Democrat operatives fund Libertarian in VA

[thereisnospoon]

In a move designed to split voting among Virginia conservatives, democrat operatives were found to be funding the Libertarian Gubernatorial candidate and also helped the Libertarian to get on the ballot.
But for the 6% of votes that went to the Libertarian, eventual winner Terry McAuliffe may not have had enough to overcome his GOP challenger Ken Cuccinelli..
Revealed: Obama Campaign Bundler Helping Fund Libertarian in Tight Va. Gubernatorial Race | TheBlaze.com

 

[WorldWatcher]

In a move designed to split voting among Virginia conservatives, democrat operatives were found to be funding the Libertarian Gubernatorial candidate and also helped the Libertarian to get on the ballot.
But for the 6% of votes that went to the Libertarian, eventual winner Terry McAuliffe may not have had enough to overcome his GOP challenger Ken Cuccinelli..
Revealed: Obama Campaign Bundler Helping Fund Libertarian in Tight Va. Gubernatorial Race | TheBlaze.com

Fact is Cuccinelli was not a very popular candidate with some important demographics. The fact is about 40% of the electorate votes straight "D" no matter who is put up, about 40% of the candidates vote straight "R" no matter who is put up. The real decision makers are the 20% Moderate Democrates/Independents/Moderate Republicans who actually look at the candidates to make their decision and Cuccinelli was not liked by an important demographics (unmarried women) with 67-25 a percent margin against. I vote based mostly on fiscal issues and think McAuliffe is a bad choice so I voted for Cuccinelli (R) on the other hand Jackson (R) was not impressive so I vote for Northam "D" as a counter balance.

As to Sarvis costing Cuccinelli the election, the only one that cost Cuccinelli the election was Cuccinelli because he got less votes then McAuliffe and lost.

These talking points to blame anyone but Cuccinelli for losing are pretty lame. The fact is that exit polls show that McAuliffe had more votes drawn off then Cuccinelli did by a rate of 2:1. You know what that means right? If Savis hadn't been in the race then Cuccinelli would have lost by a larger margin then he did because 2 of 3 "Sarvis" voters would have voted McAuliffe over Cuccinelli.

Instead of 48% to 45.5% (a 2.5% gap) with Sarvis in the race, a race without Sarvis would have ended up with McAuliffe at 52% and Cuccinelli at 47.5% (a gap of 4.5%).

#1 "Don't blame McDonnell
If Cuccinelli loses, he can't blame his defeat on scandal-plagued outgoing GOP Gov. Bob McDonnell or third-party Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis. Virginia voters actually approve of McDonnell's job performance by 12 points (53%-41%). And if Sarvis had not been in the race, exit polls indicate McAuliffe would have beaten Cuccinelli by 7 points (50%-43%)."

#2 "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.

#3 "Was the Libertarian candidate Sarvis a spoiler? In a word: no. In a straight two-way matchup, voters preferred McAuliffe to Cuccinelli by two points. That’s almost identical to the final outcome. In fact, Sarvis drew from independents and moderates, and took at least as many votes from the Democrat as the Republican."

#1 - CNN exit polls: Virginia governor?s race ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
#2 - Exit Poll Results Tell a Tale of Two Republicans - ABC News
#3 - Exit polls: McAuliffe wins in Virginia with strong support among women | Fox News



>>>>

 

[FA_Q2]

Politics is dirty – there really is no surprise here. The sad part is that all the GOP had to do was support their candidate and he would have won anyway. The internal fighting is getting interesting now and should give us a good show.

A side point here is that this trick is working and known. I wonder how many in the past have been on the GOP’s donor doles to split the left and, more important, how prevalent this might become.

In the end, I don’t really care. I believe you have a right to vote with all the information that you can possibly gather and I don’t care if it is the left paying to get a third parties voice heard – more power to them. I would LOVE to see this explode into general usage though I doubt that is going to happen.

 

[FA_Q2]

#1 "Don't blame McDonnell
If Cuccinelli loses, he can't blame his defeat on scandal-plagued outgoing GOP Gov. Bob McDonnell or third-party Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis. Virginia voters actually approve of McDonnell's job performance by 12 points (53%-41%). And if Sarvis had not been in the race, exit polls indicate McAuliffe would have beaten Cuccinelli by 7 points (50%-43%)."

That would explain the reason that the democratic backers also supported Sarvis. If more voters voting for Sarvis would have voted for the dem candidate that means it is likely Sarvis’ positions aligned closer to the democratic candidate than the republican one making him also appeal to the left.

I have not examined their positions that closely because I am not in that state but I would not be surprised if that were the case. While libertarians mostly agree with the right on fiscal issues they tend to also agree quite heartedly with the left on many social ones. The assumption that the libertarian only takes votes from the right is not really a good assumption to make – it depends on what you are more concerned with – social or fiscal issues.

 

[WorldWatcher]

#1 "Don't blame McDonnell
If Cuccinelli loses, he can't blame his defeat on scandal-plagued outgoing GOP Gov. Bob McDonnell or third-party Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis. Virginia voters actually approve of McDonnell's job performance by 12 points (53%-41%). And if Sarvis had not been in the race, exit polls indicate McAuliffe would have beaten Cuccinelli by 7 points (50%-43%)."

That would explain the reason that the democratic backers also supported Sarvis. If more voters voting for Sarvis would have voted for the dem candidate that means it is likely Sarvis’ positions aligned closer to the democratic candidate than the republican one making him also appeal to the left.

I have not examined their positions that closely because I am not in that state but I would not be surprised if that were the case. While libertarians mostly agree with the right on fiscal issues they tend to also agree quite heartedly with the left on many social ones. The assumption that the libertarian only takes votes from the right is not really a good assumption to make – it depends on what you are more concerned with – social or fiscal issues.

You can check the numbers but in 2005 and 2009 the Libertarian candidate posted results of 0.3% and 0.5% respectively, Sarvis pulled 6.5%.

That shows one important fact...

............... Both candidates sucked.



>>>>

 

[FA_Q2]

#1 "Don't blame McDonnell
If Cuccinelli loses, he can't blame his defeat on scandal-plagued outgoing GOP Gov. Bob McDonnell or third-party Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis. Virginia voters actually approve of McDonnell's job performance by 12 points (53%-41%). And if Sarvis had not been in the race, exit polls indicate McAuliffe would have beaten Cuccinelli by 7 points (50%-43%)."

That would explain the reason that the democratic backers also supported Sarvis. If more voters voting for Sarvis would have voted for the dem candidate that means it is likely Sarvis’ positions aligned closer to the democratic candidate than the republican one making him also appeal to the left.

I have not examined their positions that closely because I am not in that state but I would not be surprised if that were the case. While libertarians mostly agree with the right on fiscal issues they tend to also agree quite heartedly with the left on many social ones. The assumption that the libertarian only takes votes from the right is not really a good assumption to make – it depends on what you are more concerned with – social or fiscal issues.

You can check the numbers but in 2005 and 2009 the Libertarian candidate posted results of 0.3% and 0.5% respectively, Sarvis pulled 6.5%.

That shows one important fact...

............... Both candidates sucked.



>>>>

It also points to the growing steam of third parties. Sure the candidates also sucked but I think that there are more and more people waking up to the fact that you actually have more than 2 choices. That is nothing but good as well. The parties have not actually represented the people for a looong time but the grip on power that they have has allowed them to keep their positions. Growing third parties can make them reevaluate whether or not they can continue to ignore the electorate anymore.

 

[Pheonixops]

#1 "Don't blame McDonnell
If Cuccinelli loses, he can't blame his defeat on scandal-plagued outgoing GOP Gov. Bob McDonnell or third-party Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis. Virginia voters actually approve of McDonnell's job performance by 12 points (53%-41%). And if Sarvis had not been in the race, exit polls indicate McAuliffe would have beaten Cuccinelli by 7 points (50%-43%)."

That would explain the reason that the democratic backers also supported Sarvis. If more voters voting for Sarvis would have voted for the dem candidate that means it is likely Sarvis’ positions aligned closer to the democratic candidate than the republican one making him also appeal to the left.

I have not examined their positions that closely because I am not in that state but I would not be surprised if that were the case. While libertarians mostly agree with the right on fiscal issues they tend to also agree quite heartedly with the left on many social ones. The assumption that the libertarian only takes votes from the right is not really a good assumption to make – it depends on what you are more concerned with – social or fiscal issues.

Excellent points. Here are Sarvis' views:
Robert Sarvis' Issue Positions (Political Courage Test) - Project Vote Smart

 

[Pheonixops]

Robert Sarvis for Governor of Virginia

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sarvis did as well as he did because the TeaPoCrap candidates are so toxic.