Third parties as spoilers & the VA governor's race

[Chucktshoes]

http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/02/virginia-governors-race-can-cuccinelli-b

 

Great article about the VA governor's race in general but it also does a very good job at explaining how the idea that the "libertarian/green party candidate cost the republican/democrat candidate the election" is total crap.

 

I especially like this bit where he makes the point that for all their talk about small government, the Republicans never deliver on that promise.

 

 

 

Which is another way of saying: If GOP candidates aren't convincing to libertarians, don't blame libertarians. Don't conservatives believe in personal responsibility? Take a look at the man in the mirror then. Blame a party that has never lived up to its limited government rhetoric or its insistence that government should leave people alone as much as possible (in Virginia, this meant among other things, having Republican legislators vote against a plan to get the government out of the liquor business. Really).

 

[greenego]

Unless the tea party Republicans and the  libertarian side of the party come together, senate and possibly the house will go to the Democrats. If this happens            GAME OVER. :-\ Democrats have shown they will stick together and dig up every vote possible.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't think you should blame any one group for another's shortcoming, either, but getting the vote out can be

troubling when similar sides can defeat the Democrats. Cuccinelli is a conservative, not a RINO. If the Libertarian can

win on his own, that's great. I'd like to see more of it. That's the big question.

[DaveTN]

Unless the tea party Republicans and the  libertarian side of the party come together, senate and possibly the house will go to the Democrats. If this happens            GAME OVER. :-\ Democrats have shown they will stick together and dig up every vote possible.

This. If I was a democrat running for President I would pay for a good third party candidate to run. Divide and conquer.

[Chucktshoes]

I am seeing a lot of the mindset the article references displayed here. The thought that the libertarian vote would belong to Republicans or conservatives if not for a third party candidate is just plain wrong. As a general rule libertarians and republicans don't agree on social issues. Where we do agree is on the stated fiscal positions of the Republicans like shrinking the size of government. The big problem is that the Republicans don't have any credibility when it comes to shrinking the size of government. Y'all talk a good game then expand it every chance you get, yes that includes Saint Ronnie Raygun. So why should we vote for a Republican if we have any other option at all?

[DaveTN]

I am seeing a lot of the mindset the article references displayed here. The thought that the libertarian vote would belong to Republicans or conservatives if not for a third party candidate is just plain wrong. As a general rule libertarians and republicans don't agree on social issues. Where we do agree is on the stated fiscal positions of the Republicans like shrinking the size of government. The big problem is that the Republicans don't have any credibility when it comes to shrinking the size of government. Y'all talk a good game then expand it every chance you get, yes that includes Saint Ronnie Raygun. So why should we vote for a Republican if we have any other option at all?

No one is saying you need to agree with either party. What some of us are saying is that it’s simple math and politics. This is America and you are free to vote for whomever you please.

Facts get in way though. Fact is that our next President is going to be a Republican or a Democrat. You can make all the arguments you want that your third party guy is the best choice; but the fact is we are in a sad state economically. Jobs and the economy will decide the next President. The worse the economy gets the bigger the Democratic Party gets.

Could the perfect candidate get elected? Let’s say we had a candidate that has good ideas on how to put Americans back to work, regain our manufacturing base, stop the illegal immigration that is helping to destroy our economy, wants less government intervention in our lives and smaller government, and support our rights under the Constitution. Well, that person is not going to be a democrat, so let’s assume he is a Republican. It would be a tough road. He will lose a lot of Republicans who use illegals to keep their business costs down, he will lose many that work for foreign manufactures that would lose work to American companies, and he would lose some if he supported making the 2nd an individual right.

A third party candidate is a feel good pipe dream. I don’t need to make a political statement by who I support; I want someone that can get the job done.

Two people will do battle in the next election. One a Republican and one a Democrat. One will be a winner and the other will be the first loser, no one cares how close it was and no one cares what the numbers are after the winner.

Please help us by getting on one side or the other.

[Chucktshoes]

No one is saying you need to agree with either party. What some of us are saying is that it’s simple math and politics. This is America and you are free to vote for whomever you please.

Facts get in way though. Fact is that our next President is going to be a Republican or a Democrat. You can make all the arguments you want that your third party guy is the best choice; but the fact is we are in a sad state economically. Jobs and the economy will decide the next President. The worse the economy gets the bigger the Democratic Party gets.

Could the perfect candidate get elected? Let’s say we had a candidate that has good ideas on how to put Americans back to work, regain our manufacturing base, stop the illegal immigration that is helping to destroy our economy, wants less government intervention in our lives and smaller government, and support our rights under the Constitution. Well, that person is not going to be a democrat, so let’s assume he is a Republican. It would be a tough road. He will lose a lot of Republicans who use illegals to keep their business costs down, he will lose many that work for foreign manufactures that would lose work to American companies, and he would lose some if he supported making the 2nd an individual right.

A third party candidate is a feel good pipe dream. I don’t need to make a political statement by who I support; I want someone that can get the job done.

Two people will do battle in the next election. One a Republican and one a Democrat. One will be a winner and the other will be the first loser, no one cares how close it was and no one cares what the numbers are after the winner.

Please help us by getting on one side or the other.

Sorry but in this case, the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy. There are only a handful of Republicans I could in good conscience vote for and they all come from the wacko bird conference. If the Republicans stick with the establishment types, they will lose the folks like me again next time and every time.

I won't speak for anyone else but I think most Republicans really don't understand how little credibility they have on the position of shrinking the government. Every election cycle they talk about it, but every budget or spending bill rapes the taxpayers or the taxes payers' children even more than the last one. My dislike and distrust of the Republican Party is to the point where sometimes it would seem that a Democrat would be a better choice under the premise that "it is better to have an honest enemy than a false friend". I dislike knives in my back and the Republican Party hasn't done anything other than stab the taxpayers in the back for many decades

Edited to add: I thought a vote WAS a political statement? Plus, if the job is shrinking the government, the Republicans have more than 5 decades of track record showing they are not up to getting that particular job done, or even started. Edited November 3, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[Guest RebelCowboySnB]

I vote for who I want to win or I dont vote. I am not tring to win the loto by picking what has the highest odds. No ones fault but the Republicans that they keep losing. The idea that they can put up anyone an I should vote for them or else, will not work on me.

[bersaguy]

I have seen the blame game stated in other previous elections. When Ross Perot ran on a third party ticket the loser claimed that has Ross not ran he would have gotten those votes. The loser could not prove that. Those may have been just more votes to the winner.  Even in that election many folks back then showed a desire to have a third party because Ross did get a large number of votes.............jmho

[DaveTN]

Sorry but in this case, the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy. There are only a handful of Republicans I could in good conscience vote for and they all come from the wacko bird conference. If the Republicans stick with the establishment types, they will lose the folks like me again next time and every time.

I won't speak for anyone else but I think most Republicans really don't understand how little credibility they have on the position of shrinking the government. Every election cycle they talk about it, but every budget or spending bill rapes the taxpayers or the taxes payers' children even more than the last one. My dislike and distrust of the Republican Party is to the point where sometimes it would seem that a Democrat would be a better choice under the premise that "it is better to have an honest enemy than a false friend". I dislike knives in my back and the Republican Party hasn't done anything other than stab the taxpayers in the back for many decades

Edited to add: I thought a vote WAS a political statement? Plus, if the job is shrinking the government, the Republicans have more than 5 decades of track record showing they are not up to getting that particular job done, or even started.

That’s my point. You can pick out your main interest; yours is government, mine is jobs/economy, others are abortion, illegal immigration, and some are gun rights. The President needs the support of Congress to get some things done. We have the most openly anti-gun President our country has ever seen. Has he been able to outlaw guns? Nope, but he has used it to keep from talking about the hard stuff.

A vote isn’t a political statement, it’s a vote. Political statements are made outside the voting booth. I guess it could be considered a political statement if your person wins (voters sent a message); otherwise it just shows support for a person that didn’t get elected.

[Chucktshoes]

Dave, I don't vote to get to claim I was on the winning side, I vote FOR someone because I support enough of their positions and have at least a little faith that they will actually work to achieve them. I will no longer cast a vote for a candidate I don't like or believe in because "at least he isn't the other guy". That's a losing proposition no matter how you look at it.

[DaveTN]

Dave, I don't vote to get to claim I was on the winning side, I vote FOR someone because I support enough of their positions and have at least a little faith that they will actually work to achieve them. I will no longer cast a vote for a candidate I don't like or believe in because "at least he isn't the other guy". That's a losing proposition no matter how you look at it.

I have not in my lifetime been presented with a Presidential third party candidate that had any real chance of being elected. Perot had a shot but of course he bailed before the election. He still got 20% of the popular vote which meant nothing because he got 0 electoral votes.

The Democrats are united and will be tough to beat. I don’t know who the Republicans will run, but I’m sure we will all find things about him/her we don’t like.

What bothers me the most is that those that would be good at the job; don’t want it.

I think I should run for President.

[Chucktshoes]

I think the real disconnect occurs with the fact that we bring different presuppositional worldviews to the table. You, and most folks in general, view American politics through a Democrat vs Republican lens. I and others like me view it through a libertarian vs authoritarian lens with both the Republican and Democrats firmly in the authoritarian camp. I look at the choice between a Democrat and a Republican as a choice between feeding the republic hemlock and ricin. It is dead either way.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh, but he made some good points, Chuck. as far as I'm concerned, it isn't a Dem vs Rep problem, but it probably is to many.

I would love to see a Libertarian get to the highest office, but it takes more than that office to get there. The Libertarians in the

Republican Party, and there are several playing the game in there, are on the same side you and I are. And as much as I'd like

to see the Republican Party fail and be replaced by the Tea Party, that won't happen except by the way they are trying. Too

much money involved. It takes the Cruzs and Pauls to undermine the RINOs the way they are doing it. It is becoming successful,

also.

If I were bent on a pure Libertarian platform, I may change my mind on this, but the only real objection I have to the Republican

Party is it's RINO leadership. They are basically okay with me, even with some of the social conservatism included. That doesn't

mean  I reject Libertarian politics, but I don't see it as viable without a huge shift in our societal attitudes. We have too many

folks who don't give one damn. My views about politics are about in line with Barry Goldwater, who was more Libertarian than

Republican, yet he ran on the Republican ticket.

[Chucktshoes]

I understood all of his points, and I can grasp the reality is that a D or an R is going to win the election barring some major shift in the thinking of the public at large. It still doesn't mean I can bring myself to vote for a shitbag like Romney just because he isn't Obama. I didn't see much of a difference between them then and I don't now. I mentioned that there are a few libertarian Republicans I could actually see myself voting for, but just a very few. You stand more libertarian, but can settle with and accept some of the Republicans, I get that. For me, the Libertarian Party is the group I can settle with and accept. Even they are more authoritarian statist than I would like.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I knew you and I were on the same sheet. We usually are. :D

[seez52]

As much as I would like it I don't believe a third party will ever have much of a chance unless there are changes in the way elections are conducted.

With the way the electorial college works, and I'm fine with that, unless we instite some sort of run off contest on elections. If a single candidate cannot get 50% then the top two go at it again for a short window completely funded with public money. Say 6 weeks. Then non mainstream parties might have a shot.

[LCPfraTN]

There is rarely a candidate that I like everything about or agree with on everything. However, I still want my vote to have the best likelihood of results that I can live with versus being wasted and handing the election to the side that I least agree with. Voting for a third party candidate or an independent that doesn't have a statistical chance of winning at election time is not very wise or realistic...and is nothing more than a naive political statement no matter how much you try to say that it isn't. I vote to try and keep the least desirable side from winning an election. If you don't understand that, and don't vote accordingly, then don't moan and groan when the least desirable candidate and party wins and enacts laws that you are not in favor of. 

 

Do I wish a third party existed that could win an election? Absolutely, but that is not the current state of reality, and if some people don't wake up and smell the coffee soon, this country will continue to go downhill. :rant:         

[Chucktshoes]

There is rarely a candidate that I like everything about or agree with on everything. However, I still want my vote to have the best likelihood of results that I can live with versus being wasted and handing the election to the side that I least agree with. Voting for a third party candidate or an independent that doesn't have a statistical chance of winning at election time is not very wise or realistic...and is nothing more than a naive political statement no matter how much you try to say that it isn't. I vote to try and keep the least desirable side from winning an election. If you don't understand that, and don't vote accordingly, then don't moan and groan when the least desirable candidate and party wins and enacts laws that you are not in favor of.

Do I wish a third party existed that could win an election? Absolutely, but that is not the current state of reality, and if some people don't wake up and smell the coffee soon, this country will continue to go downhill. :rant:

No third party will ever have a chance of winning if they never get your vote in the first place. Voting for a Republican or a Democrat at this point only reinforces the status quo and helps ensure that we do not change course. If you like the direction this country is moving, keep voting for the two major parties cause they are both leading is down the tubes.

[LCPfraTN]

No third party will ever have a chance of winning if they never get your vote in the first place. Voting for a Republican or a Democrat at this point only reinforces the status quo and helps ensure that we do not change course. If you like the direction this country is moving, keep voting for the two major parties cause they are both leading is down the tubes.

 

I never said that a third party candidate would never get my vote in the first place...I implied that if they don't have a statistical chance of winning, they won't get my vote. As much as I hate pollsters, they are pretty accurate within a few points of predicting elections, and if a third party or independent candidate had strong support from the voting public, and I was in agreement with the positions of that candidate, they could get my vote. That has never been the case with the Presidential election, however, and the third party/independent candidate votes combined with historically Republican voters that didn't vote at all in the last election helped determine the direction this country is moving...not me.   :2cents:

[kieefer]

http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/02/virginia-governors-race-can-cuccinelli-b

 

Great article about the VA governor's race in general but it also does a very good job at explaining how the idea that the "libertarian/green party candidate cost the republican/democrat candidate the election" is total crap.

 

I especially like this bit where he makes the point that for all their talk about small government, the Republicans never deliver on that promise.

 

Reading other blogs it looks like McAuliffe is the favorite to win. I'm hoping the tables will turn on Tues. given this is the first election since the rollout of disaster-care.

If Cuccinelli does pull it off (and Sarvis doesn't take too many votes away from him) it will be a big win for conservatism.... or rather, for our side.  :)

 

Watching this one.

[Oh Shoot]

Polls show Cuch with 38% deficit among women voters. That's plenty to lose right there even if all else were a dead heat.

 

Same old dumbass GOP mistake, gotta learn to stay out of them vaginas.

 

- OS

Edited November 4, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[kieefer]

 

CUCCINELLI 46.51% 
MCAULIFFE 46.48%

88% reporting

Edited November 6, 2013 by kieefer

[Oh Shoot]

 

 

CUCCINELLI 47.8% 
MCAULIFFE 45.3%

77% reporting

 

 

The two biggest lib counties in the north still out. They always come in last, and always big time Dem. They were what pushed BHO over top there last time around.

 

Only question is how many turned out in those counties. My bet,  the wimmen there are gonna swing it for McAuliffe.

 

Dem already called as winner in the Lt. Gov race.

 

- OS

Edited November 6, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Raoul]

The fact that Cuccinelli is showing as well as he is  really is surprising.