Read This If You Believe Your Candidate Lost Due to Third-Party Voters

[TemplarKormac]

Good example is the Virginia race. Robert Sarvis was funded by an Obama bundler, and billionaire from Texas. Had Sarvis not been running, Cuccinelli would be the Governor now.

If Sarvis hadn't bee running Cuccinelli would have lost by 10 points.

How do you gather that?

 

[TemplarKormac]

On what basis can you assume libertarians would vote for a republican? Based on what numbers? Just accept the fact the GOP botched the election by not funding Cuccinelli and is declining in popularity. The GOP is a dead horse.

What are you talking about? Libertarians will vote for any Republican that comes close to their ideals, i.e. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul. I am a libertarian myself, I knew from the get go Sarvis was a fake. You are a troll from the looks of it. You could be a sock, but I will leave that determination up to the higher authorities.

So what you're saying is that you knew that Sarvis was a fake but the Libertarian Party was not aware of the fact that their candidate for Governor was not really a Libertarian? Um...OK, roll with that if it makes you feel better.

Iceman asked you to show some sort of data proving your allegation that Sarvis cost the GOP the election, you responded by calling him a troll, implying that he's a sock puppet, and saying that you are a libertarian. I can play that game too, I'm not a Libertarian but I know quite a few Libertarians and many of them do not like the GOP.

Just face it, your party screwed the TP candidate...again. I see a pattern developing.

Your problem here, is assuming the Republican Party is my party. Sarvis was a paid shill, a fake libertarian. Had he been genuine of course, I would have supported him. Okay, so he drew 6% of the vote. Given that most libertarians I've seen lean more conservative, common sense says that if a libertarian was not running in that race, a majority would have broken for the Republican candidate. This was a strategy on the Democrats part. The evidence is there for all to see. Joe Liemandt, a software billionaire in Austin, Texas was a benefactor for Libertarian Booster PAC but was also a top bundler for Obama's presidential campaign.

Please don't tell me this wasn't some political tactic employed by the Democrats to skew the election. Liemandt among dozens of others helped donate $10.7 million to Obama's campaign as of March 2012.

I don't like the GOP, I don't donate to the GOP. But given the choice I will vote for the conservative if a libertarian was not running. A vote for a GOP candidate does not always infer support on my part. I would be doing a disservice to my country if I sat at home and refused to vote.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Good example is the Virginia race. Robert Sarvis was funded by an Obama bundler, and billionaire from Texas. Had Sarvis not been running, Cuccinelli would be the Governor now.

If Sarvis hadn't bee running Cuccinelli would have lost by 10 points.

How do you gather that?

Did I finally get your attention?

The exit polls actually show that, if Sarvis hadn't been in the race, those votes would have split pretty evenly between the two candidates. In other words, he was a none of the above, and did not take the conservative vote.

Exit polls: Christie and McAuliffe took different paths to victory - CNN.com

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Good example is the Virginia race. Robert Sarvis was funded by an Obama bundler, and billionaire from Texas. Had Sarvis not been running, Cuccinelli would be the Governor now.

Nonsense.

The GOP lost the election by nominating a social conservative and rightwing extremist, the blame belongs to the GOP alone. Republicans need to own this failure, and one would hope learn from it – not try to cast blame where it doesn’t belong such as ‘faulting’ libertarians.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Good example is the Virginia race. Robert Sarvis was funded by an Obama bundler, and billionaire from Texas. Had Sarvis not been running, Cuccinelli would be the Governor now.

On what basis can you assume libertarians would vote for a republican? Based on what numbers? Just accept the fact the GOP botched the election by not funding Cuccinelli and is declining in popularity. The GOP is a dead horse.

True.

Particularly the likes of Cuccinelli.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If Sarvis hadn't bee running Cuccinelli would have lost by 10 points.

How do you gather that?

Did I finally get your attention?

The exit polls actually show that, if Sarvis hadn't been in the race, those votes would have split pretty evenly between the two candidates. In other words, he was a none of the above, and did not take the conservative vote.

Exit polls: Christie and McAuliffe took different paths to victory - CNN.com

I apologize for not promptly replying to your post, [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION], I have a sick grandmother to tend to. Please understand that this messageboard does not have my complete attention at the moment.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

Anywho I stand corrected.

I must apologize to [MENTION=45921]Iceman[/MENTION] for accusing him of being a troll or a sock. Such accusation was unfounded and merits capitulation to his argument. I merely spoke based off of personal experience. Through my admittance I accept defeat.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Good example is the Virginia race. Robert Sarvis was funded by an Obama bundler, and billionaire from Texas. Had Sarvis not been running, Cuccinelli would be the Governor now.

Nonsense.

The GOP lost the election by nominating a social conservative and rightwing extremist, the blame belongs to the GOP alone. Republicans need to own this failure, and one would hope learn from it – not try to cast blame where it doesn’t belong such as ‘faulting’ libertarians.

Um... you keep calling him a right wing extremist. Oh, the polls, that's right. He's an extremist because the establishment Democrats told you he was. Sigh, take your Alinskyist politics elsewhere and extricate them from the election process please.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Your problem here, is assuming the Republican Party is my party. Sarvis was a paid shill, a fake libertarian. Had he been genuine of course, I would have supported him. Okay, so he drew 6% of the vote. Given that most libertarians I've seen lean more conservative, common sense says that if a libertarian was not running in that race, a majority would have broken for the Republican candidate. This was a strategy on the Democrats part. The evidence is there for all to see. Joe Liemandt, a software billionaire in Austin, Texas was a benefactor for Libertarian Booster PAC but was also a top bundler for Obama's presidential campaign.

Please don't tell me this wasn't some political tactic employed by the Democrats to skew the election. Liemandt among dozens of others helped donate $10.7 million to Obama's campaign as of March 2012.

I don't like the GOP, I don't donate to the GOP. But given the choice I will vote for the conservative if a libertarian was not running. A vote for a GOP candidate does not always infer support on my part. I would be doing a disservice to my country if I sat at home and refused to vote.

The Libertarian candidate for governor, whose high-single-digit/low-double-digit poll numbers have surprised worried Republicans all year, voted today in a Northern Virginia precinct with little evidence of Republican support. "My wife and I went together, so I've got at least two votes," says Sarvis.

He's amused at the late-game rumors that cast him as the willful tool of Democratic spoilers. "There are probably half a dozen to a dozen blog posts out there, and a new one today about the Libertarian booster's PAC, which helped us fund the petition drive—one of their donors was previously an Obama donor, so I'm supposed to be a stooge for Obama now," he says. About a rumor that Democrats collected petitions for him: "I was the one collecting my petitions from all the petitioners, so I would have seen that."

I ask Sarvis whether some polls that show him "taking" more votes from Democrats than Republicans had surprised him. "No, we knew we'd pull from both sides. There are different polls out there, about where the vote is coming from, but the voter dissastisfaction is real."

And how did he stay at 8–10 percent in the polls, when—months ago—Republicans assumed he'd collapse like third partiers always do?

"It's the voter dissastisfaction combined with how I ran a mainstream campaign that people considered a legitimate option. The advertising from the PAC helped, definitely. The fact that we kept running the campaign by getting in front of people helped, too—I have to thank all the people who actually got out there, campaigned for me, waved signs."

Robert Sarvis: Virginia's Libertarian candidate for governor votes, speaks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How do you gather that?

Did I finally get your attention?

The exit polls actually show that, if Sarvis hadn't been in the race, those votes would have split pretty evenly between the two candidates. In other words, he was a none of the above, and did not take the conservative vote.

Exit polls: Christie and McAuliffe took different paths to victory - CNN.com

I apologize for not promptly replying to your post, @Quantum Windbag, I have a sick grandmother to tend to. Please understand that this messageboard does not have my complete attention at the moment.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

Anywho I stand corrected.

I must apologize to @Iceman for accusing him of being a troll or a sock. Such accusation was unfounded and merits capitulation to his argument. I merely spoke based off of personal experience. Through my admittance I accept defeat.

I don't expect you to read every single post, but if you want to rant on my thread, you should at least read the link in the OP.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A bunch of idiots are whinging about the fact their party lost, and blaming people like me.

And don't ever think libertarians are going to tell the pubs who they can and cannot run for office.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You can't make this shit up!!!!

TWICE as many LIBERALS(7 percent) then conservatives(3 percent) want for savis, YET somehow this is why there extremist lost.

Facts aren't a extremist friend.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A bunch of idiots are whinging about the fact their party lost, and blaming people like me.

And don't ever think libertarians are going to tell the pubs who they can and cannot run for office.

I am pretty sure they ran their own candidate honestly, unlike you.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

A vote for a GOP candidate does not always infer support on my part.

Um, yeah, actually it does. Every time you vote for the GOP you're telling them that you approve and support their positions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A bunch of idiots are whinging about the fact their party lost, and blaming people like me.

And don't ever think libertarians are going to tell the pubs who they can and cannot run for office.

I am pretty sure they ran their own candidate honestly, unlike you.

The GOP ran the wrong candidate for sure, and it was done honestly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

WackyQuacky is 100% right. A vote is a plus contributor to the candidate and party for which it was cast.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Did I finally get your attention?

The exit polls actually show that, if Sarvis hadn't been in the race, those votes would have split pretty evenly between the two candidates. In other words, he was a none of the above, and did not take the conservative vote.

Exit polls: Christie and McAuliffe took different paths to victory - CNN.com

I apologize for not promptly replying to your post, @Quantum Windbag, I have a sick grandmother to tend to. Please understand that this messageboard does not have my complete attention at the moment.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

Anywho I stand corrected.

I must apologize to @Iceman for accusing him of being a troll or a sock. Such accusation was unfounded and merits capitulation to his argument. I merely spoke based off of personal experience. Through my admittance I accept defeat.

I don't expect you to read every single post, but if you want to rant on my thread, you should at least read the link in the OP.

I will endeavor to pay closer attention, sir.

 

[dcraelin]

Chuck Todd was just on saying how a "focus group" eventually came around to not supporting independent candidates. Probably because they were brow-beat by the "focuser" The media becomes less and less credible every day they ignore the 3rd party and independent supporters in this country.