• 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.

When will VCDL finally endorse a candidate for US Senator?

Tess

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
FBrinson said:
Is the survey released by VCDL PAC or VCDL? Are VCDL and VCDL PAC one and the same?
Click to expand...

No, they aren't one and the same. PAC members cannot be on the Board of Directors of VCDL, IIRC, and thus haven't a direct say in the organization's operations.

VCDL releases, tracks, and tabulates the survey. VCDL shares the results with the PAC.

PAC has chosen (I'm not on the PAC, I don't know the history or the rationale) the stance that it will not endorse anyone who has not completed the survey.
For any further information on that, you'd have to ask the PAC chairman or someone more knowledgeable than me.
 
Tess

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
peter nap said:
Interesting comment Tess!
Click to expand...

Just my opinion.

Because I believe this, I am a life member of the NRA, thus ensuring I get a vote. I wouldn't tell the NRA how to do things if I weren't a member. I won't tell GOA how to do things; I am not a member, and likely never will be.

I believe it is one's responsibility to belong if one wants to have a voice. Just as we (well, I) encourage people to register and vote, so they have voice, I tell people to join and speak up if they want a voice in how an organization runs.
 
Tess

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
Thundar said:
Tess,

Yes I am a member of the VCDL, The NRA, GOA and the Libertarian Party of Virginia, but I find this irrelevant to the behavior of the VCDL PAC. I do not donate to either the VCDL PAC or the NRA ILA (NRA ILA is the NRA PAC). I do donate cash to GOA and to the Libertarian Party of Virginia. I also donate time to the Libertarian Party of Virginia, for signature drives and campaigning and membership in a libertarian congressional committee.

VCDL is, I believe, a 501.C.4 organization. That means VCDL cannot campaign and that is why there is a separate VCDL Political Action Committee (PAC). The leadership of VCDL should, in theory, be completely separate from the VCDL PAC, which means VCDL leadership should not direct the VCDL PAC. I therefore will not ask VCDL leaders about VCDL PAC behavior.

If you know of someone from the VCDL PAC that is willing to have a reasoned, on the record discussion about why they have delayed publishing their results and why they think that their reasons are more important than providing the results in a timely manner for seniors , the disabled and the military, then I am ready to have the discussion.

I post the information here because there are many here who genuinely care about the issue. VCDL is a good grass roots organisation. I certainly do not agree with them all the time, but Philip (VCDL Prez for those of you who do not know) comes to Libertarian events and there is a cordial relationship. VCDL PAC is a very different story. They appear at times to be a Republican shill, not a gun rights PAC.
Click to expand...

As I posted in another thread, VCDL releases the survey, tabulates the results, and publishes them. I cannot speak for whether the Board of Directors will be willing to have an on-record discussion, but contact them at leadership@vcdl.org and make your case. The rationale I have been given in the past is that releasing the information more than a few days may give an opponent fodder with which to fight a pro-gun candidate. I do not agree with that rationale, but have made my position known. Perhaps if enough members press for earlier release, we'll get it. Perhaps not. I don't know. I don't speak for the organization.

In my opinion, the PAC has been unwilling (as has the NRA-ILA) to endorse candidates who don't have a snowball's chance of winning. While I partially understand their rationale, they've not convinced me, and thus, as you, I don't donate to the PAC. If you want to contact the PAC, a quick check of the VCDL "contact us" page shows the chairman as Bob Sadtler (chairman.vcdlpac@vcdl.org). I can speak no further; since I don't donate to the PAC, nor participate in their activities, I cannot tell them how to operate.
 
B

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
AJG said:
Ya know... the above statement has been used a few times in a few different posts/threads about this election. And with it being in the VCDL Email Alert, it sounds like the VCDL is taking sole credit for Cantor not getting re-elected. Now, probably in years past the org had a very strong hand in the Virginia legislative process, but I'm thinkin not so much anymore and especially true with Federal politics.
Click to expand...

I am nowhere near as involved with VCDL as others... but I would disagree with your statement. I have been a subscriber to VCDL Alerts for probably 5 years, and have been a member (although a relatively low activity one..) for about 3. I see MANY great things that VCDL does on a local/state level.
 
FBrinson

FBrinson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
298
Location
Henrico, VA
Tess said:
In my opinion, the PAC has been unwilling (as has the NRA-ILA) to endorse candidates who don't have a snowball's chance of winning.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, that is the problem.

If we keep voting for the pile of crap that has less flies then how can we ever hope to get a strong 2A candidate into office?
 
B

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
FBrinson said:
In my opinion, that is the problem.

If we keep voting for the pile of crap that has less flies then how can we ever hope to get a strong 2A candidate into office?
Click to expand...

The other side of that coin... paraphrasing your comment: 'if we keep voting for the guy that can't win then how can we ever hope to get a strong 2A candidate into office?' :confused:

There are no easy answers, thats for sure.
 
marshaul

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
There is no possible way for pro-liberty (or even pro-gun) folks to "win" in the coming election.

And there's nothing preventing a third-party candidate from being elected in a hypothetical near-future election, except the supremely circular "third party candidates can't win!" reasoning.

Ultimately, there is nothing incentivizing the GOP to be meaningfully pro-gun if RKBA advocates provide them with votes completely irrespective of the quality of the candidate – purely to oppose the Democrat. So the long-term effect of the short term "vote for the least anti-gun candidate most likely to 'win'" strategy is that there eventually are no more pro-gun candidates who are "likely to win". It's a strategy based in fear, which has no possible path to eventual success. It's like letting a slow leak sink your boat because you were too afraid you'd splash water in it getting out to fix it.

Some strategy.


On the other hand, voting libertarian now (and in the future) has three conceivable benefits:

1. If LP candidates start getting 10%, their voice becomes a regular part of the political culture. This may encourage either of the following:

2. LP candidates start winning minor (or major) elections and injecting pro-liberty perspectives directly into the political conversations of the state legislatures, courts, or law enforcement. This may in turn encourage:

3. GOP (or even Democratic?) candidates to adopt more pro-liberty views in an effort to stay competitive in a "market" which suddenly offers something like a meaningful choice and which demands respect of rights.

That's a strategy. It's a strategy which may fail, but it's better than resigning to the inexorable slow creep of tyranny election after election.
 
Last edited:
C

conhntr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
184
Location
, ,
Marshual im recently out of college. When i show my 18-25 year old friend the sarvis' platform compared to the D and R platforms they are usually impressed. If that voting block could be motivated to particpate by the right libertarian canidate combined with (as you say) people who normally vote R becuase third partys cant win-- it would be way way more than 10%. Even for state wide office with a well run campaign i can easily see a majority behind a libertarian if people break from the "he cant win" mindset
 
The Truth

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
marshaul said:
There is no possible way for pro-liberty (or even pro-gun) folks to "win" in the coming election.

And there's nothing preventing a third-party candidate from being elected in a hypothetical near-future election, except the supremely circular "third party candidates can't win!" reasoning.

Ultimately, there is nothing incentivizing the GOP to be meaningfully pro-gun if RKBA advocates provide them with votes completely irrespective of the quality of the candidate – purely to oppose the Democrat. So the long-term effect of the short term "vote for the least anti-gun candidate most likely to 'win'" strategy is that there eventually are no more pro-gun candidates who are "likely to win". It's a strategy based in fear, which has no possible path to eventual success. It's like letting a slow leak sink your boat because you were too afraid you'd splash water in it getting out to fix it.

Some strategy.


On the other hand, voting libertarian now (and in the future) has three conceivable benefits:

1. If LP candidates start getting 10%, their voice becomes a regular part of the political culture. This may encourage either of the following:

2. LP candidates start winning minor (or major) elections and injecting pro-liberty perspectives directly into the political conversations of the state legislatures, courts, or law enforcement. This may in turn encourage:

3. GOP (or even Democratic?) candidates to adopt more pro-liberty views in an effort to stay competitive in a "market" which suddenly offers something like a meaningful choice and which demands respect of rights.

That's a strategy. It's a strategy which may fail, but it's better than resigning to the inexorable slow creep of tyranny election after election.
Click to expand...

Very well said. I've always thought "The lesser of two evils" was horribly illogical.
 
B

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
va_tazdad said:
In the current race, it is the lesser of 3 evils. 1 is bad, 1 is not good, and 1 is a joke.

Sadly I see Warner winning again. No real choice on the ballot.
Click to expand...

Or: one is bad, one is not good, and one doesn't have a snowballs chance of actually winning.
 
V

va_tazdad

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
1,162
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Blk97F150 said:
Or: one is bad, one is not good, and one doesn't have a snowballs chance of actually winning.
Click to expand...

As I said, one is a joke. He hasn't come close in any of his races as such. This failure will be no different.

But hey, this is America and we all have the right to vote as we like. (As long as voters are LEGAL citizens and not illegal aliens.)
 
The Truth

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
Couldn't it be argued to the contrary of the "lesser of two evils" anti-logic that if every single person that voted for the "lesser of two evils" actually used their brains and voted for the third party candidate, it would be FAR more productive and logical, and would set a better example for the future? The "you're wasting your vote" argument actually makes me laugh in regards to someone who votes for the "lesser of two evils" claiming that third party voters are "throwing their vote away."

It does not make sense to do so.
 
marshaul

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
As I said, the only thing preventing third-party candidates from winning is the reasoning that "third-party candidates can't win!"

This is inherently circular reasoning, which means it's facially invalid. And yet folks continuously present it as though it's gospel truth.

Also, I'd like to point out that any vote cast with intent to ensure the "victory" of one candidate over another is a wasted vote, as no single vote in the history of representative government has ever affected the outcome of a popular election. The only way to not "waste" your vote is to vote on principle in the hopes of amplifying your principle's voice, and that the only way to do that presently is to vote third-party.

So, go ahead and waste your vote on EG if you think covering a gaping hole in the hull with your hands is an effective long-term solution.

Just once, I'd like to hear someone attempt a serious rebuttal to these arguments, rather than repeating their fallacious arguments in a louder voice in the mistaken belief that doing so has the power to engender truth.
 
Last edited:
DrMark

DrMark

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,559
Location
Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
va_tazdad said:
In the current race, it is the lesser of 3 evils. 1 is bad, 1 is not good, and 1 is a joke.

Sadly I see Warner winning again. No real choice on the ballot.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Most people with whom I talk politics are talking about a write-in vote for a guy named Shak or something, but I don't know much about him.
 
Tess

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
va_tazdad said:
In the current race, it is the lesser of 3 evils. 1 is bad, 1 is not good, and 1 is a joke.

Sadly I see Warner winning again. No real choice on the ballot.
Click to expand...


This is true.

Gillespie really has no chance against Warner. Warner, unfortunately, will win.

Now, think strategy. If the Libertarian candidate, bad as he may be*, can pull 10% of the vote, can he put the Libertarians into major-party status in the Commonwealth, thus helping to eliminate the two-party status quo. Is this a goal one wants to reach? Each of us has to make that choice too.

[SUB]*While I did not think Sarvis has the required experience to serve as Governor, I'm not as sure that experience is as important in the Senate. [/SUB]
 
marshaul

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Tess said:
While I did not think Sarvis has the required experience to serve as Governor, I'm not as sure that experience is as important in the Senate.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that when politicians flout their "experience" they're offering a snake oil that folks, for some reason, purchase wholesale.

Gary Johnson didn't have a lick of gubernatorial "experience" when he became governor of New Mexico, and he did a great job.

How much experience is required to veto lots and spend little?

I still think what I said in the other thread is generally true:

marshaul said:
Experience? Experience means political success, which means (today) Democrat or Republican. And it is precisely these professional politicians who have become corrupt and unrepresentative of the American people.

As of today, experience is about the worst thing you could ask for in a candidate. It doesn't take a lot of experience to veto heavily and spend frugally.
Click to expand...
 
Tess

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
marshaul said:
It seems to me that when politicians flout their "experience" they're offering a snake oil that folks, for some reason, purchase wholesale.

Gary Johnson didn't have a lick of gubernatorial "experience" when he became governor of New Mexico, and he did a great job.

How much experience is required to veto lots and spend little?

I still think what I said in the other thread is generally true:
Click to expand...

When I speak of experience, for Governor, I want someone who has shown an ability to run a business, to make executive decisions - those that are good for the whole rather than for parts, to oversee large numbers of people/agencies, and to choose a team that works well together. A governor is, after all, the state's chief executive, it's CEO.

For Senate, I see it more important to weigh competing ideas, be open-minded, and to be of highest integrity. A Senator is not a decision-maker; s/he is a persuader, a proponent, and a representative.

But that's a part of each person's decision-making process -- determine what you believe is important, and then select the best candidate based on that set of criteria. I think the criteria can easily change from election to election, too, based on what the office needs at the time.
 
Repeater

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Tess said:
This is true.

Gillespie really has no chance against Warner. Warner, unfortunately, will win.
Click to expand...

What is really unfortunate will be the predictable spin from the GOP, both nationally and in Virginia, why Ed lost. I suspect the real reasons will be lost in the BS.

This means the GOP will never learn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top