I'm getting really nervous about the Governors race

[WRW]

ShotgunBlast wrote: And if you look at the latest Washington Post poll, 53% of polled Sarvis supporters would vote for TM if Sarvis were not in the race while only 42% of Sarvis supporters would vote for KC and 2% would stay home.
--end quote--

That doesn't say much for Libertarian priorities, IMHO.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Swampman]

Two things:

1. That sounds like a spiteful vote, although if you think about it Libertarian views on abortion are closer to the Liberal view than they are the Conservative. That could explain the split Libertarian vote.

2. Consider the source of that poll.

[vaeevictiss]

Well I havnt seen KC leading any poll in the past couple weeks...there has to be some accuracy at that point.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Kreutz]

I wonder if they're polling only in NoVa?

[SpanishInquisition]

Polls are showing Macs percentage is over Cooch by more than the percentage of Sarvis voters and the poll margin of error combined. In other words, Sarvis voters cannot help Cooch win if they all voted for him. If republicans want to win then they should have run a different candidate. Primary elections ftw.


Further, "Vote our for my guy or u iz stoopid" is not gonna win votes for your candidate. Ever.


Time to be vocal with your GAB reps and keep their feet to the fire on the issues you find important.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ShotgunBlast]

Two things:

1. That sounds like a spiteful vote, although if you think about it Libertarian views on abortion are closer to the Liberal view than they are the Conservative. That could explain the split Libertarian vote.

2. Consider the source of that poll.

I don't know what's spiteful about it. The Libertarian platform takes what many people like about the Democrat party (social issues) and the Republican party (fiscally conservative) and rolls it into one party. If you take away the candidate that people identify with, naturally you're going to have a split vote. Republicans think that if Sarvis wasn't in the race that everyone would naturally vote for KC; that's just not true. People think that if they don't vote for the candidate that is talking about jobs the economy the most their priorities are messed up. We've already had this song and dance with candidates talking in 2010 and 2012 about putting jobs and the economy first and we're still limping along. I think many have figured out that for better or worse we're going to be limping along for awhile and they've moved on to other issues and they've been making more progress there. I think it's safe to say that marijuana legalization and gay marriage have advanced further in this country since 2010 than our economy has. I guess many people would rather make some progress in some areas than no progress in any areas.

[tinner666]

Just get out and vote KC and prove the polls wrong. This morning's poll on CBS shows KC gaining fast now.

[dorminWS]

Polls are showing Macs percentage is over Cooch by more than the percentage of Sarvis voters and the poll margin of error combined. In other words, Sarvis voters cannot help Cooch win if they all voted for him. If republicans want to win then they should have run a different candidate. Primary elections ftw.


Further, "Vote our for my guy or u iz stoopid" is not gonna win votes for your candidate. Ever.


Time to be vocal with your GAB reps and keep their feet to the fire on the issues you find important.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Not everybody sees it that way. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/poll-l ... de=155C0-1

[SpanishInquisition]

Dormin, their entire supposition there is based on the removing the 18+% of "undecided" voters from the equation. Sarvis is only pulling 9 percent in current polls.

[kelu]

Papa Stalin told us: it does not matter who and how it votes, but who counts the votes.
This electronic vote in US is a ridiculous thing.

[zykur]

Make no mistake most of our rights are under assault by the federal government and it's up to the individual states to protect their citizens and build prosperity .
I you think a run off election will send a message maybe it will be but at what cost?
Most second amendment rights, higher taxes more spending and jobs moving out of Virginia just to name a few.

We can't allow Virginia to become part of the big government socialist agenda, there is too much at stake.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dorminWS]

Dormin, their entire supposition there is based on the removing the 18+% of "undecided" voters from the equation. Sarvis is only pulling 9 percent in current polls.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And yours assumes they will vote. Chances are pretty good they WON'T vote and hereby WILL remove themselves from the equation, right? Or, if they split 50-50, the result is the same: a vote for Sarvis elects McAuliffe. What is really significant in that article is the observation that if Libertarians get 10%, they get on ballots in coming elections. THAT'S why they are willing to elect McAuliffe. It's the same old crap. Sacrifice ANYTHING for your own political ends.

[ShotgunBlast]

lol More guilt. Voting for my candidate promotes the nefarious act of helping the party get ballot access. Oh the treachery!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[SpanishInquisition]

Chances are pretty good they WON'T vote and hereby WILL remove themselves from the equation, right?

That's impossible to tell from the poll information released, as they don't say whether these undecided were also asked if theyt intend to vote in the next election or not. My expectation is that the question was asked, the response was affirmative and polling questions continued, and that the polled will follow through and vote.

[Swampman]

Two things:

1. That sounds like a spiteful vote, although if you think about it Libertarian views on abortion are closer to the Liberal view than they are the Conservative. That could explain the split Libertarian vote.

2. Consider the source of that poll.

I don't know what's spiteful about it. The Libertarian platform takes what many people like about the Democrat party (social issues) and the Republican party (fiscally conservative) and rolls it into one party. If you take away the candidate that people identify with, naturally you're going to have a split vote. Republicans think that if Sarvis wasn't in the race that everyone would naturally vote for KC; that's just not true. People think that if they don't vote for the candidate that is talking about jobs the economy the most their priorities are messed up. We've already had this song and dance with candidates talking in 2010 and 2012 about putting jobs and the economy first and we're still limping along. I think many have figured out that for better or worse we're going to be limping along for awhile and they've moved on to other issues and they've been making more progress there. I think it's safe to say that marijuana legalization and gay marriage have advanced further in this country since 2010 than our economy has. I guess many people would rather make some progress in some areas than no progress in any areas.

Spiteful was not the right word, and doesn't convey what I meant to say. Poor choice on my part. If you leave out the "spiteful" comment I made, the rest gets to the sentiment of what I wanted to convey.

You are correct that taking Sarvis out would not translate to all of them being KC votes.

All the talk from both sides about "jobs and the economy" is just so much blather it comes off as pathetic. None of them understand economics, and if they did they'd concentrate on talking about the economy understanding that an improved economy would be a boon to job growth. But talking about it serves the purpose of pandering to the uninformed voter because they too, do not understand economics.

[WRW]

I would venture a guess that business groups understand economics, jobs, and the economy and they seem to prefer Cuccinelli.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ratherfish]

Traditionally Virginians talk "independant" ot "libertarian" votes until they enter the booth. Then reality strikes and they vote for the candidate best supporting their position that can win. Obama was elected by a very slim margin thatr could have easily been accounted for by libertarians and disillusioned conservatives.

The race is closing with all indications that KC is closing the margin. The message to us is;

Remember who Bloomturd is funding to take away your gun rights and VOTE!

[ratherfish]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/in-virgin ... le/2538183


A new Wenzel Strategies survey of likely voters suggests a 1-point race, with McAuliffe at 41 percent and Cuccinelli at 40 percent.

What’s key about the Wenzel poll is that it built a turnout model based on how Virginia actually votes, weighting the sample at 28 percent Democrats, 26 percent Republicans and 46 percent independents. “This reflects the swing-state tradition of Virginia that has lately leaned toward Republicans in statewide, non-presidential years, but has tilted to the Democrats in recent presidential elections,” they said.

[JC77]

Here's the Quinnipiac poll data with TMAC leading with only 2%.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-an ... aseID=1971

[Kreutz]

If the race were in the bag for TMac he wouldn't be calling in his Clinton favors yet nor dragging Obama here.

The boy is scurred.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]