Posted on 11/08/2013 1:17:51 PM PST by Brad from Tennessee
For the guy who finished third in the Virginia governor’s race, Robert Sarvis had a pretty good night on Tuesday. Sarvis was the Libertarian candidate in the election who pulled in just over 6.5% of the vote. This wasn’t just a landmark achievement for a third party candidate in Virginia but in the entire American South.
--------------------------------------------------------------------snip-------------------------------------------
Based on the exit polls, the average Sarvis voter was a younger, well-educated, pro-choice white who did not identify with either political party. In particular, Sarvis did well in suburban Richmond and in the Shenandoah Valley. Sarvis’s weakest areas were in coal country in southwest Virginia, where the biracial software developer from Northern Virginia struggled to get much more than three percent of the vote.
The question, which was heavily debated before, during and after the election was where Sarvis pulled his supporters from and whether his campaign drew more votes away from Democratic governor-elect Terry McAuliffe or from the socially conservative Republican, Cuccinelli. Based on the crosstabs of a CNN exit poll, it appears that statewide, Sarvis voters leaned toward McAuliffe as their second choice. However there was a lot of regional variation. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
And gave the election to the dems. Smooth move Virginia ... what a bunch of asshats
The same happened in 2002 during the race for Minnesota 2bd Congressional District. The incumbent Dem was John Luther, a tax and spend leftist. The Republican challenger, and eventual winner, was John Kline. There was a third party candidate running on the “No New Taxes” ticket. The candidate turned out to be a DFL operative and very active in the local Sierra Club. The intent was to sipon off votes from Kline. Didn’t work that time.
I am hearing all sorts of mixed results based on who Sarvis voters would have voted for and whether or not he was trying to sabotage Cucinelli or not.
I mean, look, Cucinelli was a candidate closely associated with the Tea Party and with Rick Santorum type social conservatives and was running in a state that is increasingly swamped with DC and Maryland transplants; parts of Northern Virginia have basically become carbon copies of the Maryland/DC area. And the GOP happily hung him out to dry, Christie, that Republican that Bill Maher can get behind, refused to aid in Cucinelli’s campaign because of how much he wanted to focus on his own campaign, never mind that his own NJ election was basically a done deal. All factored in, Cucinelli faced a hell of an uphill battle to start with.
While I think there should be a lot of criticism at those Libertarians who helped McAwful get elected because of differences with Cucinelli over some social issues, the time for letting accusations fly between Libertarians and actual, legit Republicans has to end either way. Republicans need to work on galvanizing their conservative base more and articulating their message to Independents, Lord knows they struggle real hard in the latter territory. And Libertarians should make getting votes away from Democrats a priority as well. As I said above, one of the good things about Gary Johnson, given that there were numerous problems with him, was that he was able to tailor his Libertarian platform in order to get votes away from Dims and not just Republicans.
Because the rino's in the republican party are ruining the name republican. If they can not even fight for our Constitution what good are they?
The people are protesting the Republicans with the stupid Libertarian vote and it is the fault of the party which is not even listening.
This party is going to split if the rino's keep destroying conservatives because conservatives are done with them.
The problem is that this is the best possible turn of events for democrats.....which means someone really needs to sit the party heads down and ask them why they are deliberately doing this and what the end game is, because today, they are the enemy within helping the democrats and handing our country over to socialist/communist.
At least the democrats do not pretend to be anything but socialist/communist if you listen to them unlike the rinos who tell you they are conservative and will go to Washington and fight.
The libertarians knew exactly what they were voting for, and against.
There was a democrat in the race, a social conservative republican, and a libertarian.
Yup, I remember hearing that from so called conservatives in 92' and 96' and it got us 2 terms of Clinton.
There's not going to be a viable 3rd party. Even loony tunes Ron Paul understands this. It's just not going to happen in our winner take all system with no chance for coalition government.
3rd parties will almost always be spoilers - normally the kind where rich Democrats funnel money to supposed conservative 3rd party candidates (or write in efforts) and well meaning, but stupid right of center people fall for it and vote for them.
We need all parties banned. That would shake things up making people have to take a hard look at each candidate. People will have to vote based on their knowledge of that candidate’s views and the impression they have of the candidate. Banning parties will free us from having to make party-driven Faustian choices. Voters will still have no perfect candidates and will have to decide what issues are most important to them.
That would never work. People organize, you can’t stop them short of violent coercion. If there were no parties, they’d just call themselves “organizations”. The problem is not the existence of political parties, the problem is we have a winner take all system with no opportunity for coalition government.
I agree that Libertarians usually hold social views that most freepers would find objectionable.
I disagree that true Libertarians are like big government conservatives. Libertarians believe in personal freedom above all else. Bigger government restricts freedom. Even the most socially indifferent, hedonistic Libertarian sees big government as restrictive.
The common ground that can be built is economics and taxation. Libertarians want free markets and low taxation. With some caveats, we want that too. Libertarians are pro 2nd Amendment. We are too. On social issues, we should push the 10th Amendment and states’ rights. Libertarians on the national level would be ok with that. On the local level, depending on the state, there will be problems with that. Nothing is perfect. We can make common cause on non social issues for sure.
I know that people would organize, but the current major parties would not control the process anymore. New alliances would form. The existing party machines will go away. This temporary chaos would be glorious. The federal election commission would no longer just have dems and reps, but people who have no formal party affiliation. We should have listened to George Washington on this and many other matters.
>> Sarvis was a Libertarian, not a libertarian.
Correct — a libtard that wants law to enforce his views on matters. The fraud was a Lefty plant.
The Libertarian Party is corrupt. Any self-respecting libertarian should disassociate from it.
No, it isn't. Sarvis was pro-queer and promised to do all he could to push "marriage equality" in Virginia. He wanted to tax carbon emissions---how does that fit into a small government platform?
The chinless little monkey was funded by an Obama donor; McAuliffe made note of the face that he and Sarvis shared many viewpoints; and Ron Paul campaigned for Cuccinelli, telling people Sarvis was NO libertarian.
If I have the choice between someone that wants me to change my life because God wants me to (or their interpretation of God wants me to), and someone that wants me to change my life because Big Government demands that I do so, it’s a very difficult decision on which one is more objectional to me. I’ll pick third party each time. I agree with conservatives on pro-gun, free market economy, religious freedom (especially in regards to ACA), lower taxes, and less regulation. I agree with dems being pro-choice, pro-gay rights, ect.
So find a way to reconcile that, and I’ll put more than a few toes into your big tent. Might even vote on your side, instead of third party.
We must find common cause with libertarians on the areas you mentioned. Of the problems we can make better right now, most are due to the size of government and the loss of freedom that results from big government.
However, if being pro-gay or pro-choice means legislation to advance such positions than the person advocating such legislation is for bigger government, which is not particularly Libertarian.
The tea party certainly COULD BE the alternative to the establishment ... if they play it smart. I’m not seeing that in a lot of cases.
It’s a shame really as it could be such a force for good change.
"Ha! You Losertarians only get .0001% of the vote! Go smoke some pot and look at child porn!
AFTER THE ELECTION:
"Waaaa! Waaaa! Why did you Liberaltarians have to run and cause our Pubbie to lose!?"
The USA is being invaded with illegals. Most nations would consider that to be an act of war.
Thank you for admitting that the primary purpose of libertarians is helping democrats get elected. It’s what I’ve always suspected...
Even if legislation would reduce governmental limits on those issues?
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.