Democratic McAuliffe takes Virginia

[hotrod72]

Because politics is a continuous spectrum. There are many positions for the Republican Party to occupy that are to the right of the democrats but to the left of where they are now. In fact, the Republican Party has moved dramatically to the right over the last few decades, far more than the democrats have moved left.

There is an opportunity of moderation and electoral success, the republicans just have to take it.

Politics is the game where the winners have figured out the position to take that has the most appeal currently. Politics is trying to predict the next position to take. Get your demographics figured out. Follow polling results. Shape your message. Focus groups. All very scientific. Madison Avenue soap salesmen!

Where does the left go? How far is the right? Can we take positions relative to up or down? How far south or north of stupid will get us the redneck vote? These are not really serious concepts for the lives and futures of our people. The spectrum has no clothes.

We need to disregard the noise that passes for wisdom among those of the political class. We need to quit listening to the talking heads. Our culture is becoming corrupt and bankrupt, so let's discard the tired rhetoric that has been hung around our necks by those who would rule our lives for their personal benefit.

We can be neighbors, friends, co-workers, family. We can live in peace, partner for mutual benefit, debate important matters of concern, strive to become better people, together. Parties of men who have no principles do not help us with that. Men without principles are not trustworthy. When we agree in principle we can live in harmony. But if our principles can be lightly set aside for political expediency, we do not actually have any .

 

[Incorruptible]

Libertarian candidates appeal to both sides and repel both sides, depending on the issue. Where you have one candidate who is more rigidly doctrinaire, doesn't it make sense that had the Libertarian not been in the race his voters would tend to vote for the other guy? If a voter is willing to cross party lines, then a candidate who is more party line is bound to be less attractive.

Regardless, northern Virginia is becoming ever more populated with refugees from liberal states intent of turning Virginia into the same paradise they fled. Hard to see how the Pubbies carry Virginia from now on.

These idiot liberals want to change Conservative areas into more liberal areas. They are such pathetic individuals and it's all about ideology to them.

I cannot recall you ever making a post where you're not being an arrogant ass putting words into people's mouths they've never said.

Maybe you have intelligence outside of this forum, but damn you never display even a glimmer of it here.

Your summary is not what he said, and you know it.

That's all he is capable of. Just a brain dead leftist full of hate.

 

[ivwshane]

These idiot liberals want to change Conservative areas into more liberal areas. They are such pathetic individuals]/B] and it's all about ideology to them.



That's all he is capable of. Just a brain dead leftist full of hate.

Lol!!

You have to be a parody account! Nobody can be this blatant at hypocrisy as this!

 

[Incorruptible]

Lol!!

You have to be a parody account! Nobody can be this blatant at hypocrisy as this!

Do you have anything useful to contribute or are you just going to troll again?

 

[ivwshane]

Do you have anything useful to contribute or are you just going to troll again?

Lol!!

You have to be a parody account! Nobody can be this blatant at hypocrisy as this!

Lol!

 

[DucatiMonster696]

That was a close race! 46% to 47.3% or so as of right now. . .

Closer than the 2012 presidential election.

Obama said "the people have spoken". Half don't want his policies, same in VA. Poor republican virginians. like a comment on another website .. . arlington cemetery probably carried the (D) vote!

Sarvis ran as a Libertarian and I'm glad the party got the press from this election, but he wasn't the best representation of the party out there. Still, ~140k votes and 6.6% is awesome for a third party!

Sadly some will blame Sarvis for "stealing" votes away from Cuccinelli. However in the end it was Cuccinelli who had the job to appeal to that 6% to win their votes away from Sarvis.

 

[Incorruptible]

Lol!

Keep trolling.

 

[dabuddha]

Sounds like it was choice between a turd taco and a turd burrito, guess which one won?

link

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Sadly some will blame Sarvis for "stealing" votes away from Cuccinelli. However in the end it was Cuccinelli who had the job to appeal to that 6% to win their votes away from Sarvis.

People that vote for third parties do so as a protest/to support alternate ideas. They know damn well their guy isn't getting elected. If the third party didn't exist they wouldn't vote.

 

[werepossum]

People that vote for third parties do so as a protest/to support alternate ideas. They know damn well their guy isn't getting elected. If the third party didn't exist they wouldn't vote.

Not necessarily. Some of us vote third party because that party is closest to our own ideals. If I have no Libertarian candidate I'm still going to vote, usually though not always for the Republican. And sometimes one major party has a candidate I so dislike that I will vote major party just in more direct opposition.

At the least, voting third party sends the signal that your vote is there to be won. Hopefully the losing party at least will think on that.

 

[Jimzz]

Sadly some will blame Sarvis for "stealing" votes away from Cuccinelli. However in the end it was Cuccinelli who had the job to appeal to that 6% to win their votes away from Sarvis.

I voted for Sarvis. If I did not I would have voted for McAuliffe.

Many voted for Sarvis as they thought McAuliffe was going to win but still wanted a 3rd party option in the future. To bad they did not get the 10% they needed.

 

[Incorruptible]

I voted for Sarvis. If I did not I would have voted for McAuliffe.

Many voted for Sarvis as they thought McAuliffe was going to win but still wanted a 3rd party option in the future. To bad they did not get the 10% they needed.

Sarvis was backed by an obama fundraiser. They used him to take votes away from cuccinelli. He was no libertarian and even was opposed to cutting taxes and spending.

 

[Jimzz]

Sarvis was backed by an obama fundraiser. They used him to take votes away from cuccinelli. He was no libertarian and even was opposed to cutting taxes and spending.

I don't care what tea party BS you read says, I'm telling you what I and many other VA voters did.

Cuccinelli was never getting my vote and Sarvis did not take votes away, he earned them by not being a nut job like cuccinelli.

 

[Incorruptible]

I don't care what tea party BS you read says, I'm telling you what I and many other VA voters did.

Cuccinelli was never getting my vote and Sarvis did not take votes away, he earned them by not being a nut job like cuccinelli.

The Tea Party defends the Constitution. Sarvis wasn't a libertarian since he was opposed to cutting taxes and spending and also wasn't favorable towards Austrian Economics.

He was also backed by an obama fundraiser.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Looks like someone is parroting the one and only Ron Paul.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...-Insane-to-Vote-for-Libertarian-Robert-Sarvis

Ron Paul: 'Insane' to Vote for 'Libertarian' Robert Sarvis

 

[Lithium381]

Not necessarily. Some of us vote third party because that party is closest to our own ideals. If I have no Libertarian candidate I'm still going to vote, usually though not always for the Republican. And sometimes one major party has a candidate I so dislike that I will vote major party just in more direct opposition.

At the least, voting third party sends the signal that your vote is there to be won. Hopefully the losing party at least will think on that.

Exactly.

When both parties realize they're both loosing a larger and larger percentage of their voting base, they may re-evaluate their platform. If the republicans were more socially liberal and actually CUT spending like they promised, i'd vote for a republican. If the democrats were less progressive, less 2nd amendment, and actually CUT spending, i'd vote for a democrat. As it stands now, a vote for either is a compromise of my beliefs. Libertarianism is the closest thing to what represents me so I'll continue to vote that way until either of the other parties focuses on freedom.

 

[trenchfoot]

Politics is the game where the winners have figured out the position to take that has the most appeal currently. Politics is trying to predict the next position to take. Get your demographics figured out. Follow polling results. Shape your message. Focus groups. All very scientific. Madison Avenue soap salesmen!

Where does the left go? How far is the right? Can we take positions relative to up or down? How far south or north of stupid will get us the redneck vote? These are not really serious concepts for the lives and futures of our people. The spectrum has no clothes.

We need to disregard the noise that passes for wisdom among those of the political class. We need to quit listening to the talking heads. Our culture is becoming corrupt and bankrupt, so let's discard the tired rhetoric that has been hung around our necks by those who would rule our lives for their personal benefit.

We can be neighbors, friends, co-workers, family. We can live in peace, partner for mutual benefit, debate important matters of concern, strive to become better people, together. Parties of men who have no principles do not help us with that. Men without principles are not trustworthy. When we agree in principle we can live in harmony. But if our principles can be lightly set aside for political expediency, we do not actually have any .

Great post. :thumbsup:

 

[werepossum]

Politics is the game where the winners have figured out the position to take that has the most appeal currently. Politics is trying to predict the next position to take. Get your demographics figured out. Follow polling results. Shape your message. Focus groups. All very scientific. Madison Avenue soap salesmen!

Where does the left go? How far is the right? Can we take positions relative to up or down? How far south or north of stupid will get us the redneck vote? These are not really serious concepts for the lives and futures of our people. The spectrum has no clothes.

We need to disregard the noise that passes for wisdom among those of the political class. We need to quit listening to the talking heads. Our culture is becoming corrupt and bankrupt, so let's discard the tired rhetoric that has been hung around our necks by those who would rule our lives for their personal benefit.

We can be neighbors, friends, co-workers, family. We can live in peace, partner for mutual benefit, debate important matters of concern, strive to become better people, together. Parties of men who have no principles do not help us with that. Men without principles are not trustworthy. When we agree in principle we can live in harmony. But if our principles can be lightly set aside for political expediency, we do not actually have any .

I agree with Tweaker, this is a great post. I'd add only one small caveat - sometimes our principles should be set aside for other reasons. My core principles include maximum individual liberty, limited government, and the free market, the idea that all of us together will make smarter decisions than will any small group of us, no matter how well selected. However, I still have to recognize that sometimes my preferred position based on my principles is not the best solution or even necessarily a workable solution. Sometimes a path I'd rather not take on principle is the only one that reaches the goal; sometimes an increase in socialism is the most practical path for our society even though we have as much socialism as I'd prefer.

If I think my principles are always the best solution, I've decided the answer before I know the question - and thus, not actually thinking at all.