• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Democrat bundler financing Sarvis Campaign

aisiguy

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
41
Location
NoVA
Funny you use the term "duped". Many here would argue that those who take the "lesser of two evils approach" as being the ones who are duped.

...

Sarvis not only understands this, he actually made it the centerpiece of his 2A plank. The Cooch opposes constitutional carry.

Those who read the threads on OCDO and voted for Sarvis were not duped, they were informed.

And then after they voted, they found out that their candidate was only a 'serious' candidate because of support from Obama-bundler.

This is the very definition of 'dupe'. So Sarvis told you one thing, but was funded by those with a different, gun-grabbing agenda. A lying politician - what a surprise. :cry:
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
And then after they voted, they found out that their candidate was only a 'serious' candidate because of support from Obama-bundler.

You repeat this "fact" like it has any merit or relevance. It does not, for a variety of reasons (which reasons I've pointed out, and which reasons you've ignored in favor of dishonestly claiming that no argument was made at all).

A lying politician - what a surprise. :cry:

I'm glad to hear that you withheld your vote. A man of principle.

Unless, of course, it is your position that Cuccinelli is honest. In which case I'll simply chortle.
 
Last edited:

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Geessse marshaul.....you been eating instant coffee again ?

It's over, finished, the toad won, Sarvis lost, Cuccinelli lost, the deer are about to start rutting.:banghead:
 

aisiguy

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
41
Location
NoVA
You repeat this "fact" like it has any merit or relevance. It does not, for a variety of reasons (which reasons I've pointed out, and which reasons you've ignored in favor of dishonestly claiming that no argument was made at all).

I'm glad to hear that you withheld your vote. A man of principle.

Unless, of course, it is your position that Cuccinelli is honest. In which case I'll simply chortle.

Well, Marshaul, I disagree with almost every word in your post, with the possible exception of 'it', 'a'. and a few other words that seem to know their places. However, what's done is done. We now live with the consequences.

So I'll leave the final word to you. Oh wait, that'll require one more post... (I'd like to post a smiley face but can't find it today.)
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
Drive by responses now, and no factual counter arguments?

Re: KBCraig's cite of unnamed articles as support, please provide cites to primary data, including questionnaire wording and sampling techniques. Lacking the primary data for critical review, it's going to continue to look like the usual MSM support for Statists like Obama/Bloomberg/McAuliffe/Sarvis, which is what we have all come to expect.

Here's enough data for you to choke on.

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/elections/2013/general/virginia/exit-polls.html

http://www.libertycrier.com/washing...entified-liberals-voted-sarvis-conservatives/

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/11/05/va.gov.exit.polls.1120p.110513.v2.final[1].copy.pdf
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia

It's become clear that anything which does not fit the narrative – an apocalyptic army of Clintonian statists (and their dupes), with nary an entity standing in opposition but the GOP (a true beacon of liberty in the sea of tyranny) – is not likely to be considered.
 
Last edited:

aisiguy

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
41
Location
NoVA

OK, I'd taken the suggestion for a cooling off as a good one, but I see that our Statist justifiers are unwilling to join me. My perspective has always been, fire if fired upon. If not sooner. ;). Therefore:

NY Times poll was discussed and discounted yesterday since at the time, it had no methodology or sampling. The cite at the link has been much improved, and now says this:

The Election Day poll was based on questionnaires completed by 2,376 voters as they left 40 randomly chosen precincts across the state on Tuesday. The polls were conducted by Edison Research of Somerville, N.J., for the National Election Pool, a consortium of ABC News, The Associated Press, CBS News, CNN, Fox News and NBC News. In theory, in 19 cases out of 20, the results from such polls should differ by no more than plus or minus 3 percentage points from what would have been obtained by seeking to interview all voters who cast ballots in Virginia. Results based on smaller subgroups, like demographic groupings, and shifts in results between polls have a larger potential of sampling errors. In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey of voter opinion on Election Day, like the reluctance of some voters to take time to fill out the questionnaire, may introduce other sources of error into the poll.

This is an improvement since now they've actually provided enough data to impeach the results. This is a hoot: "the practical difficulties of conducting any survey of voter opinion on Election Day, like the reluctance of some voters to take time to fill out the questionnaire, may introduce other sources of error into the poll". With this phrase, they note that the poll cannot be taken as reflective of the real world. Without data on true randomness of selection, and response rate data to quantify factors like self-selection, we can't assess the validity (to be more accurate, the generalizability) of the findings. Also, WHERE is the questionnaire? I think we are all familiar with push polls constructed to get the right answers (e.g., the ones the statist media will prefer).

Also, I must ask: The New York Times???!!! Does any reader here today belief their swill? IMO, their content today is best characterized as "All the News that Fits our Statism".

(The Liberty Crier cite of) WP Poll attempts more than the NY Times did yesterday: says methodology is presented at bottom of page. What I find is this "Preliminary exit poll results from 2,376 interviews of randomly selected voters as they exited voting places across the commonwealth of Virginia on Tuesday, Nov. 5". This is not a methodology but a throw away line (feel free to review social science, analytical, and sampling techniques to correct my view). We need to know distribution of interviews, questionnaire wording, which "random" responders were chosen and which rejected responses. Since the WP does not present this information, the result is not actual data but anecdotes lumped together to give a patina of 'scientism' to the propaganda.

Sorry, the last link did not come up for me. A little poking around found this, which is close enough I'll figure it is what you were looking at:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/11/05/va.gov.exit.polls.1120p.110513.v2.final[1].copy.pdf

If this is the one you were referring to, sorry, I don't see (scientific) data here -- again no methodology, sampling criteria (individual or locale), questionnaire wording, stats for those who may have self-selected or refused to participate. etc. Now CNN may have such data though it's not in this pdf. If you find it, I am truly interested. It would be nice to discover that ANYONE in the media actually cares about the validity of what they publish. So please do add if you find it. If they have not provided such, this is, in the social sciences analytical world and using the technical term, "wholly bogus".

Finally, and this is most amusing to me, it appears (could be wrong) that all three of these 'different sources' used the exact same poll by Edison. Without more detail from the latter two, there can remain some uncertainty about this, however the numbers of sampled persons are identical in the first two, and my cross check of a few 'findings' with the CNN poll suggest the same basis for that too. So it appears to me that all three are actually the same report, and so subject to the problems generalizing the poll that the NY Times casually admits.

However, on the plus side, all three cited items (NY Slimes, Wash Compost, and Communist News Network) have nicely re-identified themselves as leading Statist purveyors of deception. And so, though we can't accept these cites as valid data, we can consider them good examples of propaganda. And entertainment.
 
Last edited:

aisiguy

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
41
Location
NoVA
It's become clear that anything which does not fit the narrative – an apocalyptic army of Clintonian statists (and their dupes), with nary an entity standing in opposition but the GOP (a true beacon of liberty in the sea of tyranny) – is not likely to be considered.

Since this appears directed at me, it seems you've missed some posts, or my content is too difficult to parse. Here's a refresh from my post yesterday:

Walking Wolf, I hope you are wrong but I suspect you are not. And even if some Congressional Republicans are not anti-gun (Democrats all being a lost cause now), recent history has demonstrated that the institutional Republicans will not fight for anything at all. They may start a fight, but will then roll over for the true believers in Statism. All or most have been suborned.

This is most clearly demonstrated by this election cycle: the Republican National Committee entirely stopped funding Cuccinelli as of 10/1 -- no additional funds for the last five weeks while Bloomberg poured millions into ads demonizing Cuccinelli, which swayed the LIV. Despite this perfidy by the institutional Repubs, Cuccinelli picked up major steam and came within a hairs breadth of victory. Since the institutional Repubs did not back - more accurately, opposed - this most gun-friendly Republican VA Governor candidate in memory (and mine is long), they are dead to me.

Like Dick's and CTD.​

And to clarify, I do not see an army of 'Clintonian' statists, I see an army of Obama/Bloomberg/Sarvis-type statists. Not to excuse or accuse any Clinton; I just didn't mention them so am correcting the factual record.
 
Last edited:

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Since this appears directed at me, it seems you've missed some posts, or my content is too difficult to parse. Here's a refresh from my post yesterday:



And to clarify, I do not see an army of 'Clintonian' statists, I see an army of Obama/Bloomberg/Sarvis-type statists. Not to excuse or accuse any Clinton; I just didn't mention them so am correcting the factual record.

Oh, come on Aisguy!

We have different opinions and points of view, but when you call Sarvis a statist you really are out in la la land.

My advice is listen to Perter and Grapeshot and leave this in the past, or at least have a discussion based upon well reasoned ideas. Above all else avoid irrational comments which would lead to your unofficial name becoming "David II".
 

aisiguy

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
41
Location
NoVA
Oh, come on Aisguy!

We have different opinions and points of view, but when you call Sarvis a statist you really are out in la la land.

OK, yes, I was painting with too broad a brush, reacting too strongly to an intentional provocation.

What I should have said, more precisely, is that Sarvis was a pawn of the Statists. The others simply are Statists.

I understand that you don't agree on Sarvis, so please consider disclaimers to that effect acknowledged. ;-)
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Since this appears directed at me, it seems you've missed some posts, or my content is too difficult to parse. Here's a refresh from my post yesterday

I have no specific rebuttal to your criticisms regarding the polls, but I do have two remarks:

I am not in the camp which believe that any amount of methodological rigor can ever render social statistics "scientific". The arguments which describe them as such operate on inherently false premises, as they fundamentally rely on attempts to quantify causal factors and outcomes which are not quantifiable to the degree of repeatability required, say, to properly and meaningfully test falsifiability.

That doesn't mean they are wholly valueless, but it must be remembered that no amount of methodological rigor can ever eliminate the biases we see, or overcome the intrinsic flaws in attempting to quantify nuanced preference, opinion, and behavior.

For the record, social statisticians and their advocates are highly un-credible in my book, the more especially when they attack the putative "scientific" inadequacy of polls they don't like. Like most of us, they're shills for themselves and their profession.

Anyway, polls must always be compared to what is known, and taken as part of a bigger picture. The bigger picture here is quite a bit of election data, including a few cool maps (which are always fun to look at).

It is impossible for a poll to "scientifically" demonstrate the question at issue, either in my favor or in yours. Coupling these polls with the available data, however, it's become impossible to convincingly argue that Sarvis "stole" significant quantities of votes from The Cooch. The polls suggest that Sarvis voters would have preferred McAuliffe by a wide margin; what's clear (taking into account the maps as well) is that there is no strong trend of Sarvis voters otherwise preferring Cuccinelli.


And to clarify, I do not see an army of 'Clintonian' statists, I see an army of Obama/Bloomberg/Sarvis-type statists. Not to excuse or accuse any Clinton; I just didn't mention them so am correcting the factual record.

That comment wasn't directed at you.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
What I should have said, more precisely, is that Sarvis was a pawn of the Statists. The others simply are Statists.

I still fail to see any relevance to your objections. Cuccinelli is no mere pawn; he's a dues-paid statist. And yet you voted for him. Conclusion: your running around pointing the "statist!" finger has little value or merit. It's at best hypocritical, and at worst demonstrative of willful ignorance.

I mean, it would be one thing if you wanted to make your argument on strategic grounds. But to justify voting for Cuccinelli because Sarvis is a statist is a rather hilarious bit of irony.

Frankly, in light of your blindness to this obvious observation, I'm beginning to conclude that your repeated use of the "statist" epithet is an attempt to establish libertarian "bonafides" to further your attempts to shill for the GOP and steal libertarian votes from us. From this I conclude that you're wholly unconcerned with "statism", and are here for no purpose other than to shill for the GOP. (Perhaps all the insinuations of "paid" shilling were only so much projection?)
 
Last edited:

aisiguy

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
41
Location
NoVA
I still fail to see any relevance to your objections. Cuccinelli is no mere pawn; he's a dues-paid statist. And yet you voted for him. Conclusion: your running around pointing the "statist!" finger has little value or merit. It's at best hypocritical, and at worst demonstrative of willful ignorance.

I mean, it would be one thing if you wanted to make your argument on strategic grounds. But to justify voting for Cuccinelli because Sarvis is a statist is a rather hilarious bit of irony.

Frankly, in light of your blindness to this obvious observation, I'm beginning to conclude that your repeated use of the "statist" epithet is an attempt to establish libertarian "bonafides" to further your attempts to shill for the GOP and steal libertarian votes from us. From this I conclude that you're wholly unconcerned with "statism", and are here for no purpose other than to shill for the GOP. (Perhaps all the insinuations of "paid" shilling were only so much projection?)

OK, got me. Did I ever waste my time trying to make it appear that we are on a disasterous course and must work hard to avoid it. You've found me out: I am John McCain's alter ego. And brother of Lord-and-Protector Obama. I shall now slink to my room and hide my head.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
This never was gun related and has devolved.

We all voted as we did; as near as I can tell we all voted against the gun-grabber.

Now it's time to work.
 
Top