OFFICIAL Virginia Gubernatorial Election RESULTS THREAD

[mad cow]

Terry McAullife (D) supports a woman’s right to access safe, legal, and affordable reproductive services, including birth control and abortion:

http://feministmajority.org/virginia/the-issues/reproductive-rights/

Here,this Feminist Majority story might be more up your alley.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

http://feministmajority.org/virginia/the-issues/reproductive-rights/

Here,this Feminist Majority story might be more up your alley.

McAuliffe also said he supported Virginia's abortion laws, so perhaps he was playing to his base.

In any event, I wasn't making a truth-positive claim when I said the donor may have supported Sarvis for some reason. I was speculating.

 

[gjdavis60]

Some tangential thoughts on another election night ... Having been through this a number of times now, I can tell all of you that focusing on national politics in a country that is still mostly uninitiated to our ideas can be an exercise in frustration. Not that there will not be rewards; many of us would not be here if it were not for Ron Paul's presidential campaigns. But the population in this country still largely believes in government as the great social equalizer and protector from corporate greed; not corporate America's henchman. I'm just saying that the parties seem to be doing a good job of infiltrating, co-opting, and marginalizing the Tea Party, and conflating ideas of liberty and fiscal restraint with all kinds of social conservatism and other nonsense like birtherism. People for the most part still believe that if we redistribute wealth and regulate people's lives in just the right, "reasonable" way, we'll be able to hold onto the prosperity we've enjoyed for so many decades. Unless and until the economy brings the kind of cold mental clarity that only hardship can, I think we're in for a long slog, and that's okay.

But we also need to continue to focus on educating people in the basics, one at a time. Rand Paul is not going to talk about Bastiat, Stephan Molyneux, Mises, non-aggression, Tom Woods, or the Austrian Business Cycle Theory on Meet the Press. He has graduated to a much more mainstream, nuanced message that is designed to attract people who have never heard of the things I just mentioned. And as a result, even if they support him, they will not have the kind of intellectual grounding that will make them strong supporters of our ideas; just folks that think Rand Paul is neat. They will reach for the nearest RINO in their state and local elections or when Rand Paul leaves public life. There is certainly a lot of energy expended at the presidential campaign level, and a lot of positives have come from our participation, but we should not pin all of our hopes and dreams on winning the White House, and we should not forget about the "blocking and tackling" needed to convert people who are "liberty-curious" into believers who can help spread the message.

 

[mad cow]

Well.I think we can safely say that he wasn't upset because Terry was pro-life now,yes?
Ya got any other bright ideas why a major Democratic billionaire would support Sarvis that don't come from Slate Magazine(for pity's sake)?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Well.I think we can safely say that he wasn't upset because Terry was pro-life now,yes?
Ya got any other bright ideas why a major Democratic billionaire would support Sarvis that don't come from Slate Magazine(for pity's sake)?

The poll was from the Washington Post. I'm open to seeing polls that showed Sarvis' supporters' second choice was not McAuliffe, but Cuccinelli.

 

[mad cow]

The Washington Post makes Slate Magazine look like Lew Rockwell dot com

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Some tangential thoughts on another election night ... Having been through this a number of times now, I can tell all of you that focusing on national politics in a country that is still mostly uninitiated to our ideas can be an exercise in frustration. Not that there will not be rewards; many of us would not be here if it were not for Ron Paul's presidential campaigns. But the population in this country still largely believes in government as the great social equalizer and protector from corporate greed; not corporate America's henchman. I'm just saying that the parties seem to be doing a good job of infiltrating, co-opting, and marginalizing the Tea Party, and conflating ideas of liberty and fiscal restraint with all kinds of social conservatism and other nonsense like birtherism. People for the most part still believe that if we redistribute wealth and regulate people's lives in just the right, "reasonable" way, we'll be able to hold onto the prosperity we've enjoyed for so many decades. Unless and until the economy brings the kind of cold mental clarity that only hardship can, I think we're in for a long slog, and that's okay.

But we also need to continue to focus on educating people in the basics, one at a time. Rand Paul is not going to talk about Bastiat, Stephan Molyneux, Mises, non-aggression, Tom Woods, or the Austrian Business Cycle Theory on Meet the Press. He has graduated to a much more mainstream, nuanced message that is designed to attract people who have never heard of the things I just mentioned. And as a result, even if they support him, they will not have the kind of intellectual grounding that will make them strong supporters of our ideas; just folks that think Rand Paul is neat. They will reach for the nearest RINO in their state and local elections or when Rand Paul leaves public life. There is certainly a lot of energy expended at the presidential campaign level, and a lot of positives have come from our participation, but we should not pin all of our hopes and dreams on winning the White House, and we should not forget about the "blocking and tackling" needed to convert people who are "liberty-curious" into believers who can help spread the message.

I don't agree with this at all. And Rand does discuss Bastiat and numerous other liberty ideas.

 

[dillo]

Which is why the libertarian movement has spent 40 years wandering in the wilderness. Guys like Rand, Lee, Cruz, Amash, Stockman, Massie, etc. aren't good enough because they are only 70% to 95% libertarian. Well looking at the state of the country, getting people in office who are just 60% libertarian would be a leap in the right direction.

I want to respectfully dissent, I think its more about rhetoric and trying to get support. George Bush ran on a humble foreign policy in 2000, by all means he was probably 50% libertarian with that belief, and how did that work?

Howard Buffett is quoted saying

Even if it were desirable, America is not strong enough to police the world by military force. If that attempt is made, the blessings of liberty will be replaced by coercion and tyranny at home. Our Christian ideals cannot be exported to other lands by dollars and guns. Persuasion and example are the methods taught by the Carpenter of Nazareth, and if we believe in Christianity we should try to advance our ideals by his methods. We cannot practice might and force abroad and retain freedom at home. We cannot talk world cooperation and practice power politics

So when it comes to how libertarian someone is, if they support wars of aggression they will eventually support a police state at home. I think what he said holds a lot of value and truth.

This isnt to demean people like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul or Marco Rubio but shouldn't history be our greatest evidence?

 

[Carlybee]

Yeah, exactly. I still call BS on the authenticity of that poll.

According to the head of the PAC that donated the funds ($11000 to be exact went to Sarvis. The $150000 was donated to the PAC last January by Liemandt (who yes, is a major Dem supporter).

"We’ve gotten support from the right and the left," Benedict said, adding that "I don’t think the intention was to make Cuccinelli lose but I have no problem if the perception is Sarvis caused Cuccinelli to lose. Republicans deserve to lose lots of election for supporting bailouts and for supporting a nominee for president whose Romneycare plan helped deliver Obamacare."

I don't know why people think the LP had any allegiance to support the Republican candidate when obviously from that quote, they don't even like Republicans.

People again are confusing smal l libertarians with the Libertarian Party. This same PAC supported Gary Johnson.

 

[mad cow]

According to the head of the PAC that donated the funds ($11000 to be exact went to Sarvis. The $150000 was donated to the PAC last January by Liemandt (who yes, is a major Dem supporter).




I don't know why people think the LP had any allegiance to support the Republican candidate when obviously from that quote, they don't even like Republicans.

People again are confusing smal l libertarians with the Libertarian Party. This same PAC supported Gary Johnson.

Liemandt has donated generously to Democratic organizations and candidates at the federal level, including $83,800 to various Barack Obama 2012 re-election committees, and $62,400 to the Democratic National Committee.
In addition to his donation to the Virginia Democratic Party, Liemandt has also donated to several other state Democratic committees, most notably in Colorado, where a network of behind the scenes donations to liberal activist groups by wealthy donors has helped transform the state from Republican to Democratic control over the past decade, as documented in the book, The Blueprint.
In his home state of Texas, Liemandt has donated heavily to extremely liberal Democratic politicians including incumbent Congressman Lloyd Doggett and failed gubernatorial candidate Bill White.

No,the Libertarian Party has no allegiance to support the RON PAUL supported candidate in an election.
That is why,in this election,they were the foes of the RON PAUL FORUM.
Just like Liemandt and the Democrats.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ational-GOP-Abandoned-Them-We-Were-on-Our-Own

A campaign strategist for Republican Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli said that the national GOP abandoned the campaign in its final days. for the entire Final Month

At the end of the race, Cuccinelli was closing in on Democrat Terry McAuliffe, who eked out a two-point victory on Tuesday despite exit polls that showed McAuliffe was up by seven points.


According to the Washington Post, Chris La Civita said that financial support from national Republican sources dried up on October 1.

“There are a lot of questions people are going to be asking and that is, was leaving Cuccinelli alone in the first week of October, a smart move?” La Civita said after Cuccinelli's concession speech, according to the Post. “We were on our own. Just look at the volume [of ads].”

He added that there was "definitely a national mood that was moving, that is moving, that is continuing to move against the White House and the Affordable Care Act. And I can’t help but ask myself, what would have been the result had he had five weeks of this discussion instead of just 2 ½?”

 

[Carlybee]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ational-GOP-Abandoned-Them-We-Were-on-Our-Own

'It sounds to me like the GOP limiting support may have been as much to blame as the Dems funneling money through that PAC. And it sounds like it was establishment smacking the hands of the Tea Party once again.

 

[Carlybee]

No,the Libertarian Party has no allegiance to support the RON PAUL supported candidate in an election.
That is why,in this election,they were the foes of the RON PAUL FORUM.
Just like Liemandt and the Democrats.

There are a lot of people on this forum who do not and will never march lock step with every single candidate that is endorsed by Ron or even Rand so I dont think you can speak for the whole forum.

 

[notsure]

There are a lot of people on this forum who do not and will never march lock step with every single candidate that is endorsed by Ron or even Rand so I dont think you can speak for the whole forum.

Virginia Libertarians should have been smart this election though. They should have voted with their heads and not their hearts to push Cuccinelli over the top. Instead they used the same left-wing talking points to attack the Cooch. I'm not surprised to see them put Party before principle. Almost all Parties' members do it. They're greedy little pigs like the rest of them.

 

[mad cow]

There are a lot of people on this forum who do not and will never march lock step with every single candidate that is endorsed by Ron or even Rand so I dont think you can speak for the whole forum.

Oh,that is patently obvious,I don't doubt that some here despise the candidates that Ron Paul endorses and flies thousands of miles to campaign for and some of them even boast about supporting the candidates that are opposing Ron Paul's choices.

 

[LibertyEagle]

There are a lot of people on this forum who do not and will never march lock step with every single candidate that is endorsed by Ron or even Rand so I dont think you can speak for the whole forum.

No, and there are a few who do everything in their power to smear said candidates, rather than focus on some other effort that they do care about.

I find it interesting.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

'It sounds to me like the GOP limiting support may have been as much to blame as the Dems funneling money through that PAC. And it sounds like it was establishment smacking the hands of the Tea Party once again.

Yup, the fact that the Republicans spent $9 million last time, but only $3 million this time for a VA race they knew was going to be competitive is the smoking gun evidence they wanted to punish the Tea Party, in part to push the "go moderate, like Christie" narrative. The money issue dwarves the issue of the LP, who are simply being scapegoated (again) for not being robot minions who are supposed to back the GOP guy regardless. Clearly, THE GOP DIDN'T BACK THE GOP GUY, and that's why he lost, period. Some of the post election analysis (such as Morning Joe this morning) confirms this.

There has to be two-way accountability regarding how this 'liberty coalition' is supposed to work, and has to avoid obligating one side to be loyal to a candidate whose liberty status was/is dubious. The most important takeaway is that the Republican leadership has once again revealed they are contemptuous of Tea Partiers, and are willing to cut off their nose (withhold funding for a winnable race in a key state) to deprive the TP of greater influence. That gives our movement an opening to forge a greater bond with TP people, encourage them to be as energized and independent as they were 4 years ago, and steer them in a better pro-liberty direction.

 

[mosquitobite]

Yup, the fact that the Republicans spent $9 million last time, but only $3 million this time for a VA race they knew was going to be competitive is the smoking gun evidence they wanted to punish the Tea Party, in part to push the "go moderate, like Christie" narrative. The money issue dwarves the issue of the LP, who are simply being scapegoated (again) for not being robot minions who are supposed to back the GOP guy regardless. Clearly, THE GOP DIDN'T BACK THE GOP GUY, and that's why he lost, period. Some of the post election analysis (such as Morning Joe this morning) confirms this.

There has to be two-way accountability regarding how this 'liberty coalition' is supposed to work, and has to avoid obligating one side to be loyal to a candidate whose liberty status was/is dubious. The most important takeaway is that the Republican leadership has once again revealed they are contemptuous of Tea Partiers, and are willing to cut off their nose (withhold funding for a winnable race in a key state) to deprive the TP of greater influence. That gives our movement an opening to forge a greater bond with TP people, encourage them to be as energized and independent as they were 4 years ago, and steer them in a better pro-liberty direction.

We need Ben Swann to do a piece on this info so we can share it to all tea party groups.

 

[klamath]

'It sounds to me like the GOP limiting support may have been as much to blame as the Dems funneling money through that PAC. And it sounds like it was establishment smacking the hands of the Tea Party once again.

Wow. What a revelation! That is exactly why some of us called THIS race importent. It was about the neocon wing versus the teaparty wing. Well the neocons won thanks to a lot of help from What I thought were anti neocon people.

 

[cajuncocoa]

When were we on the same team?

Good question. Thought we were with Ron. But whatever, let's take this ship to the bottom.

Ron isn't running for anything. I will be with him when he makes good decisions but not when he makes bad ones. A lot of Rand's supporters throw Ron under the bus from time to time, and I pretty much always stand up for Ron when that happens.

So, yeah....I'm still on Ron's team. But yours, not so much.