to Reason magazine.
We can guess all we want but unless there is runoff voting, we’ll never know who people would’ve voted for. Letting someone win with less than 50% of the vote makes a farce of any vote. A plurality is not a majority. It’s possible a majority of the people would never have voted for a candidate who gets under 50% of the vote. That’s why runoff voting exists in many elections. It should exist in all elections. Anything else creates a meaningless joke of a result at best and an opportunity for a clever organization to game the system and take over a country with bloodless coup by circumventing the democratic process.
Good point.
Since Dole was a plant. McCain was a plant, i.e., not really put there to win, I am finally fine with a third party even if it means Hillary wins.
Not so good. Who was the Republican candidate in 1996 or 2008 who actually could have won?
REPe really don’t want to win anyway as seen how they attack Cruz instead of 0bummer.”
It’s pretty obvious to me that they secretly want the same communist agenda that the Dems want.
On NPR this morning the talk was, "How did Cuccinelli get so close with the little support he had?" They were freaking out because there was no way their little darling could get anything through the VA legislature. Cuccinelli was way outspent and was behind double digits until the end.
We can moan and whine that we lost, but it wasn't supposed to be close. Cuccinelli was supposed to be destroyed. I have a hard time not seeing the positive in this.
What a curious result! Care to cite your sources?
“If I had, I probably would have voted for Sarvis.”
The writer is a moron.
Liberaltarians had a perfect opportunity to vote for a TeaParty conservative and decided to assist the idiots at RNC Central in giving the election to
Terry F’ing McCauliffe, liberal communist.
If the choice was between Sarvis and a RINO, they would have justification. But it wasn’t.
It proves the Libertarians are not rational voters and are not our allies and well, they are pretty F’ing stupid.
The RNC also bears a part of the blame. They deprived Cuccinelli of adeequate funding. His campaign said they were abandoned.
There is probably a fair amount of truth in that, but I think it's only part of the story. The Democrat party from 1968 through 1992 was losing big in national elections, and Carter only managed to win in 1976 because of Watergate.
The Dims has lost their electoral viability among the extant population demographics of those years, and have only become competitive in presidential races again because of the massive influx of poor and poorly educated immigrants from third world nations, both legal and illegal entrants.
The Dims success is and will continue to be dependent upon that large influx of poor immigrants. They know it and have been acting upon it. The GOP has been acting like clueless and self-destructive nitwits on the issue, while helping to restore the Dims electoral viability.
So this influx is due to both globalist influences and also just plain old American politics as the Dim party has used it to keep themselves viable.
I get what you are saying and agree totally but looking at a map of the VA election, county by county - just as we did after the gen election, the legislature of VA is pretty much the stopping block for McBoob...
He’ll have hell to pay to pass anything.
But now we have to endure his fat, corrupt a** in the chair occupied by true American heroes...if you think seeing Obozo put his feet on historic furniture is bad, this one will top it, no doubt....four effing years....
bump
In 2008, the magazine polled its staff as well as several contributors and prominent readers on whom they would be voting for. With the caveat that, many of these people aren’t on the magazine’s staff and several are not libertarians, these were the results:
Bob Barr: 18
Not going to vote/don’t like any of the candidates: 10
Barack Obama: 7
John McCain: 4
Ralph Nader: 1
McCain or Bar: 1
Obama or Barr: 1
http://reason.com/archives/2008/10/29/whos-getting-your-vote
I plan to laugh!
Maybe they won’t....
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.