Vote - but don't waste it! Dems love split Conservatives!

[ratherfish]

Precincts Reporting: 2,550 of 2,557 (99.73%)
Mark Warner (D) 1,067,863 49.11%
Ed Gillespie (R) 1,051,341 48.35%
Robert Sarvis (L) 53,127 2.44%

I only think it made a difference in VA's last TWO!

What was the definition of insanity again??????

[trailrunner]

What was the definition of insanity again??????

I believe you're referring to the definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

So tell me, why do the republicans keep running the same candidates over and over again and expect a different result?

[trailrunner]

This shows how each county and precinct voted:

http://www.vpap.org/elections/live_resu ... ace=senate

[mamabearCali]

Absolutely trail runner. We need new blood here to win.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ShotgunBlast]

This shows how each county and precinct voted:

http://www.vpap.org/elections/live_resu ... ace=senate

Gee, look at that. Quickly rolling over each county you could say Sarvis took about 2% of the vote from each county. So in all of SW VA (deep red area) Sarvis got about 1,000 votes. Sure, you could make the case that had Sarvis not been in the race a chunk of those votes would have gone to Gillespie. But then you roll over Fairfax County where Warner blew Gillespie away by 50k votes. Sure Sarvis got 6300 votes just in that one county, but it's also fair to say that had Sarvis not been in the race a good chunk of those votes would have gone to Warner. A good chunk of 1000 votes going to Gillespie (mind you it almost took 10 counties to get to that total) vs a good chunk of 6300 votes going to Warner just from one county. Throw Richmond city and Norfolk in there and Warner's lead would have easily been extended.

Yeah, Sarvis really spoiled it for Gillespie. Looks to me just like a repeat of last year where the Democrat would have won by more had Sarvis not been in the race.

[OleMan]

Has anyone on this board who thinks Gillespie is a RINO (ala Arlen Specter), or 'the same old candidate' etc., etc., actually done any research on him? It certainly does not sound like it from the comments I see here. Also, what I seem to see here are negative comments about him, and yet I see no significant amount critique of Mark Warner's positions nor of Sarvis.

Though I would have preferred a staunch conservative with a long term legislative record, Gillespie was hugely superior to Mark Warner (Warner shares a disease common to Democrats - constantly flapping lips and lies) and Sarvis, who had no chance of being elected.

Gillespie has lots of campaign, staff and consulting experience, and has been the Chair of both the RNC and the Va. Republican party. He took on the candidacy with little name recognition in Virginia, expressed confidence, and when early polls showed him well over 20 points behind, he said he would come back and thought he could win. He was part of the team that took on Al Gore's lawyers and the Florida Supreme Court down in Florida after the 2000 election. He took a pay cut of around $1 million per year to leave the consultancy he helped start to work for G. W. Bush for less than two years. He has never held office in the Congress so there are not votes on which base a judgement of "RINO". He volunteered to take the candidacy and ran on too little funds (reportedly half of what Warner had) and reportedly did not ask for more from the Senatorial election Super Pac that he helped set up. That freed up money to be spent in places like NC where the Hollywood crowd pumped in millions of dollars to help re-elect Kay Hagan the Democrat.

A subject that should be of prime importance to this board is his stand on the 2nd Amendment. The NRA gives him an "A" rating on supporting the 2nd Amendment and gun owners based on his answers to their questions.

Much of the comments in this thread and one or two others seem to be dedicated to promoting Sarvis and being anti-Republican. The one large group of politicians that has supported the 2nd Amendment and gun owners is the Republicans at State and Federal levels. We need to be supporting and electing more Republican even if some of them are less than perfect conservatives. Remember that the 2nd Amendment helps ensure that we continue to have a Constitution, and you sure as hell won't get that from the party of Democrats/Progressives-Pretend-We-Aren't-Thuggish-Socialists. The Libertarian party could not do it even if they truly wanted to - in their 40-year existence they apparently have not elected a single candidate to Federal office.

Gillespie likely can't pull it out on recount - the Demorats in Fairfax County and Albemarle are already openly slicing open the seals on boxes of paper ballots and 'checking for irregularities' and 'oversights'. It is a real shame for Virginia that he won't be in the Senate to help bury Obamacare, but I hope that he stays interested and beats Tim Kaine in 2018.

[SHMIV]

From Dictionary.com (Since it's been asked for, repeatedly. ..)

Insanity:

[in-san-i-tee]

noun, plural insanities.

1) The condition of being insane; aderangement of the mind.

Synonyms: dementia, lunacy, madness,craziness, mania, aberration.

2)Law-Such unsoundness of mind as freesone from legal responsibility, as forcommitting a crime, or as signals one's lackof legal capacity, as for entering into a contractual agreement.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[skeeterss0]

guess I'm not the brightest crayon in the box......I can get the site to show the city's stats, but it says click for details by precinct. Where do you click? it doesn't seem to show the precincts for Hampton.

[ShotgunBlast]

guess I'm not the brightest crayon in the box......I can get the site to show the city's stats, but it says click for details by precinct. Where do you click? it doesn't seem to show the precincts for Hampton.

If you move your mouse over a county/city the overall numbers for that county/city will come up. If you click on that county/city it'll break it down by precinct. Here's Hampton City: http://www.vpap.org/elections/live_resu ... fips=51650

[Kreutz]

Gillespie lost my vote for being pro big government...no way in hell am I voting for a guy who thinks tax credits (aka wealth redistribution and a more complex tax code to administer them with a bigger government to distribute them) is the answer to healthcare and the artificial minimum wage controversy.

The GOP earned my votes last time (governors race and such), this time they did not.

Next time, who knows?

[skeeterss0]

thanks shotgunblast, for some reason its not working for me on my work computer. Anyways seems I'm overwhelmed by blueness, my precinct was pink but just about all the others flooded the city with blue.

[MarcSpaz]

I really don't want to jump into this argument, because I see a tremendous amount of inaccuracies on both sides of the argument, but I do need to ask a question that this debate brings to the surface for me.

First and foremost, 2% of the vote is 2% of the vote. How can you debate that whole SW vs NOVA thing?

Also, Libratarians are more in line with Conservatives than Socialist. The Republican party is the much more in line with Libratarian and Conservatives than the Democratic party, which are socialist. So, how come 2 elections in a row, everyone keeps saying if Sarvis didn't run, those would have been Democrat votes, leading to an even bigger defeat of the Republicans? That seems to be the exact opposite of what I would expect. It almost seems like when I cought my toddler telling a story about how the dog used scissors to cut half of the cat wiskers off. It seems like a glaring lie. What am I missing?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[WellArmed]

Where's the logic? No offence, but are people who voted for the Libertarian have low IQs or something?

It's simple:

There was going to only be one winner which was a Democrat or a Republican . You have most in common with the Republican, and the Democrat basically stood for everything you were against. The race was, for example, basically 49% Democrat and 48% Republican. What sense would it make for anyone with half a brain to waste their 2% of a vote on a Libertarian thus giving the win to the party and person that stands for everything you're against.

That's like someone holding your loved one hostage and giving you two options. Either he's going to beat them up or he's going to kill them. He says to you that he's leaning towards killing them, unless you choose that he beats them up instead. Then in your infinite wisdom, you stand stand up and say that you choose neither because both are bad. You loved ones get killed, and you say with pride and a smile that you did the right thing because you could look yourself in the mirror if you choose to have them beat up... That is just plain out right stupid if you ask me.

[ShotgunBlast]

I really don't want to jump into this argument, because I see a tremendous amount of inaccuracies on both sides of the argument, but I do need to ask a question that this debate brings to the surface for me.

First and foremost, 2% of the vote is 2% of the vote. How can you debate that whole SW vs NOVA thing?

The argument that many make is that without a Libertarian in the race the Republican would have won. Their logic is that if they simply take the votes the Libertarian got and add it to the Republican's vote total it would be more than the Democrat's. However, Libertarians pull from both Republicans and Democrats as well as bring out people that would have otherwise stayed home. My example of SW (big Republican support) vs NOVA (big Democrat support) was to show that the race would not have been as tight had there been no Libertarian on the ballot. Yes 2% of the vote is 2% of the vote, but 2% of the vote in SW is a much smaller number than 2% of the vote in NOVA. Had the Libertarian not been on the ballot it's safe to say much of that 2% SW vote (1000 votes) would have gone to Gillespie, but it's also safe to say that much of that 2% Fairfax County vote (6000 votes) would have gone to Warner. The spread between Warner and Gillespie would have gotten wider.

Also, Libratarians are more in line with Conservatives than Socialist. The Republican party is the much more in line with Libratarian http://vagunforum.net/posting.php?mode= ... 9&p=204495# and Conservatives than the Democratic party, which are socialist. So, how come 2 elections in a row, everyone keeps saying if Sarvis didn't run, those would have been Democrat votes, leading to an even bigger defeat of the Republicans? That seems to be the exact opposite of what I would expect. It almost seems like when I cought my toddler telling a story about how the dog used scissors to cut half of the cat wiskers off. It seems like a glaring lie. What am I missing?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I would find some disagreement with both of your statements about Libertarians being more in line with Conservatives and the Republican party. I can see how many conservatives would think that, but that's only because they look at the issues they have common ground on as important (economic issues, 2A) and dismiss the issues they don't have common ground on (social issues) as minor or petty. In the Libertarian platform, all issues related to personal and economic freedom are important and are not subject to prioritization, but in absence of a Libertarian candidate on the ballot some voters pick the Republican and some voters pick the Democrat. As for Libertarians being closer to Republicans, I would counter that Republicans are closer to Democrats. Under both administrations and legislatures in the last 14 years we're seen the growing of government agencies (Homeland Security), nationwide federal education programs (No Child Left Behind), the potential for the indefinite detention of Americans through the NDAA, rampant NSA data gathering, the intervention of US troops into other countries, bank and auto bailouts, and continued accumulation of debt. These are all programs that Libertarians would not go along with, but both Republicans and Democrats did. That is not my idea of bipartisanship. Sure Obama has a D next to his party designation, but how has his six years been much different than Bush's last 8? Would a President McCain or Romney been any different?

[allingeneral]

Where's the logic? No offence, but are people who voted for the Libertarian have low IQs or something?

It's simple:

There was going to only be one winner which was a Democrat or a Republican . You have most in common with the Republican, and the Democrat basically stood for everything you were against. The race was, for example, basically 49% Democrat and 48% Republican. What sense would it make for anyone with half a brain to waste their 2% of a vote on a Libertarian thus giving the win to the party and person that stands for everything you're against.

That's like someone holding your loved one hostage and giving you two options. Either he's going to beat them up or he's going to kill them. He says to you that he's leaning towards killing them, unless you choose that he beats them up instead. Then in your infinite wisdom, you stand stand up and say that you choose neither because both are bad. You loved ones get killed, and you say with pride and a smile that you did the right thing because you could look yourself in the mirror if you choose to have them beat up... That is just plain out right stupid if you ask me.

I like your analogy. Sums it up very well. There are times to stand on principle and there are times to swallow your pride for the betterment of the situation.

[Kreutz]

I like your analogy. Sums it up very well. There are times to stand on principle and there are times to swallow your pride for the betterment of the situation.

How does voting for a guy who believes tax credits are the answer to everything involve "betterment of the situation"?

Rumor has it Shak Hill got ~2,000 write in votes incidentally.

[ShotgunBlast]

I wasn't aware principles were something that could be set aside based on the situation. That kinda defeats the purpose of calling them principles, doesn't it?

Reminds me of "I support the second amendment, but...."

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

Mike, do you have any links or references I can use to understand the Libertarian Party better?

I have to be honest, I have read many websites about the party... LP.org, The Advocates, CATO Institute, and several others. I also have a couple of friends who self-identify as Libertarian whom I have had detailed conversations with. All of my reading and conversations really point to "Libertarian" being another name for "Constitutional Conservative". Maybe there is something you are thinking of that I missed, but I haven't seen any significant differences, social or otherwise.

Yes the Republican party at large sucks, but as a person who considers himself a Conservative, I really have no true representation in most National elections and third party just doesn't have the momentum needed.

I look at guys like Ronald Reagan. He was the best president we have had in the last 100 years or more. Even though he was a believer in small government, capitalism, and his policies lead to the second largest economic growth spurt the country has ever seen, he still supported a bill that granted amnesty to illegal immigrants. Does that mean I should have voted for Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale? Hell no. And just because Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, killing the Welfare program so we have no more lifetime recipients, that doesn't mean I should have voted for him instead of Bush, Perot or Dole. No way.

So, I guess what I am trying to say is, no one candidate is going to be perfect... but unless I am missing something, I still don't see why Libertarians would vote Democrat, regardless of the few things they agree with. The Democrat party wants to enslave the population and control every aspect of life in this country, destroying individual freedom and wealth. The socialist Democratic party, as a whole, represents the exact opposite of a huge majority of the values and principles of both the Libertarian and Conservative parties. Even though I don't believe in the perfect candidate, I have to believe in the absence of a candidate that is in my Party, voting for the party that opposes some of my values is a no-brainier compared to voting for a party that opposes most of my values.

There lays my confusion and why I posed the question.

[WellArmed]

I like your analogy. Sums it up very well. There are times to stand on principle and there are times to swallow your pride for the betterment of the situation.

How does voting for a guy who believes tax credits are the answer to everything involve "betterment of the situation"?

Rumor has it Shak Hill got ~2,000 write in votes incidentally.

Okay, so according to you, one guy supports "tax credits", so you didn't vote for him. Instead you decided to allow the person who supports several things that goes against your principles to not only win, but to also create laws and legislation to force you to comply with those several things that go against your princeables... Makes perfect logical sense to me

[ShotgunBlast]

Mike, do you have any links or references I can use to understand the Libertarian Party better?

I have to be honest, I have read many websites about the party... LP.org, The Advocates, CATO Institute, and several others. I also have a couple of friends who self-identify as Libertarian whom I have had detailed conversations with. All of my reading and conversations really point to "Libertarian" being another name for "Constitutional Conservative". Maybe there is something you are thinking of that I missed, but I haven't seen any significant differences, social or otherwise.

You pretty much hit the big ones. What really got me on the libertarian train was this video about the philosophy of liberty. When you break it down to the core philosophy, you can apply those basic principles of freedom to a variety of topics both in economic freedoms and personal/social freedoms. Once I did that I noticed that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans were meshing well with that philosophy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsDhRAU6rcE

I found the LP and their platform is a perfect mesh for me. Your mileage may vary. http://www.lp.org/platform

Yes the Republican party at large sucks, but as a person who considers himself a Conservative, I really have no true representation in most National elections and third party just doesn't have the momentum needed.

It doesn't have the momentum needed if people who identify with it don't do anything about it. If you find that you're tired of the way politics are done in Virginia and the LP platform meshes well with your beliefs, look into your local LP chapter. Even with some of the most harsh ballot access requirements in the country, the LP is not going away in Virginia and it is going to field candidates in state and federal elections. The other parties are going to have to accept that reality and field candidates that can connect better to voters.

I look at guys like Ronald Reagan. He was the best president we have had in the last 100 years or more. Even though he was a believer in small government, capitalism, and his policies lead to the second largest economic growth spurt the country has ever seen, he still supported a bill that granted amnesty to illegal immigrants. Does that mean I should have voted for Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale? Hell no. And just because Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, killing the Welfare program so we have no more lifetime recipients, that doesn't mean I should have voted for him instead of Bush, Perot or Dole. No way.

Reagan also raised taxes 11 times, tripled the national debt, added to the federal bureaucracy by creating the Dept of Veterans' Affairs (after promising to cut agencies like Energy and Education), illegally funneled weapons to our enemy, and meddled into foreign affairs which resulted in the training and equipping of Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban.

By no means would I consider Reagan a conservative president despite the pundits always saying he was. People need to think more about what Reagan actually did during his term instead of shaping their impression of his term by the most popular picture I see of him.



I'm not trying to slam Reagan but just make a point that I believe he is not the best president we've had in the last 100 years. I've stopped trying to rank presidents because at the end of the day they're all politicians who at one point or another will break campaign promises or go against a party platform. They are a necessary evil that we vote for because that's what the founders put into place as part of their system of governance. I don't look up to presidents or look for them to provide some vision or value system for the American people.

So, I guess what I am trying to say is, no one candidate is going to be perfect... but unless I am missing something, I still don't see why Libertarians would vote Democrat, regardless of the few things they agree with. The Democrat party wants to enslave the population and control every aspect of life in this country, destroying individual freedom and wealth. The socialist Democratic party, as a whole, represents the exact opposite of a huge majority of the values and principles of both the Libertarian and Conservative parties.

I don't think anyone is expecting a perfect candidate, but the question is how far does a candidate stray from your beliefs before you finally cut ties to them? If they're able to stray pretty far, I'd start questioning your beliefs. I agree with you in not seeing why a Libertarian given the choice would vote Democrat, but by the same token they're just as likely to not want to vote for the Republican either regardless of the things they may agree with them on. I think your comment about Democrats enslaving the population is a bit hyperbolic, just as someone on salon talking about bitter conservatives clinging to their bibles and their guns. If you feel that Democrats are so far gone that we can't find any common ground on issues (Rand Paul and Corey Booker teaming up on criminal justice reform for example), why do we even bother with elections? Let's just wipe them out and have the country that we want. Hell, we're the ones with the guns so it should be fairly easy! We don't do that because ultimately we don't think they're too far gone and we do think we can work with others that don't share the same beliefs that we do.

Even though I don't believe in the perfect candidate, I have to believe in the absence of a candidate that is in my Party, voting for the party that opposes some of my values is a no-brainier compared to voting for a party that opposes most of my values.

How is that working out for you? Some people call that strategy pragmatism. I think of it as the gradual decay in the quality of our candidates. After all, you're not providing the party any incentive in earning your vote since you're going to vote for them to try and stop the other guy. Look at the Republican and Democrat presidential candidates for the last 30 years. Has the quality of candidates gone up or down? I think it's safe to say they've gone down. What about Republican candidates for VA senate in the last few decades? Your vote sends a clear message that you want more of a particular kind of candidate, but then wonder over time why you find yourself holding your nose more and more. The LP is looking to give Virginia voters more choice. If you don't identify with the LP, that's fine. Work to grow the party that you do identify with. The strategy of "taking over the Republican Party" will never work because they don't want you and your conflicting beliefs in the party (except on election day). The strategy of electing Republicans and then replacing the RINOs with true conservatives doesn't work either because once someone gets into Washington they become entrenched and building their war chest for the next election cycle. I wonder how the John McCains and Lindsey Grahams are still in office, but there they are. Sure you get the Dave Brat primary upset every now and again, but for each of those victories how many hundreds of primaries are won by the incumbent or not even challenged at all? More parties equal more choices and a runoff election system allows the voter to truly vote their conscience instead of just voting for the lesser of two evils. But we'll only get that if enough people want it.

I hope this helps. I've enjoyed the dialogue.