Sarvis is running for US Senator

marshaul said:

I missed the part of this where you said anything substantive, or new, or interesting, or even really contributory.

Just to be clear, did you vote Republican in the last election? If you cast even a single Republican vote in the last election, I'm sorry to say that this entire post is only so much hot air.

What's your solution?

Click to expand...

Ignore you. You have been a fan of Idiot Joe Biden far too long. Yes I voted for a Republican last time. There was no other acceptable choice. TMac has his head too far up Bloomers rear and Sarvis was, is, and always will be a joke.

Kind of limits the choices.

marshaul said:

I have two words for you: "Ken Cuccinelli".

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow you.... if you are holding Cuccinelli up as the example of some sort of failure, what does that say about Sarvis? During the last governors race Cuccinelli got what.. something like 46% of the vote? What did Sarvis get... maybe 6%? If Cuccinelli was so bad, what does it say about Sarvis to get so many less votes?

Blk97F150 said:

I'm not sure I follow you.... if you are holding Cuccinelli up as the example of some sort of failure, what does that say about Sarvis? During the last governors race Cuccinelli got what.. something like 46% of the vote? What did Sarvis get... maybe 6%? If Cuccinelli was so bad, what does it say about Sarvis to get so many less votes?

Click to expand...

To be fair: it may be a case where it says nothing more than "people still haven't warmed up to the idea of a third party candidate".
To be realistic: Well, I already said what needed to be said there. Muppets and all of that.

Gallowmere said:

To be fair: it may be a case where it says nothing more than "people still haven't warmed up to the idea of a third party candidate".

Click to expand...

Isn't another way of saying that: 'the third party candidate wasn't appealing to enough people'??

va_tazdad said:

You have been a fan of Idiot Joe Biden far too long.

Click to expand...

I still don't get the reference. What does Joe Biden have to do with anything? I certainly don't pay any attention to statists of his ilk.

If Joe Biden happened to say, as I did, that the GOP is "in its death throes": bully. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Yes I voted for a Republican last time. There was no other acceptable choice.

Click to expand...

Fine. But understand as a result when you then say things like:

I don't believe the Libertarians are any better than the Republicans.

…

If a politician's lips are moving, THEY ARE LYING. All of them. Nobody is pure as driven snow and all owe somebody.

Click to expand...

That it's 100% hot air. You've perfectly demonstrated your own bias: "I don't vote for lying politicians, unless they're Republican."

Oh, well. Now that we have the benefit that enlightened bit of political strategy..….

(I'm rejecting offhand the contention that your candidate was the conceivably electable choice in consideration of A: the election outcome, and B: the fact that your candidate was Ken Cuccinelli.)

So far your contribution to this discussion consists of puerile insults-by-association and hot air. You'll forgive me if I don't engage you further on the matter.

Blk97F150 said:

I'm not sure I follow you.... if you are holding Cuccinelli up as the example of some sort of failure, what does that say about Sarvis? During the last governors race Cuccinelli got what.. something like 46% of the vote? What did Sarvis get... maybe 6%? If Cuccinelli was so bad, what does it say about Sarvis to get so many less votes?

Click to expand...

Cuccinelli had the backing of the Republican political machine, Robert Sarvis did not. Considering that, and the opposition being Terry McAuliffe, 46% is incredibly lousy. The fact that Sarvis almost certainly narrowed the vote in Cuccinelli's benefit paints an even sorrier picture.

The GOP is broken because it fields unelectable candidates like Cuccinelli, and calls them "small government" or "pro-liberty" (or even "pro-second amendment"). The GOP is unfixable because its rank and file are in such staunch denial about this fact.

And so we get to watch the GOP die. Really, really slowly.

Gallowmere said:

To be realistic: Well, I already said what needed to be said there. Muppets and all of that.

Click to expand...

To be realistic:

Who would gain from a "muppet" who clearly narrowed the margin in what would have been an otherwise even easier win for McAuliffe? Answer: Ken Cuccinelli.

Quite the effective strategy, that.

Brilliant theory you've got there.

Nightmare said:

The solution is to elect the utterly incompetent that are incapable of creating more laws and more restrictions. The American two-party (and a lying half) system is a battle of the lesser of two evils like the good-cop bad-cop routine, both of whom would take our freedom.

It is clear that no electable is committed to repealing restrictive laws and increasing freedom.

Click to expand...

That's one thing you can say for pretty much any third party candidate who might get elected.

Even (perhaps especially) if they're totally ineffective, their presence in government represents one less competent statist "getting things done".

Blk97F150 said:

Isn't another way of saying that: 'the third party candidate wasn't appealing to enough people'??

Click to expand...

Yes, and no. The GOP, and to a lesser extent Democrats, have been doing a good job, for a very long time, on convincing people that voting for a third party is a wasted vote. It also doesn't help, that in the case of the Libertarians, you have so many people from both sides, who like to focus on whatever shared aspect of Libertarians exist in their classic opposing party. For example, I've seen many Republican voters refer to Libertarians as "Liberal Lite", due to their stance on gay marriage, the war on drugs, etc. I've also seen Democrat voters refer to them as "GOP Lite", due to their stance on the second amendment, entitlement programs, etc.

Basically, a third party faces an uphill battle, no matter what, due to so many people having a (damn near hardcoded) party allegiance that is based on a single pet issue.

marshaul said:

Cuccinelli had the backing of the Republican political machine...

Click to expand...

Incorrect, as a number of sources have noted.

see, e.g., http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/6/mark-levin-goes-ballistic-cuccinelli-loss-absolute/

Forty-five said:

Incorrect, as a number of sources have noted.

see, e.g., http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/6/mark-levin-goes-ballistic-cuccinelli-loss-absolute/

Click to expand...

Rubbish.

Cuccinelli had the GOP nomination.

That the GOP does not/cannot properly support its own candidates is merely further evidence that the GOP is, as I have been saying, irrevocably broken.

marshaul said:

Rubbish.

Cuccinelli had the GOP nomination.

That the GOP does not/cannot properly support its own candidates is merely further evidence that the GOP is, as I have been saying, irrevocably broken.

Click to expand...

And what does that make the Libertarian party?

What is the highest office that the Libertarian Party has ever succeeded in wining in an election? What is the highest percentage they have taken in a state-wide race (particularly when both major parties were represented)? How many seats do they currently hold in state legislatures? How many elected offices of any level do they hold nationwide?

The Libertarian Party currently holds a total of 135 elected offices, none of which are above the local level. Their best electoral success in a state race was 42.90% in 2012 in a race (Montana Supreme Court Clerk) where his only opposition was a Democrat.

In over 40 years, they've managed to get a grand total of 10 people elected to state legislatures, and the latest one of those was a Democrat who lost his primary for re-election, switched parties to get the Libertarian nomination, and then switched back to being a Democrat after he was elected. That's hardly a resounding victory for the Libertarians.

grylnsmn said:

And what does that make the Libertarian party?

What is the highest office that the Libertarian Party has ever succeeded in wining in an election? What is the highest percentage they have taken in a state-wide race (particularly when both major parties were represented)? How many seats do they currently hold in state legislatures? How many elected offices of any level do they hold nationwide?

The Libertarian Party currently holds a total of 135 elected offices, none of which are above the local level. Their best electoral success in a state race was 42.90% in 2012 in a race (Montana Supreme Court Clerk) where his only opposition was a Democrat.

In over 40 years, they've managed to get a grand total of 10 people elected to state legislatures, and the latest one of those was a Democrat who lost his primary for re-election, switched parties to get the Libertarian nomination, and then switched back to being a Democrat after he was elected. That's hardly a resounding victory for the Libertarians.

Click to expand...

The difference is that the Libertarians were never a strong party force for various reasons that I have mentioned. The GOP was, and is now splitting apart from within. It would appear that the only thing keeping asses in the seats at this point, is voter loyalty, and habit.

To be honest, I'd like to see some numbers on how many people don't vote, because they feel that the primary two parties suck, and their vote would be "wasted" on a third party candidate. Something tells me that there's quite a few of them within that massive percentage of people that don't vote, and never have. Unfortunately, such a poll would be a massive undertaking, and would be prone to all kinds of problems.

Gallowmere said:

The difference is that the Libertarians were never a strong party force for various reasons that I have mentioned. The GOP was, and is now splitting apart from within. It would appear that the only thing keeping asses in the seats at this point, is voter loyalty, and habit.

To be honest, I'd like to see some numbers on how many people don't vote, because they feel that the primary two parties suck, and their vote would be "wasted" on a third party candidate. Something tells me that there's quite a few of them within that massive percentage of people that don't vote, and never have. Unfortunately, such a poll would be a massive undertaking, and would be prone to all kinds of problems.

Click to expand...

You are, of course, right that the Libertarian Party is not very strong now. But the Libertarian Party is the Third Largest Political Party in the Nation, and in Virginia. The Libertarian Party is also experiencing significant growth.

Here are some Principles that will translate, over the long term, into significant increases in the Libertarian Party:

Elimination of Big Government Bureaucracy - Libertarians believe in limited government. Local control is almost always preferable to big government control because local politicians are more accountable to the people they serve.

Peace - Libertarians believe in a non-interventionist foreign policy and Peace, except where the US is attacked or free trade is interrupted (piracy, blockades,etc.). They believe that security is the responsibility of all citizens. The UN Security Council is a corrupt bureaucracy. It is not the guarantor of our security or our freedom. The biggest weapon in our arsenal is our freedom. There is a corollary relationship here, less free people enjoy less peace.

Yellow Gold - Libertarians know that the fiat currency shell game will one day come to an end. Libertarians believe that people have the right to understand how precarious the fiscal cliff REALLY is - Libertarians therefore support audit the fed.

Green Gold: Colorado has legalized marijuana. This is a victory for individual rights AND FOR STATES RIGHTS. Libertarians strongly supports the legalization here in Virginia.

Privacy. Libertarians strongly oppose the dehumanization of people through the violation of their privacy. NSA spying on citizens, National ID Cards and internal checkpoints in the USA are not acceptable to Libertarians.

Crony capitalism is a form of fascism and is as bad as communism. Democrats and Republicans practice crony capitalism and for the most part do not even acknowledge the evil in their deeds.

Lower taxes. Taxation is out of control. Taxes should only be used for constitutional duties. Libertarians support significant tax reductions. Whenever possible taxes should be levied upon the beneficiaries of a government expenditure.

Liberty. This is the bedrock of the party. Libertarians will not trade liberty for "security". We are most secure when we are free. When a people trades liberty for security they end up neither secure, nor free.

Guns : Libertarians are overtly pro gun. They believe what the Constitution says about the right to bear arms. They know that firearms has a deterrent effect upon tyranny.

Live Free or Die,
Thundar

Oh, you don't have to tell me Thundar. I was a big supporter of the Libertarian platform, before I went full on Voluntaryist. I am honestly kind of shocked at how they are finally starting to pick up steam after so long. I think the American people need another decade or so of "boot on the throat" before they fully realize that the big two are no longer working in the interest of liberty, and that they haven't been for the better part of a century and a half.

grylnsmn said:

And what does that make the Libertarian party?

Click to expand...

Presently, a third party.

The GOP is not, presently, a third party. There should therefore be no comparison in electoral success between the two. The fact that you just managed to make one yet again bolsters my case.

Finally, this country has seen the displacement of a once-successful political party on more than one occasion. It will happen again.

marshaul said:

Presently, a third party.

The GOP is not, presently, a third party. There should therefore be no comparison in electoral success between the two. The fact that you just managed to make one yet again bolsters my case.

Finally, this country has seen the displacement of a once-successful political party on more than one occasion. It will happen again.

Click to expand...

Look back to when the Republican party WAS a third party. In their first full election cycle (1856, although they ran as part of the Opposition party in 1854), they took 33.1% of the vote for President, and won 92 seats in the House of Representatives and 20 seats in the Senate. By 1860, they had also won the Presidency.

Compare that with the Libertarian Party. In 40 years, they have won what, exactly? A total of 10 seats in state legislatures, and some of those won by carpetbaggers who abandoned the Party as soon as they won?

You can talk idealism all you want, but the plain truth is that the Libertarian Party is completely incompetent at winning elections, and mostly serves as a second chance for washed up politicians from the two major parties. Johnson only sought the Libertarian Party nomination for President when it became clear to him that he wouldn't be able to win the Republican nomination. Before that, Bob Barr was a Republican-turned-Independent who similarly changed parties for the sole purpose of seeking the Libertarian nomination (and then returned to the Republican Party in 2011). It is a pattern seen time and time again with the Libertarians.

I supported and voted for Sarvis in 2011, when he ran against Saslaw for the State Senate. I agree with many of his ideas, but he has shown over and over that he doesn't understand how to run an effective campaign or win elections, and he doesn't seem to have experience that would support actually being able to implement his proposals. He would probably make a wonderful member of the House of Delegates or State Senate, but he is nowhere near ready for a state-wide race. His ambition is far greater than his ability, which is really an apt description for the entire Libertarian party.