Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Breaking: Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis kicked to the curb (shutout)

  1. #1
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Breaking: Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis kicked to the curb (shutout)

    The final debate of the Virginia Governor's race will not include Libertarian Candidate Robert Sarvis.

    WDBJ:

    WDBJ7 and Virginia Tech are co-hosting a debate between the two major party candidates for governor on Thursday, October 24 at 7:00 p.m. As part of the negotiations regarding guidelines for the debate, the two campaigns agreed to language setting an average polling threshold that opened the door for the third party candidate to participate in the debate.

    The language both campaigns agreed to is as follows:

    The third party candidate will be invited to participate in the debate if he is polling at 10% or above in major statewide independent polls released within the period three weeks prior to October 10. The decision concerning eligibility will be made by WDBJ7 in consultation with political analysts Harry Wilson from Roanoke College and Bob Denton from Virginia Tech and will rely heavily on the averages of major polls as listed on www.realclearpolitics.com.

    October 10 was agreed upon as a deadline for the third party candidate to reach the threshold to give candidates two weeks ahead of the debate to prepare and the hosting organizations time to set the format and staging for the event.

    As of this date, the third party candidate is polling at 9.0% based on the averages on realclearpolitics.com and would, therefore, not meet the guidelines agreed upon by the campaigns.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Right, I mean, forget even challenging their hegemony, god forbid we introduce alternate approaches into the debate. Statism must prevail at all cost!

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I guess his campaign should not have agreed to the conditions.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    culpeper
    Posts
    17
    That's a shame. Pretty close.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Including a refreshing third voice in the debate would cause it to eat up too much prime time TV, no doubt. The best part about the third voice is what it forces the other two to admit during the debate, even when it will still be likely that they (the other two) will still be the leaders afterward. It makes for a better debate. Only the moderators should have made this decision; the opinions of the other two parties is completely self-serving. Generally speaking, we need more balanced organizations funding debates.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I guess his campaign should not have agreed to the conditions.
    The Libertarians played no part in the conditions, from what I read.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  7. #7
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Including a refreshing third voice in the debate would cause it to eat up too much prime time TV, no doubt. The best part about the third voice is what it forces the other two to admit during the debate, even when it will still be likely that they (the other two) will still be the leaders afterward. It makes for a better debate. Only the moderators should have made this decision; the opinions of the other two parties is completely self-serving. Generally speaking, we need more balanced organizations funding debates.

    1+!!!!
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    The Libertarians played no part in the conditions, from what I read.
    But they did agree to the conditions....they should have known better...the choice: choose not to participate at all at the beginning because the conditions were unfair. Saying this now is a little too late IMO.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 10-18-2013 at 02:21 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    15
    ALL three candidates should be included. It's only fair.

    But, given the current state of the race, does anyone think Sarvis might throw his support to Cuccinelli? Many are not pleased with what they hear coming out of the other candidates run for office.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    A personal Plea

    Quote Originally Posted by jwaldo View Post
    ALL three candidates should be included. It's only fair.

    But, given the current state of the race, does anyone think Sarvis might throw his support to Cuccinelli? Many are not pleased with what they hear coming out of the other candidates run for office.
    See here:

  11. #11
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by jwaldo View Post
    ALL three candidates should be included. It's only fair.

    But, given the current state of the race, does anyone think Sarvis might throw his support to Cuccinelli? Many are not pleased with what they hear coming out of the other candidates run for office.
    And many are also displeased with with what they hear from Cuccinelli's campaign. Gun rights ain't this issue in this election, although they will be impacted mightily by the outcome.
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by jwaldo View Post
    ALL three candidates should be included. It's only fair.

    But, given the current state of the race, does anyone think Sarvis might throw his support to Cuccinelli? Many are not pleased with what they hear coming out of the other candidates run for office.
    Liberatrians generally do not do this ... the GOP has to change and they won't if other parties do this.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Including a refreshing third voice in the debate would cause it to eat up too much prime time TV, no doubt. The best part about the third voice is what it forces the other two to admit during the debate, even when it will still be likely that they (the other two) will still be the leaders afterward. It makes for a better debate. Only the moderators should have made this decision; the opinions of the other two parties is completely self-serving. Generally speaking, we need more balanced organizations funding debates.
    Translation:


    The third voice would cut into the time available for excluders to lie and defraud the public; and the third voice would expose those lies.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •