Third parties as spoilers & the VA governor's race

[kieefer]

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

divided like the rest of the country???? or maybe disastercare is waking some people up?

 

 

 

MCAULIFFE 46.71% 
CUCCINELLI 46.31%

91% reporting

Edited November 6, 2013 by kieefer

[Oh Shoot]

Mcauliffe wins by a nose (projected by NBC/MSNBC).

 

- OS

Edited November 6, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Oh Shoot]

General take, weren't wild for the Dem but disliked the Tea Partyish Republican more. They really didn't like the Republican raving preacher for Lt. Gov. Sarvis was indeed the difference, 6.7%. Or was he? Maybe took about an equal share from the disenchanted from both sides?

 

Christie by a landslide in Joisey.

 

Tea Party looking glum.

 

- OS

Edited November 6, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[kieefer]

Terry McAuliffe Dem. 944,473 46.9%

Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II Rep. 933,006 46.4

 

Robert Sarvis Lib. 134,508 6.7

 

94% reporting

 

Once again, the libertarians cost us another election.   :waiting:

Edited November 6, 2013 by kieefer

[Oh Shoot]

Once again, the libertarians cost us another election.   :waiting:

 

 

Dunno, could have taken about equal number from the disenchanted from both sides.

 

Look at final breakdown of the women's vote, I bet that'll be the bigger diff.

 

- OS

 

edit: just heard an analysis stating that there was exit polling showing protest voting for Sarvis on both sides, one big one in coal country against an issue that Cuch had leaned on as AG and some other one in N. VA that McA had pissed them off about, for example. So hard to say.

 

- OS

Edited November 6, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Erik88]

 

Once again, the libertarians cost us another election.   :waiting:

 

That's a weak ass excuse. Those 100k votes could have just as easily gone to the democrats.

[Chucktshoes]

Blaming the Libertarian for taking votes from Republicans is like blaming the attorney for your divorce: there were serious problems with your marriage, the attorney just made it official.

 

Caroline K. Gorman

 

[LCPfraTN]

I'm sorry, but I'm inclined to believe that libertarian voters are going to hurt a GOP candidate far more than they ever will do harm to a democrat (except on the rare occasion that the libertarian could actually win). If the libertarian wasn't in the election, I suspect most of those voters would have either voted for the GOP candidate or not voted at all. So, the unknown is what portion would have voted, and likely voted republican, if the libertarian candidate had not been in the race. 

[eapking]

Sarvis was a libertarian poser, with dollars backed by Dem financiers. What libertarian wants commuters taxed for miles driven? Sarvis did.

Sent from my Android

[tnguy]

[jacob]

I'm sorry, but I'm inclined to believe that libertarian voters are going to hurt a GOP candidate far more than they ever will do harm to a democrat (except on the rare occasion that the libertarian could actually win). If the libertarian wasn't in the election, I suspect most of those voters would have either voted for the GOP candidate or not voted at all. So, the unknown is what portion would have voted, and likely voted republican, if the libertarian candidate had not been in the race. 

since the libertarian candidate received those votes, then by your logic more than likely those voters would have chosen to sit this election out rather than waste their vote on a candidate they didn't agree with (the republican)if that candidate had not run for office.  that being the case, the republican still would have lost...as has been stated, most people who identify as libertarian only agree with the fiscal conservatism of the republican party, not the social conservatism...

 

I wasted my vote in '08 and '12 to take one for the team and put the lesser of two evils in office....never again will I settle....that in my opinion is a bigger waste

[blueghost]

Sarvis was a libertarian poser, with dollars backed by Dem financiers. What libertarian wants commuters taxed for miles driven? Sarvis did.

Sent from my Android

+1,Exactly. Supporting the black box is highly counterintuitive to the fight for liberty.

[Chucktshoes]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[LCPfraTN]

since the libertarian candidate received those votes, then by your logic more than likely those voters would have chosen to sit this election out rather than waste their vote on a candidate they didn't agree with (the republican)if that candidate had not run for office.  that being the case, the republican still would have lost...as has been stated, most people who identify as libertarian only agree with the fiscal conservatism of the republican party, not the social conservatism...

 

I wasted my vote in '08 and '12 to take one for the team and put the lesser of two evils in office....never again will I settle....that in my opinion is a bigger waste

 

We actually agree for the most part, except we'll never know whether all those voters would have just stayed home or voted republican, which would have changed the results in this election. I don't agree with a lot of the social conservatism of the GOP either, but I agree even less with the fiscal policies and most of the social policies of the democratic party, so I do find myself having to vote for someone that I don't completely agree with much of the time...to do otherwise just helps the opposition. I guess I'll ask you this...if you don't agree with 100% of everything a friend or family member says or does, do you just stop associating with them? 

[Chucktshoes]

We actually agree for the most part, except we'll never know whether all those voters would have just stayed home or voted republican, which would have changed the results in this election. I don't agree with a lot of the social conservatism of the GOP either, but I agree even less with the fiscal policies and most of the social policies of the democratic party, so I do find myself having to vote for someone that I don't completely agree with much of the time...to do otherwise just helps the opposition. I guess I'll ask you this...if you don't agree with 100% of everything a friend or family member says or does, do you just stop associating with them? 

I have a sister. She is as liberal as it gets and I would classify her as a full fledged member of the grievance industry with all her whining about "the patriarchy". Not long after the birth of my daughter I realized that she could possibly be a dangerous negative influence on my daughter. I made the decision to excise her from my family's life. We are better off for it. If a person does not bring anything positive to the table, if they only bring harm, why should they get a pass just because you had the misfortune to lose the genetic lottery and be related to them? 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

This is the reason we need to force better candidates in whichever party we affiliate with. We let ourselves down when we

settle for the lowest common denominator. Admittedly, I vote against someone as much as I vote for, but it is sometimes

due to who is most malleable with the rest of the political mix. We have seen what we get when liberals control all three blocks

of power that makes law. It's how we got the ACA. I don't have a problem with someone voting Libertarian because I could

easily fall in that category, also, but the consequences of elections are lasting.

 

I completely agree with principled votes. I just hate to think about the ending. Too many people don't take this stuff seriously

enough. We wouldn't have the problem if they did.

[Chucktshoes]

Here is a very good article that breaks down some of the takeaways that should be learned from the VA race.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2013/11/05/10-lessons-republicans-virginia/

[Chucktshoes]

This is the reason we need to force better candidates in whichever party we affiliate with. We let ourselves down when we

settle for the lowest common denominator. Admittedly, I vote against someone as much as I vote for, but it is sometimes

due to who is most malleable with the rest of the political mix. We have seen what we get when liberals control all three blocks

of power that makes law. It's how we got the ACA. I don't have a problem with someone voting Libertarian because I could

easily fall in that category, also, but the consequences of elections are lasting.

 

I completely agree with principled votes. I just hate to think about the ending. Too many people don't take this stuff seriously

enough. We wouldn't have the problem if they did.

I no longer have any faith whatsoever that the ending we both see can be avoided or that even if it could the Republicans are the way to do it. So here I am and my principled vote is the only thing I got left. Well...almost the only thing I got left. :whistle:

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And I agree with you on that, also. The problem is that a good candidate got sacked by his own chosen affiliation. I

dislike the progressives as much as anyone, maybe more. Cuccinelli has some culpability, also. He should have

stayed completely conservative and not bowed, and the GOP should be punished by the people who fund it. It's

another case of progressive politics by the Roves, Christies and Bushes: the Rockefeller crowd. Doubtful they can

be excised. I do want a winning party, but based on merit, not compromise. Too many Republicans do the compromise

thing, instead of having solid conviction. It's become a spineless bunch, just like the liberals. The entire country is

going to have to Galt until things change. That's a bad sign.

Edited November 6, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[tnguy]

but the consequences of elections are lasting.

 

The consequences of failing again and again to deliver on your promises of smaller government are lasting too. This is a bed of the Republican party's making. Every time they voted for pork, every time they added just-one-more-earmark, every time they voted the wrong way when it advanced their personal interests eroded a little more support.

 

Lest we forget this recent headline...

 

"Mitch McConnell gets nearly $3 billion for Kentucky dam project in congressional deal"

 

That's everything you need to know about the Republican party's problems, right there.

Edited November 6, 2013 by tnguy

[Chucktshoes]

http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/06/read-this-if-you-believe-your-candidate

 

Another good article hitting at the core red vs blue mindset that without a third party, the vote would have belonged to a Republican or a Democrat. I especially like this part.

 

 

 

No really, don’t pull this blue versus red crap on us. The Blaze noted that an Obama bundler helped pay for the petitioning process to get Sarvis on the ballot. So … guilt by association? I guess Sarvis should have just not run for governor if he needed assistance from somebody experienced in political processes because it’s from the left? According to The Blaze’s own reporting, the guy gives money to both libertarians and Democrats. We get the same crap from the left whenever the Koch brother's money finds its way into the hands of conservatives as well. Strangely, this piece is the one getting thrown at me the most, but it has the least compelling argument. It’s pointless left vs. right purity test crap.

[Chucktshoes]

I just ran across this story from ABC that contains some exit polling data that should put the "Sarvis caused Cuccinelli to lose" argument to rest. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/11/early-exit-poll-results-tell-a-tale-of-two-republicans/

 

 

Finally, while it didn’t change the outcome, the third-party candidate in the race, Libertarian Robert Sarvis, may have made it closer for McAuliffe than it would have been otherwise. Had he not been on the ballot, a third of his voters said they’d have supported McAuliffe – slightly more than twice as many as said they’d have gone for Cuccinelli.

[Erik88]

It doesn't matter how much evidence you throw at them Elliot, some here just can't do anything other than blame the 3rd party for the Republican failures.

 

A group of people ignoring facts.....hmm, sounds familiar.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I suspected a lot of the voters for Sarvis were possibly disenchanted young Democrats, just don't know to what extent.

It would have been interesting to know the raw data of an uninterested party, rather than ABC or any of the mainstream

media. There you go using words without backing them up, Erik. Facts are something else, completely. Exit polling can

lead to some of it, also.

 

Cuccinelli let himself down. That is already known. To always say a third party candidate won't spoil is factually incorrect,

Erik. Would you like to discuss that further? There was a race that a man became President with what, 41% of the vote?

Remember that? It had nothing to do with Libertarian politics. His name was Bill Clinton.

 

Besides, I still think Sarvis was intentionally put in the race to spoil, whether or not he did. There is evidence to back that

up. But I do accept that he didn't necessarily spoil that race because there were enough Republicans, especially GOP

leadership who decided not to back him like the previous race. There are some facts to support that, if you are interested

in reading them, Erik. Smugness is unbecoming.

[Oh Shoot]

.... There was a race that a man became President with what, 41% of the vote?
Remember that? It had nothing to do with Libertarian politics. His name was Bill Clinton.

Bout 43%, but same unknown, really .. did Perot really cost Bush Sr. the election in 92?

 

Nixon won by same 43% in '68, but pretty certain all the folks who voted for Wallace wouldn't have gone with Humphrey. This is perhaps the only clear cut third party candidate in my lifetime you could postulate which candidate he cost votes, and clearly didn't change outcome.

 

Bush Jr. got 47% in 2000, Gore got more but lost. Did Nader cost Gore the election? Intense analysis of electoral vote possibility suggests not.

 

etc.

 

- OS