Polling between 7 and 12% lately, Robert Sarvis is making some waves. However, I have to ask the Virginians here how serious the apathy toward the R and D candidates really is. If Sarvis were allowed into the the next debate, could he make a serious run for the win?

It seems that he's getting coverage from more than just libertarian outlets, and some appearance he recently made at the last debate has gotten him more attention.

So where do the Virginians here stand on him and the race overall?

Guapo wrote:Polling between 7 and 12% lately, Robert Sarvis is making some waves. However, I have to ask the Virginians here how serious the apathy toward the R and D candidates really is. If Sarvis were allowed into the the next debate, could he make a serious run for the win?

It seems that he's getting coverage from more than just libertarian outlets, and some appearance he recently made at the last debate has gotten him more attention.

So where do the Virginians here stand on him and the race overall?

Going by the published polls, they prefer McAuliffe. He's been ahead since July.

Sarvis ended up on 6%. The race tightened towards the end and McAuliffe won with a lower margin than polls showed. Could have been that people swung from the Libertarian to the Republican late on.

This is probably as much an interesting race as the one in NJ - for different reasons.

Yes, it seems that the Paul/Beck camp cost Sarvis a good portion of votes at the last minute. It's a shame, really. However, the aftermath has been hilarious.

The RNC cut off financial support to Cuccinelli in early October, and instead started playing the blame game early on. They spent more time attacking Sarvis than supporting their own candidate. I think they knew that McAuliffe was going to win, so they decided to throw their own candidate down a river, in an attempt to throw the Libertarians under the bus. Now the "tea party" types are trying to say that the Libertarians screwed them.

The exit polls completely negate that claim.

If anything, Paul and the "libertarianish" Republicans did more damage to liberty. They helped to solidify the two party duopoly, and, after all his talk about third parties and ending the Republicrat system, Ron Paul has made a fool of himself.

On a positive note, I think some people on the left are realizing that Libertarianism is no more "right" wing than "left" wing.

Guapo wrote:On a positive note, I think some people on the left are realizing that Libertarianism is no more "right" wing than "left" wing.

Well, Anarcho-syndicalism and other left-libertarian strands are well known outside the USA.

The question is what aspects of libertarianism are more prominent. Social liberty is shared with much of the left; economic liberty is shared with much of the right.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:most women voters are both selfish and stupid. Women voters are consumed with the abortion issue, and their "right to chose" to kill babies at their whim, and they allow this to drive their vote even though this issue is outside of the ability of any candidate's potential to change it. But the scare tactic works because they are ignorant. It also works because they are too selfish to behave responsibly enough to avoid getting pregnant, and would kill a child for convenience.

Wow. I don't know how to respond.

Geo - It's that old style Southern charm, I guess.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:First of all it confirms that the Democrat strategy of spreading lies and fear works, and works well enough to elect a truly despicable candidate.

I've not seen that much about McAuliffe. In what way is he 'despicable'? I mean, he's a successful businessman who has used his relationships to help make a lot of money, but isn't that pretty much typical for politicians and those around them?

Additionally is shows that most women voters are both selfish and stupid.

When someone on the losing side of an election starts calling voters stupid, it just makes them look like a bad loser.

Women voters are consumed with the abortion issue, and their "right to chose" to kill babies at their whim, and they allow this to drive their vote even though this issue is outside of the ability of any candidate's potential to change it. But the scare tactic works because they are ignorant. It also works because they are too selfish to behave responsibly enough to avoid getting pregnant, and would kill a child for convenience. It's a disgusting display of the absence of humanity, yet it's presented as if it's a universal right to stomp out life.

When you are able to fall pregnant, perhaps you may understand why women are a bit 'consumed' by issues like abortion. A Governor can sign or veto State bills, and so he would have influence on Virginia law regarding abortion. His legislative history suggests a consistent stand. People who disagree with him (and you) are entitled to do so. That you can't simply disagree and have to resort to name-calling and moralising suggests that they have reason to worry about what might happen if your view were to prevail.

funny thing, I was having lunch across from a park a few weeks back when this anti-abortion march came streaming by...plenty of women (waaay more than men). All carrying signs and protesting abortion rights. My wife is also against abortion rights (though not as crazed as these women, she keeps it to herself). Yet according to Ruffhaus, all women are stupid and all want abortions on demand whether pregnant or not it would seem?

and while we are both personally against abortion, neither of us let this decide who we will vote for, for myself, I actually lean towards the candidate who would allow it over not allow it. To me it's a personal issue and not political. (as far as who I vote for that is)

I tend to doubt that ther Libertarians draw equally from left and right. Seems far more probable to me that they draw principally from the right because right-inclined voters are far more likely to be inclined to an anti-government message.

As for the abortion thing, I suspect you'll find that it only really comes into play where the Republican candidate is a zealously opposed to abortion and makes a major pitch to conservative voters on that basis. It's probably true to say that the scope to actually influence abortion law is very limited for any politician in the US, and it's also true to say that virtually all Republicans are anti-abortion, but not all Republicans actively frighten women who support the right to choose. At some point you have to conclude that picking a candidate who motivates a significant majority of a group who make up a majority of registered voters to vote against him means that you probably picked the wrong candidate. It's possible to be personally opposed to abortion without scaring the bejeezus out of half the women on the electoral roll.

Sassenach wrote:I tend to doubt that ther Libertarians draw equally from left and right. Seems far more probable to me that they draw principally from the right because right-inclined voters are far more likely to be inclined to an anti-government message.

Libertarians have drawn more from the "right" of late primarily because of the emphasis of government infringement--mostly economic. Moreover, since Ron Paul came from the Republican side, he appealed more to disenchanted Republicans. No such movement has happened among the liberals. To be honest, I've been sorely disappointed with the left's reaction to Obama's domestic and foreign policies. However, as I pointed out, the exit polls indicate that Sarvis drew more from the "liberals" than "conservatives"--and by a nearly 2 to 1 ratio.

Guapo wrote:

Sassenach wrote:However, as I pointed out, the exit polls indicate that Sarvis drew more from the "liberals" than "conservatives"--and by a nearly 2 to 1 ratio.

Do the polls from earlier on give a similar position, a more balanced one, or one with more from the right? Or are they not that clear?

If could be that right wing libertarians voted for Cuccinelli, veering off at the end. Or just didn't vote.

[quote="danivon"I've not seen that much about McAuliffe. In what way is he 'despicable'? I mean, he's a successful businessman who has used his relationships to help make a lot of money, but isn't that pretty much typical for politicians and those around them? [/quote]

I went to a lefty source, so you KNOW it's true.

It's pretty accurate. McAuliffe is inside-the-beltway scum. There's no short summary of that story. His history, his associations, even his business "success" are all embarrassingly slimy.

sass

suspect you'll find that it only really comes into play where the Republican candidate is a zealously opposed to abortion and makes a major pitch to conservative voters on that basis. It's probably true to say that the scope to actually influence abortion law is very limited for any politician in the US, and it's also true to say that virtually all Republicans are anti-abortion, but not all Republicans actively frighten women who support the right to choose.

Graham introduces ‘historic’ 20-week abortion ban; says no primary politics at play

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... rtion-ban/

The attempts at chipping away at current abortion law are constant. Both at the State and Federal levels. Whether its aimed at the base with no expectation at success or whether its successful (as recently in Texas) all the attempts have the same effect within the electorate.

Guapo, a central belief by liberals is in a strong safety net--libertarians oppose that. Yes, liberals and libertarians have certain views that overlap but they are far apart on the ideologicàl spectrum. Whereas, a disenchanted Republican can easily become a libertarian if foreign policy is not that important to him, domestic economic policy is more important to him, or he is against an interventionist policy overseas. It is just an easier switch that doesn't necessarily go to the heart of their beliefs, whereas a liberal would have to cease being a liberal.

And McAuliffe also crafted a new regulation that privatized military logistics, a certain company dominated the contracts awarded because of the new regulation, and then left government and made 20 million in running that company...oh I'm sorry that was Dick Cheney...